My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Latest TGIF Edition now online | Main | EXCLUSIVE: Winston Peters, NZ First officials, may be facing jail »



I can really only understand this question from a NZ perspective. Perhaps American readers can answer it within it's true context.

If it happened in NZ, politician X, who was in power, a minister or the PM, would be doing all they could to cover up and defend the Policeman or cover-up the whole story.

Politician/High Official Y, who here takes the place of Palin, would be smeared all through the media as an interferring, heavy handed type who should be following the kind of thinking that says any third party abuse must go unreported/unnoticed because the rules say you can't interfere, and the political convention that common sense must not be used at any time.

This is the main problem with our situation:

Ministers only overstep the mark in cover-ups and unethical decisions. They look the other way from clear instances of injustice, because the rules say they can't or their leader has told them not to, even if it contradicts their own ideals/philosophy. They never stick their neck out for what is right from a common man perspective.

How refreshing then that Sarah Palin exercised common sense - and made a tough call for the good of the common man. She wasn't engaged in a cover-up. She wasn't engaged in denying common sense in favour of blind adherence to rules. The exception she made was correctly made. That type of thinking will either slowly be beaten out of her, or her term in politics will be very short. The chances of her establishing a cultural shift is unlikely.

In NZ our current government would engage in the cover-up of the story. The Nat's are showing signs they would do it to, which is disappointing. There is not a lot of real common sense here. Common sense as defined by Annette King means: doing what the leader tells you, that which is in the best interests of the party, or that which would more likely get you re-elected.


Get back to the key question: what would the ordinary public expect to be the fate of any cop who tasered a 10 year old as part of parental 'discipline'?

Ordinary NZ public? Almost unanymous agreement that he should be fired, charged and sent to jail.


"Get back to the key question: what would the ordinary public expect to be the fate of any cop who tasered a 10 year old as part of parental 'discipline'?

Ordinary NZ public? Almost unanymous agreement that he should be fired, charged and sent to jail."

Of interest.

Maybe the reason why that cop tasered his 10yr stepson was he used to also taser minors on the job and thought nothing of it.

Been many cases in the USA of tasers being abused by police officers on the job and being used to tasers children including 5yr olds although the children weren't causing any problems or breaking the law!


Family First would surely want to know if the tasering had been done in the name of "good parenting" and "correction"/
"discipline"? Would it not depend on the offence of the child - remembering that the punishment should always fit the crime?


Two years ago Sarah Palin was mayor of a town of just 6,500 citizens. About the size of Dannevirke perhaps. She was elected to governor of Alaska with 115,000 votes.

The Republicans have a presidential candidate of 72 years of age, that they hope will survive the rigours of presidential office for four years.

How easy it would be for Sarah Palin to find herself in a similar position to Gerald Ford or Harry Truman.

Sarah Palin will please certain extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists PERHAPS - but even they will wonder, if push came to shove, Sarah Palin would be able to handle the job.

In terms of foreign awareness - my understanding is that she had to apply for a passport to do a reasonably recent overseas trip - was it to Iraq or somewhere?

The choice of Vice Presidential candidate has emerged as a critical differentiator between Barack Obama and John McCain.

The election is Obama's to lose. But then this has been the assumption for a long time - and it goes some way toward explaining the very thin field of able and willing candidates who tried for the Republican ticket.

"New Palin details may help, not hurt"
"Even the governor’s own Trooper-gate scandal, in which Palin is alleged to have exerted undue pressure to fire a state trooper, is suffused with an element that many families can identify with: one sister stepping in on behalf of another in an acrimonious dispute with a brother-in-law.

Powerful media organizations are beginning to pour resources into this story, so much more damaging twists and turns may await. But assuming the accusations don’t grow more serious, it is of a considerably different nature as an abuse of power than the last Troopergate scandal to rock the political world — the one in which Bill Clinton was alleged to use his state troopers in Arkansas to procure women as sex partners. That wouldn’t excuse Palin’s actions, of course, but it would frame them in such a way that could limit the political damage."
Its worth noting that when this was going down the bad cop had long divorced her sister - so why continue the grudge (who do you think we're dealing with here - Queen Helen?)?

As for having the experience to run the country if McCain falls off the perch, she is still well ahead of the man the Dems want to be the President from day one... unlike Obama she has experience with foreign governments as her state borders Canada & Russia; unlike Obama she has experience as Governor & of being CinC of a State National Guard; unlike Obama she has no shady associations with gansters, unrepentant Communist terrorists and rascist preachers who all deeply oppose the core of what America stands for; unlike Obama she has not garnered strong support from the likes of Hamas, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, North Korea and other foul regimes; and unlike Obama's VP she will not abandon Israel and the rest of the Middle-East to the apocalyptic Mullahocracy that is Iran (

It really is slippery ground to criticise her experience when Obama started running for POTUS after just ONE year in the Senate. Before the Dems all closed ranks Bill & Hillary Clinton (among other Dems) were sever critics of his inexperience.( page down for video of leading Democrat criticism of Obama)

FWIW I like what I know of Palin, she genuinely reflects middle America, she wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, she's brainy, she loves Jesus (and her knuckles don't drag on the ground! gosh!), she's happily married, she's non-Partisan.

But as Peter Hitchens points out, she's the wrong kind of woman for the Left:~

"Watch as the ultra-feminist sisterhood back away in horror from Sarah Palin, John McCain's new running mate.

Mrs Palin is technically female, but she's enthusiastically married, hates abortion and thinks criminals should not be the only people allowed to own guns. She's everything Hillary Clinton isn't. In short, she's the wrong kind of woman. Which just goes to show that ultra-feminists are not actually interested in promoting women because they're women. They pretend they are, but really their agenda is a campaign against marriage, in favour of abortion and for every other disastrous liberal and socialist cause that ever existed. In which case, they really can't go on pretending that their opponents are women-hating bigots.

Not least because they are the bigots - merciless when it comes to a choice between their own convenience and the life of an unborn baby."



The choice of Vice Presidential candidate has emerged as a critical differentiator between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Nah - that's the position the Democrats hope will catch on. Is that all they have? They'll fail.

Furthermore, if McCain wins, in 4 years Palin will be an experienced veep.

If Obama tries again, with Hillary as running mate, the USA will not be as impressed. Well, apart from the fact that Hillary will not have back stabbed Obama by then...

That makes any plans for Hillary to continue with her plans to back stab Obama and take over the


Oops, ignore the last line. Hard to find a good editor these days...


Video interview (5 minutes) worth a look for those blinded by the glory of the mighty Obama:~

"A Leading Hillary Supporter Defects to McCain"

A defector quite happy with Palin and very unhappy with Obama...


I have never read so much rubbish as I have just read from usabikes.

You can't aspire to be president of the USA by being short term governor of a tiddly outpost of USA.

The candidate chosen has been cynically identified as having all sorts of on-buttons for fundamentalist voters.

She has no background to assume the presidency of USA whatsoevever. Thank god she is unlikely to get the chance.

Ambition as such is not a qualification, neither is symbolism.

And on what basis could one possibly compare her with Obama. If that were the case, then McCain should step aside for her immediately! McCain is a senior citizen, a pensioner in NZ terms.


Somewhat off-topic (I apologise) but a very illuminating exchange regarding the glorious One's stance on allowing babies to die (5:44 minutes). Yet another half-truth from the messiah...

"CNN: Barack Obama's opposition to Born Alive Act"

and the liberal response shows that politics is the same everywhere


Peter - I apologise, I missed your last contribution! Everything you just criticised Palin for is also applicable to Obama, only to a greater degree.

Alaska a tiddly outpost? Hmm. Well the way I see it there have been many Presidents from similar "tiddly outposts" around the US and - I repeat - Obama's ONE year in the senate before running for POTUS should leave you feeling even more uneasy.

Are you criticising the Republicans choice of an attractive woman for VP as a cynical manipulation of American voters while simultaneously denying that the "Progressive" Democrats choice of an attractive African-American for POTUS is more of the same?

Don't you agree its a refreshing change for a politician to actually stick to her principles when Palin refused to abort her son whom she knew was down-syndrome? Meanwhile Obama will not even legislate with his liberal colleagues to save the life of a child that survives abortion. What kind of politician (or man) does that make him?

Call me a Fundamentalist but I think that says a alot.



have a look at some family ambiguity going on in the background:

Come to think of it, wouldn't fundamentalists expect this woman to be home caring for her youngest children - hell the 5th child is not yet a year and with Downs' syndrome?

Barack Obama is clearly bringing on bouts of jealousy like all tall poppies .. but he is clearly going to sweep all aside in this campaign.

I heard that Sarah Palin had met John McCain only once - could that be true?

Apparently Harry Truman met Roosevelt only about 3 times before he had to step in on Roosevelt's death.

Mrs Palin may be a woman candidate but in the US, there are something like 100 million women to choose from.

Why not pick a running mate like Condolezza Rice? Someone with credibilty at national level.

Democrats should be laughing - even many of the religious are going to see the catch here.

No .. the process Obama went through, and the way he managed himself .. he has paid his dues for this opportunity. Not her though!

I know usabikes has endless experience as myth maker but this just won't wash ..


"Come to think of it, wouldn't fundamentalists expect this woman to be home caring for her youngest children - hell the 5th child is not yet a year and with Downs' syndrome?"

Strangely enough it was the Leftist American media that suggested this very thing Peter. A very sexist statement that wouldn't have been made if Palin was the father of the child. Perhaps us "Fundies" are really the bigots here...

As for the rest of your, um, "argument", I think I've seen this film before and will pass. Have a nice night!


"I know usabikes has endless experience as myth maker but this just won't wash ..'

The only "myth maker" around here is you peter. What is your real name as you could do with a "wash"?


The term "sordid" is tailor-made for both the post and the ensuing thread...








...ethical people!


Debate that! You can't can you, because you know it's true!

Down with the proles!



USABikes: well said and researched. It good to see others repeating the truth that Barack Obama would want, a baby that suvives an abortion via dismemberement, insering saline into the womb, etc, be denied basic health care before he or she dies in the "hospital". This man, Peter, is an extremist, because he supports the murder of babies that are ALIVE, breathing and out of the womb. Fortunately, his support of that position was in the, get this MINORITY, as the legislature passed the Bill anyway. So here we have a man who supports extremist positions and is in the MINORITY when it came to the vote. That's the man Peter that you support. It's good to know Peter whose side you are on, or do you not support the murder of babies who are out of the womb, and therefore you're opposed to Obama's position?



You have the micro in clear focus but you totally ignore the big picture.

Abortion is just one of many issues that the American pres/vice pres would have to think about.

The point I made was clear. Among the 100 million women in the USA, there would surely be someone with stronger credentials for the world's most powerful role than Sarah Palin.

But it seems that McCain panicked too late to make a good decision:

My initial words have proved prophetic - because as time goes by, we are learning more and more reasons why Sarah Palin will not be anywhere near the level required for the job.

USA Bikey continually shows unfamiliarity with the political system in the USA .. Maybe USA in his name does not mean "United States of America" after all. "BSA Bikey perhaps"?

Extreme right wing Christian Fundamentalists are scurrying around trying to prop up this figurehead announcement but wiser heads are seeing the mistake for what it is.

As the NZ Herald - Appoint Veep in haste, Repent at Leisure.

Best decision for the Republicans - pull her out before its too late. Its been done before.


Hi Peter,

read most of your links before I knew of the existence of your comment. Please, don't be so patronising and move on from this endless cut&paste of links for us all.

Good to see you don't disagree with my point too :)

You seem to forget that in 2004, Bush was voted back into office and one big reason (not micro, as you put it) was because of his stance on the abortion issue. I suggest you remove your NZ lens when it comes to abortion and recognise it is an enourmous issue in the United States.

Experience isn't th e most important thing. I seem to recall that 2 billion people have been convinced by a fisherman and carpenter from Galilee. Character, and who you are count for more then experience. Even you would know that.

"Extreme right wing Christian Fundamentalists"



I see Peter has his mantra again.
I like being a Christian Fundamentalist even if I don't have a taser.

Who needs tasers anyway when the police in NZ have used a dog on a child?

The comments to this entry are closed.