Colin Craig’s self-published response to being the target of Cameron Slater’s probably commercially-driven smear campaign.
So, Colin Craig is pushing back against the protracted Dirty Politics-esque smear campaign that Cameron Slater and some of his muppets carried out against him, presumably on behalf of shadowy ‘clients’.
Slater Jnr may deny it (he is, after all a proven liar who “talks big up from nothing”), or he may say his ‘clients’ were, like Mark Hotchin, “paying for the strategy, not paying for the [attack] posts” … or he may be doing it as a hobby. Right.
When Craig released this 12 page booklet (PDF 3MB) at a press conference on Friday I had thought the design was obviously intended for wider circulation — but the idea that it would be distributed as a commercial letterbox drop did not occur to me. Full marks for thinking big.
The booklet itself is worth a read. Some of it is more instantly plausible than other bits, but anyone familiar with Simon Lusk’s puppetry and use of his sleazy pet Slater Jnr to unfairly and histrionically smear targets for money would recognise plenty.
Jordan Williams in the Luigi Wewege ‘love rat’ role I found very easy to believe, possibly because of my previously expressed (negative) estimation of that low-rent young man’s morals and attitudes towards women. An “attack dossier” shown to people at secret private meetings accusing Colin Craig of sexual harassment sounds right up Jordan’s alley, if you’ll pardon the expression. But it might all be a misunderstanding, eh? I think I read a quote where Williams said he had nothing to fear from Colin Craig’s lawsuit. Hmm.
Is Colin Craig entitled to defend his reputation?
Some uncharitable people treat Colin Craig as if he has no right to be taken seriously just because he’s a fringe politician. Yeah, he’s a flake, with an awkward manner and some anachronistic attitudes, but I think he’s got the right to defend his reputation from attack — especially from such nasty, unbalanced vitriolic attacks — and a Hidden Agenda™.
Also: Certain people within the Conservative Party ranks (or who have just departed from them) have clearly been played like a cheap violin, it seems to me. For what purpose? — and for whose purposes, do you think?
One theory is that Simon Lusk and the boy wonder were engaged to destabilise Colin Craig’s leadership, in a ‘stealing underpants’ plan to take over the Conservative Party machine as a vehicle for some other far right candidate. Garth McVicar and Bob McCroskie’s names are mentioned.
But then, the theory goes, because unlike the sensible Rodney Hide, Colin Craig didn’t ‘exit, stage left’ with dignity before the oily one deployed the sleaze, out came Slater Jnr’s ‘heat’ — the protracted ‘death by a thousand cuts’ that he keeps rabbiting on about ominously. The attacks, and Craig’s reaction raised the temperature so much that the aforementioned heir-apparent/benefactor/(paymaster?) got cold feet, the story goes … and the ‘strategy’, along with ‘the plan’ swirled quietly down the toilet. That’s a theory I’ve heard. Does that seem plausible? Well, yeah, partly. Dunno.
So who is defaming whom?
Craig’s lawyers wrote to Slater Jnr on Friday (PDF 600KB), apparently, detailing a few of the hate blogger’s [alleged] defamations but also recognising they were dealing with someone who displays the discernment of a drunk cage fighter, and so will proceed to filing their claim. We’ll see. One of my rules as a journalist is to report the filing of a legal action, and not be too impressed with the threats of one.
Like the white trash that they are, Slater Jnr and his wife and their deputy dog Pete Belt are already threatening to ‘expose’ all sorts of other embarrassing information and allegations about Colin Craig in ‘open court’. Oh yeah? Like, stuff they’ve held back? Why? Because it was too unseemly? Do they really think everyone else is an idiot?
How that looks to me: that is the sort of bullying intimidatory legend-in-their-own-lunchbox behaviour one has come to expect from these reality-challenged individuals. A lot of Slater Jnr’s, Juana’s and Pete Belt’s statements seem to me to be mere marketing — intended for consumption by the gullible ‘whale army’ — you know, the people who buy Slater Jnr’s branded sun hats, T-Shirts (and ski masks?)
Do not adjust your set. This might get interesting.
– P
Facts are stated to the best of my knowledge and commentary is my honest opinion. Corrections or clarifications are always welcome by email. Comments are open, but will be moderated.
– Best wishes, Peter Aranyi © 2015 All rights reserved.
Quite an entertaining analysis of Colin Craig’s booklet here at TV3 …
Read it at TV3: A Page-By-Page Review of Colin Craig’s Dirty Politics Pamphlet
(Archived here.)
Slater’s reported (in)capacity to pay a lawyer is interesting. In Court on 23 July and facing possibility of custody, Radio NZ reports he told the judge he didn’t want to find a lawyer. I’m assured an earlier version of RNZ’s report that day was that he couldn’t afford one.
On 29 July, NZ Herald reported Colin Craig’s media conference with reaction from Slater that he was capable of funding his defence. However, it must be noted that Giovanni Tiso queried this, and found the actual words used were: “I’ve been running [a defamation case] for 3 years, I can defend one against [Craig].”
While I understand NZH stands by their story, I’m not so certain that Slater was saying he had funding to pay a lawyer.
Today, he was more direct: “I don’t have the money to fight Craig on this.”
“NZ Herald reported Colin Craig’s media conference with reaction from Slater that he was capable of funding his defence.”
Really?
So why the fundraising appeal?
https://twitter.com/onthepaepae/status/628387205359239168
“One theory is that Simon Lusk and the boy wonder were engaged to destabilise Colin Craig’s leadership, in a ‘stealing underpants’ plan to take over the Conservative Party machine as a vehicle for some other far right candidate”
Slater is part of the current ruling Progressive faction of the National Party.
Your analysis is confused because you are equating right wing with Conservative when the paradigm is actually Conservative/ Progressive.
Slater attacks Craig and the Conservatives because he sees them as a threat to the ongoing Progressive domination of power within the National Party.
Lusk too is a Progressive.
There is actually a much greater ideological division between the Conservatives and National’s ruling Progressives than there is between National and Labour.
Thanks for dropping by.
You’re right that my use of ‘far right’ was sloppy in that context. I didn’t mean extreme right or ultra dry, but more, just as you say, conservative — (a la McVicar or McCroskie — both of whom, it should be noted have denied leadership aspirations.)
I don’t believe Slater Jnr’s attacks are ideologically driven at all.
I may be ‘confused’ about these issues, but I’m pretty sure Slater Jnr, Simon Lusk and Jordan Williams are actually on the outer of the current ruling faction of the National Party. I think they’re seen as damaged goods in the wake of the ‘Dirty Politics’ and Whaledump revelations.
For instance, if I was Jami-Lee Ross and had read what Slater & Lusk said about me to each other privately, I would distance myself.
I think the CCCP coup/decapitation was an attempt to co-opt the party as a vehicle.
Is that possible? Is it plausible?
– P
In broad terms I agree with your analysis above. Slater et al are of late regarded as somewhat damaged goods among National’s ruling cadre.
However I don’t see the differences as being political as much as personal.
I still think the Prog faction of National (Key, Slater, Farrar Young Nats etc) is focused on eliminating any challenge to its authority within the Party and a win by the Conservatives would not have helped in this regard.
They may have small disagreements that cause friction among them on odd occasions, (leaving Slater’s major blunders aside) but they are all agreed on the need to convert the National Party into a vehicle for neo-liberal Progressivism, and destroy its Conservative roots.
Well, in my humble opinion that is.
Cheers.
Is ‘Progressivism’, the way you’re using it, a simile for ‘populism’? … that is, let’s face it, an essential element of democracy, with that whole ‘To win an election, get more votes’ thing.
I see the ‘Prog faction’ of National as more about maintaining a grip on the levers of power rather than being driven by any idealogical/fire-breathing reforming agenda. (I’d say the same about Labour, or any incumbent.) Hence, Mr Key’s transformation pre-2008 into ‘Labour Lite’.
As for conservatism, I can’t remember where I read it, but I liked the definition of ‘Tory’ as being all about “preserving existing privilege”.
How does that fit?
– P
“I see the ‘Prog faction’ of National as more about maintaining a grip on the levers of power rather than being driven by any idealogical/fire-breathing reforming agenda.”
Well, that view may well be understandable given your known political perspective, however I see National as so bereft of Conservative ideology and so unrealisingly influenced by Progressive thinking that they are willingly driving the same train as Labour but perhaps just driving it a little slower.
They’re on the same train, on the same track, with the same stations, its just going to take us a little longer to get to the end of the line.
The problem with your theory (from my POV) is that National do many things that are Progressive when they don’t really have to. For example changing the flag is a progressive political action, and Key is doing that against public opinion.
They also practically all voted for redefining traditional marriage when it was a conscience vote. Public opinion was widely divided on this issue.
They all voted for Amy Adam’s recent bill attacking freedom of expression on the internet, by means of its subjective application, an excellent example of Stalinistic or Soviet style tyranny by stealth. How could any party not far left in its outlook support such a draconian piece of legislation?
I dunno, maybe you’re right, they’re too gutless and too ignorant of politics to hold or promote any view other than one rooted in Progressive populism.
My own view is they buy into it because they think Progressivism is a good idea. A good road (or rail track) to go down. Key especially.
“National do many things that are Progressive when they don’t really have to.”
I find that I can offer not a single argument against that statement of yours.
It must be, I agree, somewhat bewildering for people of your ‘known political perspective’ 🙂 to see elected National MPs falling prey to the seductive siren call of ‘public opinion’ and responding to calls to end bigotry (e.g. human rights for homosexuals.)
Yet it’s that ‘populism’ … and ‘Captain Pragmatic’ John Key’s apparent middle-of-the-roadness (not to mention what Nicky Hager calls the ‘two-track politics’ where the PM is protected from being seen as doing the dirty politics) which has ensured National’s electoral success — hasn’t it?
That and a riven and incompetent Opposition.
Some of the Nats who spoke up for same sex marriage were applauded like rock stars — and that intoxicating brew can get addictive.
– P
It seems that “Dirty Politics” just went mainstream, as I don’t believe that even Mr Hagar reached 1.2 million sales of his book, which is the distribution reach amount of households in a commercial whole-of-country mail-out.
Perhaps Slater et al will now have to consider a class action against all NZ homeowners, many of whom will no doubt be sharing the document with their non-home owning friends and families.
To my chagrin, there wasn’t a copy of Colin Craig’s DIRTY POLITICS and HIDDEN AGENDAS booklet in my letterbox at home last night.
*Sad trombone*
– P
“Some of the Nats who spoke up for same sex marriage were applauded like rock stars — and that intoxicating brew can get addictive.”
It is delusional to claim that the redefinition of traditional marriage had popular support. A large degree of support yes, but by no means a majority. The queers knew this which is why they were against a referendum.
Even when the extreme left John Campbell’s show ran a poll on the issue the response was 18000 votes of which 77% were opposed.
Yet parliament voted 77 for, 43 opposed. Almost the opposite of the TV3 poll.
So this to me is evidence of the correctness of my views on this issue. 1) That the National Party is Progressive by intent rather than convenience or the need to be “populist”, and 2) That parliament is out of touch with the general population, led astray by the delusion that the Wellington Beltway and its parasitical media collective is representative of people who live in say Maungatapere.
Donald Trump is no politician, but he’s leading in the US because he is running against the current status quo. The Progressive coalition of extreme left Democrats and far left Republicans.
So Progressives, and more importantly Progressive govt, is not populist. Its actually the opposite.
However Progressives have very cleverly and successfully promoted the idea that they do represent majority views and that anyone who opposes them is an outlier. This is a deliberate strategy that has fooled many people including the National Party.
Progressive ideas are nowhere near as popular as their proponents would have us believe.
“So Progressives, and more importantly Progressive govt, is not populist. Its actually the opposite. … Progressive ideas are nowhere near as popular as their proponents would have us believe.”
Fair enough. That’s not how I see things, but you’re entitled to form, promote and defend your own ‘map of the world’.
Thanks for the thought-provoking conversation. – P
PS Trump is an outlier, in my opinion. And a clown.
Appreciate the civility of your response. And your humour.