Sunday, March 9, 2014

Pride cometh before a fall

I haven't paid much attention to the stories about Cunliffe using a trust to keep donations for his leadership bid anonymous.  It was a pretty stupid thing to do, as it left him open to charges of hypocrisy and making him fall back on "It was within the rules," as though he was some kind of National Party cabinet minister.

Unfortunately, doing stupid things seems to have been a feature of the Labour leadership since Clark left, so this latest one didn't come as any great surprise.  However, the stupidity seems to be catching - what really did surprise the fuck out of me was that National would decide to pick a fight over, of all things, anonymous fucking donations.  Seriously, anonymous donations? In terms of self-defeating idiocy, this would be on a par with Labour claiming National is selecting too many candidates who've only ever worked in politics or lobbying.

Sure enough, it didn't take long for Gower to sit down with the PM and ask him about his new-found concern for transparency and the right of the public to assume that anonymous donations involve a quid pro quo - specifically, whether he would now be announcing who provided National with anonymous donations a couple of orders of magnitude greater than those he's been bothering Cunliffe about.  Which, sure enough, left Key spluttering that these anonymous donations were different, and falling back on "it was within the rules." Between this and Judith Collins helping her husband's company out, "it was within the rules" is getting to be Key's catchphrase.

I guess hubris gets its appropriate punishment, but this was so easily predictable it's more like a Darwin Award.  I can only assume that the media has so helpfully run National's lines the last few months that they started to think of the press gallery as an extension of their comms team.  It's really not.


The Veteran said...

PM ... you miss the point completely.

Cunliffe railed against secret Trusts and was then caught out with his fingers in the Cookie Jar.

You can't rail against something on one hand and then do it and not expect to be labelled a hypocrite and a dunce and everything in between.

Quite simple really.

Psycho Milt said...

Well, yes - that's exactly my point: if you're going to rail against anonymity of donors, don't be the recipient of shitloads of anonymous donations. It just makes you look a twat.

Judge Holden said...

Yep. What's so hard to understand Vet? Key wasn't moaning about Cunliffe's hypocrisy, although he could have done that. He was crowing at Cunliffe to reveal the donors due to it being objectively wrong to have anonymous donations because it makes you beholden. Turns out of course, his party received massive sums from anonymous sources (although not anonymous to him, as he was at the dinners - which is even worse). Not so much tricky and idiotic.

What is Key hiding?

The Veteran said...

errrrrrrr ... Key was railing against Cunliffe's hypocrisy, nothing more, nothing less.

That fact that the National Party raises funds from dinners where the participants do not reach the threshold determined by Parliament for having their names revealed is a non issue.

Gueez wept ... I donate to the National Party, shock horror. If I donate over and above the threshold I expect my name to be revealed. If my donation is less than the threshold it won't.

But the 'nice' Mr Cunliffe can't seem to grasp the fact that having secret Trust is something he spoke against as 'foreign' and 'wrong'. And now he stands revealed as a hypocrite.


Judge Holden said...

Now you're simply lying, Vet. Go and look at the article. When will Key reveal the names of the donors he dined with and what did he promise them? What's he hiding? He's looking tricky.

Psycho Milt said...

Key wasn't moaning about Cunliffe's hypocrisy, although he could have done that. He was crowing at Cunliffe to reveal the donors due to it being objectively wrong to have anonymous donations because it makes you beholden.

Yes, exactly that is what it makes it so surprising. They could have gone with a simple (and accurate) accusation of hypocrisy, but instead claimed that anonymous donations imply a quid pro quo. Key was very clear about it:

"David Cunliffe has a responsibility to make sure he tells the public who the other two are or he’s going to be labelled as having a secret agenda which none of us can verify one way or the other."

What colossal hubris! You have to assume they'd reached the point where they thought journalists would let them away with anything, if they were willing to paint such a big target on John Key's chest.

However, as Veteran says, "Tough." Key's made his bed, now he has to lie in it. If he doesn't tell the public who all those anonymous donors were, he's going to be labelled as having a secret agenda.

Steve Finnell said...


Pride is an inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit or superiority.

Satan fell because of pride. That was the genesis of sin.

Ezekiel 28:11-17....."Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, That they may gaze at you.
Isaiah 14:12-14 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! 13 For you have said in your heart: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High."

Satan had a pride problem. He thought he was as smart as God. Satan believed he could be a God and equal to God. Satan had a pride problem.


1 Timothy 3:1-6....6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.

Even leaders in the church can become victims of pride.

When men deny obvious Biblical facts, is that not pride rearing its ugly head?

When men deny that Jesus said "He who believes and is baptized will be saved.... (Mark 16:16), is it not pride that prevents men from admitting they have been wrong in declaring that water baptism is not essential for salvation? Are men smarter than Jesus? How much pride does a man have to have to deny the clear teachings of the Scriptures.

When men are confronted with God's truth and still deny it, what but pride is the cause?


Proverbs 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; But with the humble is wisdom.

Proverbs 29:23 A man's pride will bring him low, But the humble in spirit will retain honor.

Pride causes men to believe their own opinions and the opinions of other men at the expense of the clear teaching of God, which is found in the Bible and the Bible alone.

Pride forms man's opinions based on his own thoughts.

Pride is evident when men believe their creed books and reject the teaching of Scripture.

Pride can be destroyed if men will prayerfully search the Scriptures asking God to reveal His truth.