Well, even with such a large field to select from, its still pretty easy. First of all, it had to be based on an event from 2010. That eliminates many. Jim Anderton, Peter Dunne, well, they’re just generally despicable, but haven’t done anything this year to make themselves any more so.
The Maori Party are all despicable in the same way. I can’t give any of them an award because we don’t expect anything from them. Self serving racists, separatists, bludgers, and the like, its what they are, so we don’t ever expect any level of behaviour above that of despicable.
Same with the Watermelons. Today’s version of the Third Reich, they demand subservience to their cause with the same zealotry that established the Nazi party, and just as the Nazi party did, they infiltrate our schools and use them as a means to disseminate their disgusting political propaganda to unsuspecting and gullible and easily manipulated youth. For this contemptible political cowardice, they are another group who are naturally long term despicable, and therefore cannot qualify for any annual award.
Nobody in Labour qualifies. Sure they’re despicable, but only to the extent that all politicians are despicable. They haven’t done anything actually, to earn any kind of award. Same with ACT. If there was an award for the most piteous collection of losers, I guess they might qualify, but there isn’t, so they miss out. I’m told that Rod Hide got them all together over Christmas and informed them their objective for 2011 was to achieve a public approval rating at least one half of NZ First’s. Good luck with that guys. Hope you make it.
Nope, it has to be someone from National. A bunch of contemptible losers who have en masse casually betrayed every principle they claim their party stands for. So from that bunch, we have to narrow it down and that’s where it gets a little tricky. There are more then two or three in National who could make the cut. In the end though, it boils down to two. John Key or Nick Smith. Key is included because he is leader, and anyone who is leader of any such group of shambling incompetent incoherent cowardly charlatans naturally should be held up as most responsible for that condition. Key also makes the cut for being what he is himself. That being a politically useless poseur without a clue as to how to fix NZ’s appallingly bad and rapidly worsening socialist condition. Promising hope but bringing a vacuum of continuing despair beneath a smiling facade of competence that is a serious betrayal in itself.
Nick Smith calls himself a Blue Green, vacuously unaware of what a contradiction in terms it is to be a Conservative Progressive. He has long been a stain on the right in NZ, and should have been drummed out of the party so many years ago. That this despicable little scammer holds the powerful position he does today is a measure of how low the Nats have fallen. Smith gets the award for being stand out despicable among a collection of the utterly despicable, and he earns it by way of his forcing the ETS upon the country.
The other day I heard Smith on NewstalkZB arguing for the ETS. Chameleon like, he has turned against everything he ever said opposing the ETS when Labour was in power. Who could possible make such wild changes in their position without being absolutely bereft of principle? This post is too long already. I am going to supplement it in the future with a collection of statements from Nick Smith that show him to be an utterly unrepentant two faced hypocrite. Such staggering displays of duplicity, it is amazing that the rest of his party tolerates it. This tolerance I guess is partly the result of John Key’s leadership, for his own position on the ETS is hardly much better than Nick Smith’s.
Here’s just one small example of Smith’s rank disgusting hypocrisy. Today he is flat out making unsubstantiated claims about how many ET schemes are in existence. In fact they’re only being applied in the European Union, and Australian and the US still don’t have one. Smith claims 75% of the developed world has them. Of course this is a play on the word “developed”, a ploy typical of the duplicitous Smith, but even if one accepts that word, there are about 45-50 countries accepted as meeting the vague definition of developed (Wikipedia). The 27 or so compelled to comply with the European Union edict hardly comes close to the 75% Smith claims.
Still even while the Europeans are the only ones with such a scheme, Smith heralds that today as why we should have one even when the US and Australia do not. Here’s what he said in opposition back in 2006, arguing against Labour’s proposed ETS-
“The New Zealand economy has far more in common with the economies of Australia and the United States than it has with the heavily subsidised agricultural economies of Europe. ”
More on this astonishing charlatan’s complete turnaround from his former position later. Today, with that simple statement alone, I think I have shown that Smith has done more than enough to win the award of the Most Despicable Politician for 2010, so I rest my case for this year. If that’s not enough for you right now, then you can always, until my fuller post, contemplate this later utterance-
” New Zealand’s emissions amount to less than 0.5 percent internationally, and per head of population our emissions are about half that of Australia’s and the United States’ emissions. So why are we going to impose costs, and impose controls, and impose red tape on New Zealanders when countries like China, India, Singapore, Australia, the United States, and Canada do not have restrictions on them? ”