Threat to spoil Condi's party

The media's questioning of Peters during the Rice visit was absolutely appalling. Given the significance of the event, dirty laundary should not be hung out for all the world to see. Shame on you Duncan Garner, John Campbell, Audrey Young, etc for your total lack of commonsense and etiquette. There are other forums where you can your allegiances to the National Party.

I think the American Embassy would view the conjecture of the reporter on TV One tonight as to how this media beat-up affects Mr Peters' political career and his meeting with Dr Rice as New Zealand's Minister of Foreign Affairs with disdain.

For a reporter to be going beyond the findings (and there have not been any findings) of the authoritative bodies which the Prime Minister has listed and give personal views which do not have any authenticity, and which would influence public opinion, is unprofessional and should be censored by TVNZ.

And my question arising from the clip is:

If Sir Robert Jones intended to give money to NZ First, why didn't he, as an experienced businessman, make his check payable to NZ First?

It is inferred he accepted to make it payable to some peculiar trust or other and is now querying whether it was received by the intended payee.

The Prime Minister is very articulate, tries to get on with governing the country and to confine the possible belligerence of electioneering to the period of the campaign. People become used to her statesmanship and composure.

The moment the Prime Minister so much as whispers a doubt, or questions John Key's readiness to take on the role she fulfils, the National Party/Act come down on her. They are backed by the media. The Prime Minister is roundly accused of personality attacks/politics which it is invariably claimed must "backfire".

And yet National/Act are able to join the media in the likes of this venomous attack on Mr Peters with impunity. They are all crying foul, bandying outrage and allegations about his being unethical/immoral - outraged claims of hypocrisy. Is not John Key's pontificating about "requiring transparency" hypocrisy? Although a newcomer, he is well aware of the way National has operated.

"No strings" donations are becoming fewer and fewer. The Prime Minister speaks against trusts and donations and advocates more state funding. Mr Peters rails against trusts and anonymous donations and is accused of hypocrisy, on the unfair basis that he might necessarily be using the system of funding which exists as the status quo.

I think the funding system did have its boundaries which everyone knew and adhered to until we had the Exclusive Brethren scandal with the Brash National Party going beyond decency.

National played cat and mouse and would not engage in the necessary law reform. The Prime Minister is correct, but as yet has insufficient support for adequate change.

There must be more state funding as in other democracies, and then those putting up the money will gain the favours.... that is, THE PEOPLE.