Who read right-winger Richard Long's meretricious article in this morning's Dominion Post?

It was all a spurious slant on John Key's and National's stuff-ups for the week; smooth-talking us into accepting that they were quite ordinary and understandable.

I'll just concentrate on a bit to do with Rankin:

"... politically incorrect enough to challenge aspects of the anti-smacking legislation" says Richard Long.

Firstly, as with a number of other posters, I will ask him to define what is "political correctness". Helen Clark is an intelligent woman, and she left New Zealand politics after 27 years not knowing what her detractors meant by the term, and from that I take comfort in that I am also unable to understand what they mean.

".... aspects of the anti-smacking ....." says Richard Long. Except for John Key's superfluous amendment to pacify the Nat's conservative core about his moving to support the legislation; the legislation was simply the removal of a few words enabling a defence of "reasonable force" when physically assaulting a child.

How does such a defined change give rise to a conundrum of "aspects"?

Rankin was either for it or against it, and the fact remains that she is well and truly on the bandwagon of being against it.

One of John Key's initial statements when he thought the rancour was about the giving of plum jobs to National's supporters was to the effect,

"No (she is not our supporter). She is against the anti-smacking law, and National is for it."

The fact remains that Rankin has an unprofessional, populist (banner waving) stance on a pivotal issue relating to fundamental causes and cultural shortcomings which experts (and the research of the likes of Barnardos, Plunket, Save the Children would be expert) connect with child abuse.

Essentially, the Families Commission would have a role to effect the change of what are cultural and fundamental religious customs and behaviours to what is deemed on the basis of research and logic to be superior and advantageous to society.

That is not "political correctness".

At one time 80% might have been in favour of smoking (my only vice; soothes the nerves; looks sophisticated; relaxes me; has not killed so-and-so who is 90), but it has taken mass communication to bring about cultural change in the direction which is supported by medical research.

"... with one commentator on National Radio describing her as a person who supported "whacking" children", Richard Long states.

Call it "whacking", call it "smacking", "biffing", "strapping", "arse-booting", "ear-clipping".... whatever. It is physical assault.

I am sure that equally harmful (in a generic sense) is the threat of physical assault. This might or might not be of greater intensity than the actual carrying out of the act. Having endured that type of bringing-up (disciplining), a young, or not so young, adult must be more likely to have a particular mindset when it comes to bullying and emotionally charged confrontation in later life.

And despite the pathetic "the anti-smacking law has not stopped one incident of child abuse" catch-cry of those who are asked to see reason for change, it is logical that many incidents of physical punishment would be more severe than the perpetrator first intended.

Questions about "sweet jobs" for political supporters, demonstrated values in personal life and energy and enthusiasm aside, Ms Rankin does not subscribe to a basic tenet of the Families Commission, to which she has been appointed a commissioner (part-time, or one of seven, is more meretricious comment).

She does not subscribe to implementing logical, reasoned and researched change to what are detrimental customs and habits affecting the well-being of New Zealand families.

Get rid of the Commission! The organisation is useless and so is the appointment. Regardless of her professional quals her personal quals are appalling. Whats next P addicts becoming chemists? Get a grip NZ! You're right we aren't all perfect but lets try and find some upstanding examples, of which there are plenty of, to fill roles such as this one. And yes, Employers do ask personal questions when employing people unless they already know you, which seems to be obvious between Bennett and Rankin!

Tracey - the whole point is this woman is supposed to be in charge of other peoples lives - yet she is worse than any one she will be giving advice to! And what kind of credibility can someone have who cried in her beer at the last job because no one is listening to her, and now is being told by the people who hired her to shut up?

Choosing Christine Rankin for this position shows poor judgement. How can we trust, why would we trust, a 4X married to person who can't make good judgements/decisions in her own life, to make decisions for a Families Commission. Just think of the entertainment value Christine will bring to this nation once again. Looks like John Key's side show is about to begin - and it didn't even take a term in office.

I hope that every single one of you detractors are quizzed from employers and the public about any jobs you do. How unfair that a part time position like her, that is to help the people who need the most help, is being used by the Labour Party to attack somebody.

We should be glad we have NZers like her who wants to stand up and be counted in such a position. Labours hate machine is working overtime and I can't believe so many of you have decided to believe it before looking at her expertise first.

Dragging Rankin's personal life through the mud is going too far. I couldn't care less about what she gets up to in her spare time, and the more I find out, the LESS I want to know. That said, Rankin's still surely the wrong person for this role? waaaaaay too much baggage. What's more, no one's been able to explain to me why she's taking up a job at an agency that she's not even sure should exist? It gives me a further impression which I've always had about her ... she simply craves the attention and the spotlight. John Key's putting a brave face on this one, and it's pretty simple to read between the lines to understand what he really thinks about this fiasco (i.e. not much). The fact he comes out publicly saying that Rankin needs to shut her mouth and keep her eye on the ball so-to-speak ... pretty much says it all. It's only Cabinet Collective Responsibility that keeps what the government "really" thinks under the radar!

Jason # 104 why don't you save your comments for something you actually know something about.

If anyone it is Peter Dunne that should step down as a minister if he is not happy with the govt appointment of Rankin. First he helped break the family values and then set up a Families commission. Does he not realise he lost all his fellow MPs in the last election. His idealogies are expired. Anti-smacking bill has not stopped any child being abused.

Christine Rankin or someone else who isn't a cardigan wearing liberal is needed to provide some balance on the Families Commission stacked with Labour cronies.

this PC madness has to stop!

I mean, the hurling of the meaningless term 'p.c', (devoid of meaning, history, examples or context,) by idiots whose sole response to anything they don't agree with, is to stick their fingers in their ears and scream "P.C MADNESS! P.C MADNESS! P.C MADNESS!".

Christine Rankin should be removed from public office solely for the fact she stated that Paul Holmes and Michael Laws are the only 'journalists' (chortle!) worth a damn.

What next? Maybe she can nominate Ian Wishart for a knighthood.