Let me join the “not funny” vote. Because I really, really don’t want you to do this sort of thing again.

While you are not an official spokesfrog for the Greens, you are posting as the moderator and owner of blog.greens.org.nz, which is an official Green Party position. You will inevitably be seen as representing Green Party views. And the Green Party is a party of principle. If you’re not matching that, then you’re harming the cause rather than helping it.

“it’s just a bit of fun” matches “can’t you take a joke?” as what people usually say when they’ve been offensive and are trying desperately to convince themselves that they owe no apology.

If in doubt ask yourself: what would Jeanette say?

“I’d be horrified if anyone suggested my views represented official Green Party policy or comment, but I hope they act as a catalyst for discussion among members of public.”

That’s from the “About” frogblog page, and has been there since this blog started. It’s a common mistake actually, to conflate frog with the Green Party, and environmentalism more generally, and to throw accusations of hypocrisy around left, right and centre where they don’t really apply.

Anyway, it’s just a bit of fun, and more of an indictment on racist attitudes in Australia than a personal attack on Don Brash, IMHO.

You’re generally a party of principle, which has some dignity and you deserve respect for that. Even when I often disagree with you, it is a matter of argument, not name calling.

Calling Brash racist is no better than those on the Christian right who question Helen Clark’s sexuality, imputing abuse through it, or imputing Nandor is a drug pusher to children.

Would you post an image of billboards like that? No, of course not, nor should you. Play the ball not the man.

Not really in tune with the professional look of this blog, you should remove it.

Political humour is about wit, not blatant name calling…

“Yeah so much for the Greens being the party that sticks to the issues and doesn’t revert to dirty politics!! You are so hypocritical”

1)to define a party by one inconsequential err in judgement by frog, doesn’t exactly add weight to the criticism
2) “The blog that claims the moral high ground “, this is the first time i have seen on this blog the claim it is the high moral ground, and that claim is coming from someone who obviously doesn’t seem to like the frog blog.
3)Frog has a pretty good track record of running a good political blog, where people get to expressed views, alot of which don’t get exposure else where, and if you want to be involved in real democracy, you have to expect choas to play a role, and not lose all of your marbles when there is a hole in the sack!