Oh lucky man: the political gods continue to smile on
There is no earthly justification for Mr Key being the chosen one basking in the unexpected and bountiful expressions of approval of this country's anti-nuclear stance flowing from the Obama Administration.
The Prime Minister can claim neither credit nor responsibility for the policy. His party, in fact, has sought at various times over the past two decades to either weaken or undermine it, if not destroy it.
National's inability to ditch it by lunchtime meant Mr Key was this week dining out on it long past bedtime. Some irony.
Phil Goff must wonder if there is any justice. Labour will be pleased the struggle to get the Americans to accept its policy should have such a happy ending. It will be cursing that Mr Key is the beneficiary.
To borrow Bill English's metaphor, Mr Key may feel like he is bouncing from cloud to cloud right now. Next week could see him fall back to earth with a dull thud, however.
Also toiling away in Washington this week was the Sir Geoffrey Palmer-chaired "support group" charged with the seemingly impossible task of stopping the members of the International Whaling Commission harpooning one another.
Sir Geoffrey, New Zealand's international whaling commissioner, has been of the firm view that his working party is the last chance to not only get the commission functioning in a capacity approaching something close to normality, it is the last chance to save the international body from extinction - and therefore save the whales from unregulated slaughter.
The commission is already severely compromised by Japan's bogus exploitation of a loophole in its charter which allows members to catch whales for so-called "scientific"research.
The other whaling nations - Norway and Iceland - simply flout the moratorium on commercial whaling imposed in the 1980s.
The commission is powerless to halt what seems to be an ever-rising quota of kills that each whaling nation generously allocates itself. What began postmoratorium as an overall quota of 300 is now approaching 3000.
Worse, the commission is too paralysed by politics to give itself the power to stop the practice. To re-establish the commission's role of managing global whaling, Sir Geoffrey, with the backing of the current Government, has sought to end the infighting by securing equal compromise from all sides.
That would have Japan drop "scientific" whaling in return for the commission effectively allowing whale slaughter for 10 years, but in smaller numbers.
The Washington meeting was supposed to reach a consensus on what those numbers should be before a deadline next Thursday, imposed to give all members time to examine the figures ahead of the commission's full meeting in Morocco in June. No such agreement was forthcoming.
Instead, the commission's secretariat will release rough figures used during discussions. While backing Sir Geoffrey, New Zealand, with other members, reserves the right to reject the proposal. Given New Zealand's long-standing opposition to whaling, that caveat is crucial for National.
There is unlikely to be much upside for the Government in domestic political terms from whatever emerges on Thursday.
The Government is acutely conscious that if it pulls the plug, other countries will follow and with them goes any hope of solving the commission's woes.
Numbers floated at this week's meeting had Japan's quota of minke whales being cut from the current about 1000 to between 200 and 400.
In this context, what counts are actual kills and those figures make the politics far more difficult for Mr Key and his Foreign Minister, Murray McCully. Japan caught 506 minkes in the past "season" - half its quota. A kill of about 400 would be too high for National's comfort. A figure closer to 200 would be more politically palatable, more so if it includes further reductions over the next 10 years.
The anti-whaling lobby will pan any deal as defective if it does not have a timetable for phasing whaling out. It will attack any deal legitimising commercial whaling at the very time that the industry, which is slowly dying in Japan anyway, may lose the Government subsidies upon which it is heavily dependent.
The lobby groups will point to Australia, which is steadfast in insisting the whale kill be cut to zero. Not only does Kevin Rudd have major reservations with the compromise proposal, Australia's Prime Minister is planning to take Japan to the International Court of Justice. New Zealand is unlikely to be party to that. And for a very good reason.
The case will almost certainly fail on the grounds that the commission's own rules specifically allow member countries to kill whales for research.
Mr Rudd's talk of court action is poll-driven and designed to ensure Green voters give their second preferences to Labour candidates to help them over the line under Australia's electoral system.
Moreover, Mr Rudd promised at the last election to go to the international court. He is promising before this year's election that it will definitely happen - but not until the whaling season starts in November, by which time the election will be over.
Mr Rudd has a habit of talking tough on whaling. But ideas such as sending Australian naval ships to intercept Japanese whaling ships in the southern sanctuary have never eventuated.
Meanwhile, the cries of New Zealand selling out from the likes of Peter Garrett disguise a fundamental disagreement between his Environment Ministry and Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the best way to advance.
So far neither Mr Rudd nor Mr Garrett has saved a single whale. Sir Geoffrey and Mr McCully may end up saving thousands. But what is termed the "kill whales in order to save them" option is a hard sell politically.
It might be argued National has already done its chips with the conservation lobby with its mining policy and its weakening of New Zealand's emission trading system.
But opposition to whaling is - like the anti-nuclear policy - an emotionally charged component of national identity.
Endorsing a compromise which legitimises killing whales would not necessarily translate directly into National losing votes, but it loads another gripe on to the pile of accumulating complaints that erode a government's popularity.
- John Armstong is The New Zealand Herald political correspondent.
