2011 Presidential Election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

McGuinness denies shooting anyone, or being responsible for any deaths: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/m...hs-521557.html

---

What can he say?
The relevant part of those answers he gave, is this bit
"But I'm not going to sensationalise in interviews something that could then be used to the detriment of the peace process and to the detriment of my colleagues within government."
Means what ever he did, he is not going to talk about it in any detail and the easiest way to avoid further follow up scrutiny to sensational questions, is just say no and keep saying no, whether it's true or not
12 years after the GFA was signed there is still a peace in progress and that process is more important than this shindig. How could he sit down and work closely with unionist leaders for years and at the same time regale newspapers, tv interviews with anecdotes from his days as an urban gunman, how then could those unionist politicians face their constituents and explain their participation in the peace process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

12 years after the GFA was signed there is still a peace in progress and that process is more important than this shindig. How could he sit down and work closely with unionist leaders for years and at the same time regale newspapers, tv interviews with anecdotes from his days as an urban gunman, how then could those unionist politicians face their constituents and explain their participation in the peace process?

---

I agree with this, but you have to wonder how he thought he could manage a run for president, during which all kinds of questions about his past were obviously going to be asked, with the ongoing peace progress which involves its own version of 'don't ask, don't tell' regarding previous activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Anything happen since the infiltration of Guinness and Arthur's Day?

---

Norris has stalled on 17, with only Ross and Mattie McGrath in play, however Lowry has stated that if necessary, he's prepared to be the 20th name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by culloty82

Norris has stalled on 17, with only Ross and Mattie McGrath in play, however Lowry has stated that if necessary, he's prepared to be the 20th name.

---

Getting tired of the whole "affront to democray" crap from Norris supporters. He took himself out of the race for weeks, and left himself short of time for councils and took potential signatories out of play. I think he'll get the councils anyway btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I agree with this, but you have to wonder how he thought he could manage a run for president, during which all kinds of questions about his past were obviously going to be asked, with the ongoing peace progress which involves its own version of 'don't ask, don't tell' regarding previous activities.

---

Why do think McGuinness didn't expect this type of scrutiny?
McGuinness has faced this scrutiny before, especially since he stood forward to testify in the Bloody Sunday inquiry, check out his clashes with pompous BBC interviewers like Paxton. In particular, Adams faced it years ago on the Late Late Show and more recently when he stood in Louth. For sure McGuinness expected this scrutiny. What you are reading is McGuinness answering these type of questions, like he has always answered them.

"But I'm not going to sensationalise in interviews something that could then be used to the detriment of the peace process and to the detriment of my colleagues within government."
That is a deliberate well thought out statement of policy.

Latest Odds from Paddy Power:

Next Irish President
Michael D.Higgins 5/4
Martin McGuinness 9/4
David Norris 10/3
Gay Mitchell 5/1
Mary Davis 16/1
Sean Gallagher 28/1
Dana Rosemary Scallon 40/1

Hard to see past Micheal D simply because he is the most transfer friendly. Norris possibly the best value there.

Indeed, can't see where McGuinness will get the transfers to push him over the line. Higgins will get preferences from all camps, especially Mitchell and Norris, likewise Norris will gain from Higgins and possibly McGuinness, but as things stand the traditional FG-Labour transfer pattern should see MDH take it, McGuinness second if he tops the poll.

Maybe I have missed some things but I hardly ever hear much on the radio about Michael D's candidacy on any election related item. It's as if he is already in the grave, a has been, rather than the outstanding leading popular candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Maybe I have missed some things but I hardly ever hear much on the radio about Michael D's candidacy on any election related item. It's as if he is already in the grave, a has been, rather than the outstanding leading popular candidate.

---

I haven't noticed much, but Norris and McGuinness are in the news for obvious reasons, where as Michael D hasn't generated much news for a while. I expect things will balance out a bit after the nominations close.

Given why others have been in the news, I would've thought Michael D's better off out of it at the moment. Shows there's no skeletons to come tumbling, or "conservative" nonsense to come out. You could probably argue that his dignified low profile is showing why he's a good choice!

The first seven-candidate poll, albeit Millward Brown conducted it online. Mitchell might as well give up now:

Norris 27%
Higgins 18%
McGuinness 15%
Davis 15%
Gallagher 11%
Mitchell 10%
Dana 4%

Until the nominations close you would be better ignoring these polls

Michael D will win. And Norris will do well if nominated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Until the nominations close you would be better ignoring these polls

---

I'm inclined to agree, although I think there's a red c due this evening for tomorrow's buiness post which would be a better indicator

Funny thing about this election is that my mind was made up so long ago I don't really care at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

I haven't noticed much, but Norris and McGuinness are in the news for obvious reasons, where as Michael D hasn't generated much news for a while. I expect things will balance out a bit after the nominations close.

---

Sure enough, 5 seconds after I posted that reply, I heard Michael D being interviewed. Predictably enough, to garner his reaction to the entry of McGuinness.

But his response was spot on though as you would expect from Wee Mickey Dee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Until the nominations close you would be better ignoring these polls

Michael D will win.

---

According to the poll this evening, he hasn't a hope though.

For me, it doesn't matter who wins as long as it isn't norris. Don't like him personally, and he shouldn't be on it, after the various revelations recently. If he gets onto the ballot, I'll be voting for everyone else. If he doesn't, I'll concentrate on the referenda being held.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

According to the poll this evening, he hasn't a hope though.

For me, it doesn't matter who wins as long as it isn't norris. Don't like him personally, and he shouldn't be on it, after the various revelations recently. If he gets onto the ballot, I'll be voting for everyone else. If he doesn't, I'll concentrate on the referenda being held.

---

Presume you mean Norris and McGuinness there, certainly Higgins looks to have it in the bag, once transfers are considered. Personally, I'll be voting for Higgins as Norris lost my support after the letters, but better that all candidates seeking nomination get on the ballot this time, some petition system can be put in place then for 2018.

The Indo is in overdrive, devoting pretty much a whole edition, dragging up the usual suspects to write article upon article questioning McGuinness. Whoever heard before that the president is in charge of the army and not the minister of defense?
The one thing parliamentarians are obsessive about, is protecting the power of the majority in parliament to make sovereign decisions, pass laws, budget control etc.
It grates them right down to the central nerve of their cronyism, for a president to act slightly out of their carefully constructed (powerless) constitutional box.
Now we hear of this mythical power the president has, in charge of the armed forces! Is Fine Gael taking the píss or are they openly insulting the Irish people with this clap trap?
In listening to McDowell on Frontline, I suspect he (like CC OBrien) is anti-constitutional, in the sense of not respecting the constitutional rights of McGuinness/elected representative and their supporters to go forward for election, also not trusting that the people have their constitutional right to either approve or disapprove. If he had his absolutist way, he would dictate his opinion into fact.

Anyway, I don't think McGuinness has real ambition to be president, probably his desire would measure 4/10 compared to Norris' 10/10.
Any vote over 15% would be positive for SF and finishing ahead of Fine Gael would be the dessert.

CC O'Brien's opinions are assumed :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

The Indo is in overdrive, devoting pretty much a whole edition, dragging up the usual suspects to write article upon article questioning McGuinness. Whoever heard before that the president is in charge of the army and not the minister of defense?

---

Interesting letter in the Indo today actually. Relative of the writer applied to join the army and was turned down after a security check. No details given but the writer implied whatever misdimeanor this chap had gotten involved with was small beer. Yet still -no army career for him. Question yer man was raising was -if Martin McGuinness is applying to become president and by default commander in chief of the armed forces -has he been security cleared (or any other candidate for that matter)?

The vista the writer was raising was one of dissapointed army applicants taking the state on for compo due to inequitable treatment.

Love to see some sections of the media going hell for leather after the SF candidate. If anything Martin's entry into the race is perfect for cleansing him and the party to a large degree to make them more voter friendly in the general election next year. I don't like MDH but he's a lock to win. The undemocratic way in which David Norris has gone about things with his luvvy friends in the meeja looking to get him in there - in order to have something to write about - is a shame. I still respect him for his previous great work in preserving (or fighting to preserve) Irish historical and heritage sites, but his ego has over stepped the mark. I'm still wondering what this final nail in his coffin will be. Am I completely wrong on this or was there a 3rd scandal to come?

A lot of the commentary around this election since McGuinness entered leaves me absolutely bewildered.

Just taking the above as an example- McGuinness was a member of an organization that with little electoral support brought death, violence, torture, extortion and fear, and achieved little but to re-enforce the polarised nature of our island. He did not recognise our courts, police or army. It's great that the violence has stopped- it really is, but I think those that never resorted to it deserve more credit than those who took decades to realise it wasn't really achieving anything.

But Norris is undemocratic?

I also find it bizarre that when people attack McGuinness they are dismissed as attacking the peace process or some such. Usually when this happens the counter attack is that people 'have an agenda' or are 'against the peace process', but I haven't seen people refute the actual claims made against him. To me the whole point of the SF campaign is to sanitise and legitimise their role in the troubles- hence McGuinness took part in street battles against the British Army, but the bulk of what the IRA spent their time doing is conveniently ignored. Because only the other side did terrible things, and even when we did terrible things, they made us do it.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Mr A's hit the nail on the head - no-one's contesting Sinn Féin's right to run a candidate, and if it assists their move to the centre and attraction of middle-class voters, then the decision can only be welcomed. The selection of McGuinness though, was a backward step in that regard, as he was always going to overshadowed by his past activities, rather than choosing Caoimhín Ó Caoláin, for instance, who has no previous IRA association, and is perceived relatively well by the general public. SF may still overtake FF, and possibly Labour in the coming years, but they should be basing their strategy around Doherty, Toireasa Ferris and the younger, untainted generation, rather than harking back to Adams and McGuinness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

---

In my experience when people say they are not buying such a such ideology, they usually buy or have already purchased some other equally or more implausible ideology.

Quote:

---

I also find it bizarre that when people attack McGuinness they are dismissed as attacking the peace process or some such. Usually when this happens the counter attack is that people 'have an agenda' or are 'against the peace process',

---

What people are you referring to? everybody? all reaction to the attacks on the McGuinness chap? By attacks on McGuinness, do you mean all attacks? what happens on this thread? the selected suspects that the indo drags up? McDowell? Fine gael politicians? Gay Byrne? Fintan O Toole? who? which criticism? provide a link to it.
In order for rational debate please refrain from wild subjective generalisations :)

Quote:

---

To me the whole point of the SF campaign is to sanitise and legitimise their role in the troubles- hence McGuinness took part in street battles against the British Army, but the bulk of what the IRA spent their time doing is conveniently ignored.

---

What you are ignoring is that Sinn Fein's role in the troubles was legitimized by current democratic standards, before, during and post GFA. That doesn´t mean that all aspects of the role were legit.
But if we are to examine the bulk of what the IRA spent their time doing,
then the counter argument is, if that is to happen, then plenty people want to know who organised the Monaghan / Dublin bombs, who armed the Loyalists, Stevens inquiry, etc etc. That's called a peace process in some parts of the of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

In my experience when people say they are not buying such a such ideology, they usually buy or have already purchased some other equally or more implausible ideology.


What people are you referring to? everybody? all reaction to the attacks on the McGuinness chap? By attacks on McGuinness, do you mean all attacks? what happens on this thread? the selected suspects that the indo drags up? McDowell? Fine gael politicians? Gay Byrne? Fintan O Toole? who? which criticism? provide a link to it.
In order for rational debate please refrain from wild subjective generalisations :)



What you are ignoring is that Sinn Fein's role in the troubles was legitimized by current democratic standards, before, during and post GFA. That doesn´t mean that all aspects of the role were legit.
But if we are to examine the bulk of what the IRA spent their time doing,
then the counter argument is, if that is to happen, then plenty people want to know who organised the Monaghan / Dublin bombs, who armed the Loyalists, Stevens inquiry, etc etc. That's called a peace process in some parts of the of the world.

---

LOL at the bits in bold- brilliant stuff.

Let's go with the ones you mentioned. What did Gay Byrne, Fintan O'Toole or Michael McDowell say about McGuinness that was inaccurate or unfair?

As for the 'counter argument'- this is about the election, specifically about one candidates past. I don't see how those things are relevant. And yes, it would be good to have the truth on all things.

O'Toole http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...304412076.html
Byrne http://www.thejournal.ie/martin-mcgu...33168-Sep2011/
McDowell http://www.independent.ie/opinion/an...l-2886788.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

I also find it bizarre that when people attack McGuinness they are dismissed as attacking the peace process or some such. Usually when this happens the counter attack is that people 'have an agenda' or are 'against the peace process', but I haven't seen people refute the actual claims made against him. To me the whole point of the SF campaign is to sanitise and legitimise their role in the troubles- hence McGuinness took part in street battles against the British Army, but the bulk of what the IRA spent their time doing is conveniently ignored. Because only the other side did terrible things, and even when we did terrible things, they made us do it.

---

Not sure if you were asleep during the conflict or didn't read newspapers but I think we were repeatedly reminded of what they did to the extent the loyalist campaign of terror against innocent Catholics was ignored by the West Brit media as McGuinness rightly called them.

I remember the story of the women whose handicapped son was murdered by the UVF. The kid pleaded with them that she wasn't a Catholic but such was the mental state of the kid he brought out her rosary beads obviously giving her away as a Catholic and he was executed despite me mentally disabled and lucky for his mother she survived somehow. If that was the IRA you would never hear the end of it and we would all know her name and her son. But it wasn't - it was an innocent Catholic murdered by loyalists so our media didn't give a hoot, it was all "IRA, IRA, IRA", so don't make me laugh as if our media hasn't examined them enough and what they did, they were overkill on it to the extent they didn't give a crap about the masses of innocent people who were randomly picked for murder on a near daily basis by sectarian gangs.

BTW here's the info on that murder I mentioned. Believe me if she was a victim of the IRA we'd all know of Sarah McClenaghan by name and her disabled son so spare me we've not examined what the IRA did. Laughable.

Sarah McClenaghan, a widowed mother, was the only Catholic on her street in the Oldpark Road section of Belfast. To supplement her meager benefit check, she rented a room to David Titterington, a Protestant. Her son David was 15. But due to a birth defect, he had the mind of a child of five.

It was still dark the morning her door was broken in by four UDA men - Trevor Hinton, Ronald Waller, James McCleave and T.J. Slavin - who demanded to know her religion. When the boarder, Titterington, tried to claim she was a Protestant, Waller took him to the attic, where he was beaten and burned with a cigarette lighter before he somehow managed to escape through a skylight.

Meanwhile, Hinton, the ranking UDA man, told young David to go upstairs and fetch a prayer-book. In his innocence, the boy returned with his mother's Catholic missal and her rosary beads as well. She was then stripped and raped twice in front of her son.
"I pleaded with them not to touch the boy, as he was retarded and looked so afraid," she later testified. The UDA men were unmoved. Her son was shot dead. Sarah McClenaghan survived three gunshot wounds to live with her horrible memories.
Which is why the IRA can never say never.

http://articles.philly.com/1994-09-0...ra-sinn-fein/2

If SF and it's supporters are falling into whataboutery, they've already failed imo. They're much better focussing on the peace process and our history of gunmen becoming estabilishment politicians rather than who's atrocities were worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

If SF and it's supporters are falling into whataboutery, they've already failed imo. They're much better focussing on the peace process and our history of gunmen becoming estabilishment politicians rather than who's atrocities were worse.

---

Can I just saying in case that's aimed at me, my post is not whataboutery but a direct challenge to the point made by 'Mr A' that we didn't examine enough what the IRA did. I disagree with that and think I made a valid point to back it up.

My point is that the IRA stuff in a candidates past cannot be ignored or dismissed- it has to be dealt with.

Whether other parties to the troubles have been examined as well as they should is another matter entirely. In terms of the presidential election I don't really see how it's relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

LOL at the bits in bold- brilliant stuff.

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Let's go with the ones you mentioned. What did Gay Byrne, Fintan O'Toole or Michael McDowell say about McGuinness that was inaccurate or unfair?

---

You are the one who was generalising about people who are attacking mcGuinness and generalising about the response to those generalised attacks.
You do your own research and bring clarity to your generalisations.
I have already commented on some of the criticism. You had the opportunity to reply that post.

Quote:

---

As for the 'counter argument'- this is about the election, specifically about one candidates past. I don't see how those things are relevant. And yes, it would be good to have the truth on all things

---

You don't see where the counter argument is relevant?
How about, it's highly relevant in the context of the peace process in the 6 counties, just as Marty explained in Cork, which was printed in the Examiner, which I quoted here a couple of days ago. What happens in the revelation department of the troubles as to who done what, is highly relevant to the life not just in the 6 counties but in all the 32 counties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Let's go with the ones you mentioned. What did Gay Byrne, Fintan O'Toole or Michael McDowell say about McGuinness that was inaccurate or unfair?

---

It's the hypocrisy that the establishment meeja are trotting out in their blind panic that is sticking in a lot of peoples craws, not necessarily the truthfullness or not of what they're saying (although McDowell told uncostested lies on The Frontline as far as I'm aware.)

These boys:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ialIRA1972.jpg


Were far better boys at coming in from the cold and not rocking the gravy boat and as such got a far nicer ride from our betters.

Quote:

---

As for the 'counter argument'- this is about the election, specifically about one candidates past. I don't see how those things are relevant. And yes, it would be good to have the truth on all things.

---

This is a disengenuous line of argument being put about by anti-Shinner people at the moment to try and make themselves look like the most reasonable people in the world.

Were you on here screaming about Gilmore and Rabbite and Lynch and Sherlock and McManus and De Rossa etc, etc when they were going for election to the Dail (for positions with far more power than the President has??)

Were you ****.

The best thing the O'Reillys' and RTE's of the world could do at the moment is call off their attack dogs as the worse it gets the more it will stick in peoples craws. I didn't by the Sindo yesterday for the good of my sanity but for the second week running, Sean O'Rourke on TWIP was a rabid, screaming, disgraceful, mess.

Genuinely not aware of any of them having been being paramilitaries though? The Stickies have been pretty inactive since way before my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Genuinely not aware of any of them having been being paramilitaries though? .

---

Willing to take their word for it but not the Shinners? :)

Some of the people mentioned above had very tasty family members at the very least.

There's a lot of questions to be asked there undoubtedly.

Were they (or will they ever be) asked to the same degree and with the same vitriol as they've been asked of the Provos?

Course not.

Quote:

---

The Stickies have been pretty inactive since way before my time

---

The Stickies are still active in pockets! Never even decommishioned :eek:

Neatly raises the issue of when it's ok to allow evil state subverting terrorists in out of the cold though. Is there a set time limit??

Imagine giving us a link to Creep McDowell and trying to have a serious rational debate! What did Harris say this weekend by the way?:rolleyes:

One more time: Did he say something inaccurate in that article?

Sorry but i wont be reading anything he has to say - or any other of the freaks in the irish indo. Does celia larkin and dee o willie still write for that newspaper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

My point is that the IRA stuff in a candidates past cannot be ignored or dismissed- it has to be dealt with.

Whether other parties to the troubles have been examined as well as they should is another matter entirely. In terms of the presidential election I don't really see how it's relevant.

---

And how exactly do you deal with it?

I don't condone any of the IRA's activities, but the media spin in this country is that the British are really a mild-mannered, peace-loving people, and the Queen's recent trek here emphasises how we should forget our differences over the years.

The reality is the British were an invading, violent, repressive force in Ireland for 800 years, where many slights were done and battles were fought, and a lot of our proud citizens were killed. That stuff can't and won't be forgotten, because the media likes to think they should. I'd far prefer McGuinness running in the election than norris, who I have absolutely zero time for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lim till i die

Willing to take their word for it but not the Shinners? :)

Some of the people mentioned above had very tasty family members at the very least.

---

I'd love to hear more, but I can't continue to read your posts as it's been suggested to me that you may be remotely related to someone who did something. I can't go into more detail because I can only type out of my ass for so long.

Sweet Zombie Jesus, is there anything more annoying than someone attempting to look like they've won an argument because they know something others don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

is there anything more annoying than someone attempting to look like they've won an argument because they know something others don't?

---

I'm not doing anything of the kind, there's info about a lot of their goings on out there, just not sure about typing it because twould fall into the "Gerry Adams was never in the IRA (wink)" category of discussion.

Google, not sarcasm, is your friend.

A tidy bit of work by Dana to pick up the council votes without any fuss or hysterics, what are the odds that she will have the nomination in her handbag before the deadline? Most times these past days on the radio news, comes an announcement of another blow to the Norris' campaign, though on Newstalk it is a major blow, the Indo headline is 'Norris loses out', on the IT it's 'Norris fails' beside a picture of a very haggard and distressed looking Norris, yet he like Dana appears to be making progress on the council circuit.