2011 Presidential Election

**BonnieShels** · 26/09/2011, 8:49 PM

Originally Posted by geysir

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.

The press are taking it up that way because Norris has a genuine chance of being our next president should he get on the ballot, Dana doesn't. She is an irrelevance and a sideshow and no one is really interested in her.

Re some of the comments directed at Mr A; I'm not quite sure what peoples' problem are with his initial comments. Surely the reason he feels that they are irrelevant is because you know what, those loyalist paramilitaries aren't running in our presidential election (though some of them see fit to allow this state sponsor their entry in the United States, but that's another days' work), neither are any Stickies. Also SF are the big bad wolf in Irish politics so it makes sense that the media would go after SF. But the salient point here is that McGuinness doesn't have to answer questions about his past because of the peace process, which is frankly preposterous.

No one is belittling McG's efforts and role in the Peace Process or the GFA but we need to realise that the President of our State or any prospective candidate for the role should be able to answer the questions without resorting to the comments that have emmanated from SF for the last week.

McG is credible that's why he needs to make sure that as a Head of State he can be as untarnished as possible by skeletons in his ditch.

However, the media needs to start realising that HE WILL NOT WIN and it is his way to leave politics on a high.

**Macy** · 27/09/2011, 7:52 AM

Originally Posted by TiocfaidhArmani

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.

It wasn't directly at you, no, but if the cap fits...

**geysir** · 27/09/2011, 9:19 AM

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Re some of the comments directed at Mr A; I'm not quite sure what peoples' problem are with his initial comments. Surely the reason he feels that they are irrelevant is because you know what, those loyalist paramilitaries aren't running in our presidential election (though some of them see fit to allow this state sponsor their entry in the United States, but that's another days' work), neither are any Stickies. Also SF are the big bad wolf in Irish politics so it makes sense that the media would go after SF. But the salient point here is that McGuinness doesn't have to answer questions about his past because of the peace process, which is frankly preposterous.

preposterous?
you mean this explanation from McGuinness? I think he makes obvious rational sense.
"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."
Sure, neither the Brits or the Loyalists are running for election, McGuinness is and he won't tell us what he did unless there is a "truth commission" of sorts, like the Saville inquiry
Where is the difficulty to see the relevance of that?

The peace process is still a process. It's not as if the GFA gets signed and everybody moves forward with the democratic process. The whole 32 counties are an integral part of that peace process. Everybody signed up to that process. It's still a fragile process. Part of that process is that everything in the past is let sleep. There is no part of the peace process to deal with the events of the past like a "truth commission".
Imo it won�t happen either.

It is another matter, if in your opinion, McGuinness is not a suitable candidate for presidency.

**osarusan** · 27/09/2011, 10:09 AM

If Martin McGuinness feels that it would be unwise for him to reveal the truth about certain aspects of his past because it might in some way hamper the ongoing peace process, that is perfectly understandable. He's by no means the only person doing so.

However, he has chosen to run for president, and the Irish people are entitled to the truth from a presidential candidate (on any issue*, but particularly when dealing with somebody's responsibilities as a member of a terrorist organisation).

His comment that

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

isn't good enough, in my opinion, and it seems, in the opinion of many othes also.

*-not that I'm saying it is ever realistic to expect to get the complete truth from every candidate on any issue.

**bennocelt** · 27/09/2011, 11:40 AM

And what exactly do people want to know!!!! He was in the RA, really, wow thats news - is it!!

**geysir** · 27/09/2011, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

If Martin McGuinness feels that it would be unwise for him to reveal the truth about certain aspects of his past because it might in some way hamper the ongoing peace process, that is perfectly understandable. He's by no means the only person doing so.

However, he has chosen to run for president, and the Irish people are entitled to the truth from a presidential candidate (on any issue*, but particularly when dealing with somebody's responsibilities as a member of a terrorist organisation).

His comment that
isn't good enough, in my opinion, and it seems, in the opinion of many othes also.

*-not that I'm saying it is ever realistic to expect to get the complete truth from every candidate on any issue.

McGuinness is a life long leading republican and all that entailed for the past 40+ years. Most people have their considered opinion about that. That's fair enough if you don't agree, understand or value the context, that McGuiness has the perogative of omerta, all I am saying is that he has a valid argument for his position, especially in the context of the 6 counties and that argument is far from preposterous, even inn the context of a presidential election in the 26 counties.

**TiocfaidhArmani** · 27/09/2011, 12:07 PM

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.

I wasn't saying it was relevant what other parties did, my point was directly aimed at your comment, which I believe to be crap to be blunt. I think the press have examined in great detail what the IRA have done. How can you say different?

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

They were active when McGuinness was, McGuinness was a sticky primarily when he says he was active, I think that's being ignored. The OIRA, unlike the PIRA still have weapons and their ex-members are apart of the Irish states government.

**TiocfaidhArmani** · 27/09/2011, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Re some of the comments directed at Mr A; I'm not quite sure what peoples' problem are with his initial comments. Surely the reason he feels that they are irrelevant is because you know what, those loyalist paramilitaries aren't running in our presidential election (though some of them see fit to allow this state sponsor their entry in the United States, but that's another days' work)

I never said they were and wasn't trying to get them into the wider debate re the Presidency. My comments were a direct retort to the assertion he made that the Irish media has not examined in detail what the IRA has done. That's complete garbage and I await something back proving me wrong. I doubt it somehow.

It wasn't directly at you, no, but if the cap fits...

Yadda, yadda, booorrrring.

**geysir** · 27/09/2011, 12:26 PM

I was reading an article by McDowell in the Indo last Sunday where he extrapolated on his vision of the moral fibre, constitution, presidential traits etc. In His opinion, John Bruton was such a man that ticked the boxes and would have walked the election to the popular acclaim. I do share McDowell's despair at the missed candidture of the esteemed John Bruton. What the country needs now is a president going up and down the country encouraging the citizens to bear up stoically to the 200+ year plan of paying off the botomless pit of private sector debts. John is so sure that this the right way to go and what an inspiration he would be to assure the citizens that their sacrifices are not in vain, that there is light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how long the tunnel.

**culloty82** · 27/09/2011, 1:14 PM

Dana secures Donegal - Cavan, Longford, Offaly and Westmeath also expected to back her today. Norris is blocked in Cork, but wins Waterford City, only Dublin City and Kilkenny left to vote on him.

**Mr A** · 27/09/2011, 2:20 PM

Originally Posted by TiocfaidhArmani

I wasn't saying it was relevant what other parties did, my point was directly aimed at your comment, which I believe to be crap to be blunt. I think the press have examined in great detail what the IRA have done. How can you say different?

I said no such thing. My point was that SF and their supporters cannot (with any credibility) simply dismiss discussion of McGuinness's past in the presidential campaign. He chose to stand but he doesn't get to choose what questions are asked of him.

I don't see why examination of the IRA campaign is to be regarded as a bad thing anyway. They did what they did and should be judged on that. SF supporters may feel it was a worthwhile enterprise, other will not.

While it's off the topic, I'm not aware of anything on the former Workers Party/ DL guys that comes with an ass's roar of what is in McG's part and don't accept for a moment that the media wouldn't have gone after it if it was there.

**TiocfaidhArmani** · 27/09/2011, 2:57 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

I said no such thing. My point was that SF and their supporters cannot (with any credibility) simply dismiss discussion of McGuinness's past in the presidential campaign. He chose to stand but he doesn't get to choose what questions are asked of him.

I don't see why examination of the IRA campaign is to be regarded as a bad thing anyway. They did what they did and should be judged on that. SF supporters may feel it was a worthwhile enterprise, other will not.

While it's off the topic, I'm not aware of anything on the former Workers Party/ DL guys that comes with an ass's roar of what is in McG's part and don't accept for a moment that the media wouldn't have gone after it if it was there.

This is what you said. No matter what context you were talking in it's garbage. In my opinion of course.

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.

Ignored by whom? We never heard the end of it and people are perfectly entitled to question everything, I did myself as a republican, people losing their lives is serious business and not to be taken lightly. But that said I'm intrigued to know who you think ignored largely what the IRA did. There are former members of the OIRA, whom McGuinness was first a member, and I think, was a member of on Bloody Sunday, who in a position of decision making power in the Irish states government. Where do you draw the line if McGuinness is not suitable.

But should the IRA be made held accountable for their actions? Of course. But I think it's been done to death already and then some!

**osarusan** · 27/09/2011, 3:01 PM

Originally Posted by TiocfaidhArmani

Ignored by whom?...

But that said I'm intrigued to know who you think ignored largely what the IRA did.

He's saying that Sinn Fein have ignored what the IRA did. It couldn't be any more obvious, even in the sentence you quoted.

**Mr A** · 27/09/2011, 3:05 PM

It is ignored by SF in their comments on the troubles so far. To judge on those, McGuinness only played the part I mentioned in the troubles. I feel this is deliberately and transparently misleading. Which was what my point was.

**TiocfaidhArmani** · 27/09/2011, 3:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mr A

It is ignored by SF in their comments on the troubles so far. To judge on those, McGuinness only played the part I mentioned in the troubles. I feel this is deliberately and transparently misleading. Which was what my point was.

SF were grilled about everything they did, they always had to answer for what the IRA did. Again, you must have been asleep during the conflict or not read papers during that time.

**TiocfaidhArmani** · 27/09/2011, 3:14 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

He's saying that Sinn Fein have ignored what the IRA did. It couldn't be any more obvious, even in the sentence you quoted.

Well it wasn't to me so I asked for clarification.

And thanks Mr A you did, appreciated.

**Dodge** · 27/09/2011, 3:20 PM

Originally Posted by TiocfaidhArmani

SF were grilled about everything they did, they always had to answer for what the IRA did. Again, you must have been asleep during the conflict or not read papers during that time.

There's a huge difference between 'having to answer' and actually answering.

BTW Chucky, can exiles vote in the presidential elections? Not stirring, just wondering if they're different to other elections

**TiocfaidhArmani** · 27/09/2011, 3:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

There's a huge difference between 'having to answer' and actually answering.

BTW Chucky, can exiles vote in the presidential elections? Not stirring, just wondering if they're different to other elections

Not as far as I know mate, you need to be registered to vote in the 26 counties, I'm still registered at the parents so if I can I'll be voting.

I think they generally have said if something was wrong and it shouldn't have happened they will say it. I'm not sure what else they can do. They didn't plan it and carry it out so what can you say other than it was wrong. I've not seen them defend the likes of Enniskillen or Shankill bomb but not sure what else they can be grilled on that they haven't been already and what else they can say when they didn't carry out the attack themselves.

**legendz** · 27/09/2011, 7:12 PM

It is a 7 horse race. I ave to say FG have a poor candidate. After the elections earlier in the year, I thought they could've fielded a better candidate, some like Sean Kelly. The election will be a good chance not to vote for Dana though she does get a bit of unfair press to be fair. Does anyone know much about Mary Davis? She seems to have done well in her role with the Special Olympics. When the campaign gets dirty is there mud that'll be thrown at her? I'm not surprised for now that she is transfer friendly. I'm surprised Higgins is getting so much backing. Gallagher hasn't impressed at all in my opinion.

**geysir** · 27/09/2011, 7:45 PM

Yet another major blow for the Norris presidential campaign today,
oops, strike that,
Norris has managed to gain the crucial support of a 4th council.
Lucky bugger.