What can he say?Originally Posted by Mr A
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?
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.
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.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
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.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
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.
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.
You can't spell failure without FAI
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!
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
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.
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
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Funny thing about this election is that my mind was made up so long ago I don't really care at all.
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.
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.
Last edited by mypost; 24/09/2011 at 9:29 PM.
NL 1st Division Champions 2006
NL Premier Division Champions 2010
NL Premier Division Champions 2011
Keep Tallaght Tidy, Throw your rubbish in the Jodi
Ten Years Not Out
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
Last edited by geysir; 25/09/2011 at 2:31 PM.
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.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks