Irish Presidental Elections

grumpytrousers

Am I the only person who found Mary Mc's use of

a) Press conference (complete with pre-leaked story) and
b) the Aras as a backdrop for same

a little bit 'wrong'. I'm quite sure she's 'entitled' to do this, but effectively she was using all the pomp of her current position to enable her to get a head start on her Rivals.

What's the historical precedent for the announcement of presidents getting/going for a second term?

sliabh

grumpytrousers wrote:

Am I the only person who found Mary Mc's use of

a) Press conference (complete with pre-leaked story) and
b) the Aras as a backdrop for same

a little bit 'wrong'. I'm quite sure she's 'entitled' to do this, but effectively she was using all the pomp of her current position to enable her to get a head start on her Rivals.

What's the historical precedent for the announcement of presidents getting/going for a second term?

AFAIK there is no precedent. This is (potentially) the first time a sitting presendent has had to run for re-election. Previously they always were unopposed.

But the Times was reporting earlier in the week that McAlesee has put plans in place to seperate her campaigning from her presidential duties. So her events will be strictly defined as presidential or electoral. Her campaign staff are based seperate from the Aras and cannot work from there or use it's resources. I think the first press conference can be allowed as its a formal announcement of presidantial plans rather than a "I'm Mary vote for me" type of thing.

ReefBreak

Despite the fact that Sinn Féin have decided to back her, I'd still vote for Mary McAleese, as she's done a good job "building bridges" (cheesy slogan I know) with Northern Unionists. She's had a good term, in what is essentially a non-political role.

Eamon Ryan is probably the best Green TD in the Dáil at the moment. When he loses (because, let's be real here, McAleese is going to win it by a landslide), it may not be so bad for the Greens as the campaign will help to increase the party profile as a whole, particularly with Eamon Ryan's solid debating/interviewing style. He also seems to be the only Green TD with some amount of common sense around economic and European issues, rather than the extreme-left or smoked-salmon socialist views spouted by some of his colleagues. In fact, I'd wager that that's the real reason they're nominating Eamon Ryan.

I'd never vote for Dana, as I despite her extreme right-wing policies, but I do enjoy watching her get up the noses of certain left-wing media types. And getting up the noses of "certain left-wing media types" is always a good thing in my book.

I'd like to see Michael D run, but only because it'd be really, really funny. Vincent Browne was last week calling for Labour to nominate him - so that's probably why he has so far decided not to put him name down for it.

sliabh

It's a shame that the nomination process is so limited and skewed towards the establishment having a veto. While you don't want everyone running, it would be nice if the public could nominate someone, lets say if they got 20,000 voter signatures.

grumpytrousers

sliabh wrote:

It's a shame that the nomination process is so limited and skewed towards the establishment having a veto. While you don't want everyone running, it would be nice if the public could nominate someone, lets say if they got 20,000 voter signatures.

Good point, but lets face facts, the democratic vacuum is there anyway inasmuch as the cost of running an election is huge anyway unless you got huge political muscle.

I.e. if you can't get a few county councillors to like the cut of your jib by buying them chicken burgers and glasses of TK lemonade, you've no chance with the general public...

ChipZilla

If by some miracle Dana ever did become president I promise I would be at the Aras with a sniper rifle before she got her bags unpacked. :mad:

bus77

Dana obviosly has no chance of winning. Is no one telling her that? :eek:

grumpytrousers

bus77 wrote:

Dana obviosly has no chance of winning. Is no one telling her that? :eek:

There are a lot of the 'Plain people of Ireland' who would vote for her. In a heartbeat.

Not enough to get her in the door, but a sizeable amount. Just 'cos me, you, none of your friends and f*** all people on this board think she's any good isn't, alas, a representative cross section of the public. It's an unfortunate side effect of democracy, but even people who will vote for the 'wrong person' still get to vote...

aodh_rua

grumpytrousers wrote:

Am I the only person who found Mary Mc's use of

a) Press conference (complete with pre-leaked story) and
b) the Aras as a backdrop for same

a little bit 'wrong'. I'm quite sure she's 'entitled' to do this, but effectively she was using all the pomp of her current position to enable her to get a head start on her Rivals.

What's the historical precedent for the announcement of presidents getting/going for a second term?

I found it a little bit cheeky to announce it as she did. She also did a bit of sideways campaigning by saying that she hoped her record would encourage other candidates to embrace the challenge.

I really don't understand where all the media sentiment that she's been great has come from. Within the definition of her role as president she hasn't done a great job of standing up for the constitution and ensuring that legislation is consistent with it (the debacle over the trespass laws, the passing of by-laws restricting protests and the use of our neutral army to protect US military assets in Shannon to name a few). The media contribute to the non-event of our presidency by avoiding any critical analysis of the job or its holder, not unlike the prevailing approach to the guards prior to the shenanigans in Donegal and May Day 2002.

grumpytrousers

You obv didn't hear her interviewed by Matt Cooper. Apparantly she's "given loads of people hope to do their job". Or maybe it was loads of people have "given her hope to do her job".

Mind you, I'm not sure that if I spent x hours a week as a volunteer for a charidy how much inspiration I'd get from a grinning Norrie who brings me 'round the gaff for tea and a fig roll just before she f***s off to open another Credit Union.

aodh_rua

grumpytrousers wrote:

You obv didn't hear her interviewed by Matt Cooper. Apparantly she's "given loads of people hope to do their job". Or maybe it was loads of people have "given her hope to do her job".

Mind you, I'm not sure that if I spent x hours a week as a volunteer for a charidy how much inspiration I'd get from a grinning Norrie who brings me 'round the gaff for tea and a fig roll just before she f***s off to open another Credit Union.

I also missed RTE's fawning documentary about her during the summer, which, had she declared her candidacy then, couldn't have been broadcast.

mycroft

I also missed RTE's fawning documentary about her during the summer, which, had she declared her candidacy then, couldn't have been broadcast.

Thats was first broadcast on St Paddys day, and you're right an hour long party political broadcast paid for by your licence fee.

I'm not fond of Mc Aleese on many levels, but....

One thing I will say for her, is that as a child her 16 yo brother (who is blind) had his throat cut by loyalist thugs, the family home was attacked and her fathers business shot up.

She is now playing an active role in peace process, I don't think many people who had been through what she went through as a child would do the same in her position.

Captain Planet

Ok, so president being apolitical:
Ryan is no fool. At this point he has figured just what is illegal for the president to do etc. Robinson showed that the office can be political, independent and dynamic. McAleese has failed under all of those fields. Her term has been uniquely bland, any speech she has nade has been twee and sentimental. Another president (robinson) would have found ways to make statements and challenge the government, and Ryan could do it too. McAleese is popular bcause she is a Mammy figure. She hasnt held anyone to account, or used the office in any constructive way. She is nice, comfortable, like a Mammy.

We demand far too little from our elected reps, its time we had some principles in the Aras, its time we elected someone because we shared their ideals-because they had any ideals at all!

14yrs is too long for any president, "bland Macca" especially, its time for a change. As for Dana, I hope she gets nominated, should syphon off some of McAleese's conservative support.

As for Ryan himself. He would be amazing, "a good shot in the arm" is right, intelligent, dignified, principled, not McAleese...the list goes on....

De Rebel

sliabh wrote:

AFAIK there is no precedent. This is (potentially) the first time a sitting presendent has had to run for re-election. Previously they always were unopposed.

Not correct. de Valera was sitting president in 1966 when he went for re-election and came very close to being defeated by Tom O'Higgins of FG.

(Two other presidents served 2 terms, both of these unopposed for their second terms. They were Sean T. O'Kelly and Paddy Hillary)

MadsL

McAleese has failed under all of those fields. Her term has been uniquely bland, any speech she has nade has been twee and sentimental. Another president (robinson) would have found ways to make statements and challenge the government, and Ryan could do it too. McAleese is popular bcause she is a Mammy figure. She hasnt held anyone to account, or used the office in any constructive way. She is nice, comfortable, like a Mammy.

Spot On. She's barely done a thing of note in the last few years, we need a much more vigourous candidate. I'm disappointed she's running again.

ReefBreak

I think those rose-tinted glasses may be having an affect. I found Robinson to be far more bland, twee and sentimental than McAleese ever was. Robinson has also made some comments since leaving office (reported by John Waters) that proved she was blatantly sexist to boot.

grumpytrousers

De Rebel wrote:

Not correct. de Valera was sitting president in 1966 when he went for re-election and came very close to being defeated by Tom O'Higgins of FG.

(Two other presidents served 2 terms, both of these unopposed for their second terms. They were Sean T. O'Kelly and Paddy Hillary)

Just wondering out loud....Mary seems to have 'nominated herself' and the implication appears to be that she is cross party...or at least independent.

Was Dev not 'nominated by FF' around the same time that FG decided to run somebody.

I'm just this may be the first time that THIS set of circumstances have thrown themselves up...

anybody around since the time of Dev....anyone...Bueller....anyone?