RTE debate between leaders of the smaller parties

The_Minister

gurramok wrote:

They had nearly 40 years on A to charge him and never convicted him on IRA council charge to see the going jail time of 25 years.

If they convicted him there would (literally) be murder, and the peace process would never have gotten off the ground.

DeepBlue

rubberduckey wrote:

AMAZED at the content of this debate

Hi All, I guess that all of us posting on the debate have a political interest and therefore a political bias, myself included.

I am amaazed that the Tanaiste of Ireland has live on TV stated(or accused) the leader of a larger political party of

(A) Being on the Army Council of a terrorist organisation

(B) Organising the exporting of terrorism to FARC narc-guerilla's for $25 million.

(C)Being 'involved' in the Northern Bank Robbery.

In a normalised society how should the public react?
Will there be a denial/legal procededings??

Do the voting populace actually care?? I know I do.

So is the fallout from the debate going to reflect this or will the 'Paris-Hilton' flippant quip get all the attention.

any thoughts??

Concerned citizen.

McDowell also called Richard Bruton "Goebbels" in the Dail.
Should Bruton be arrested for Nazi atrocities?

If McDowell could back up his accusations with that pesky thing called proof then surely as Justice Minister he's one of the best placed people in the country to do something about it?
And don't forget he had ten years to do something about his claim that Adams is a member of the IRA Army Council.

Would it be cynical to suggest that he's repeating those claims now a few days before an election for electoral purposes or because he just now decided to do something about it?
Anyone can shout about it and there's few better than McDowell for getting his soundbites in. But doing something effective about it? That's somewhat more difficult. It's simply empty rhetoric from McDowell.

gurramok

rubberduckey wrote:

Thanks gurramok.

To be honest I'm looking for your personal opinions, not what has or hasn't been prosecuted.


In your personal opinion what do you make of the three accusations..true or false??

Thanks in advance

My personal opinion on the allegations in the public domain from unsubstantiated sources plus lack of conviction in court of law..

On A, most probably false.

Reason?...No charges/jailtime.
Of course he would have had some sort of connection to IRA, my own view is he was their 'political voice' when in wartime rather than 'directing' operations.
As IRA are finished, it is not relevant as everyone has moved on including arch enemy Ian Paisley who is sitting in govt with them now.

On B, C..my own opinion ..they are false.

galactus

You make a good point there, DeepBlue.

DeepBlue wrote:

(snip)
If McDowell could back up his accusations with that pesky thing called proof

But proof? Who needs that when you can do things like this.

Voipjunkie

gurramok wrote:

My personal opinion on the allegations in the public domain from unsubstantiated sources plus lack of conviction in court of law..

On A, most probably false.

Reason?...No charges/jailtime.
Of course he would have had some sort of connection to IRA, my own view is he was their 'political voice' when in wartime rather than 'directing' operations.
As IRA are finished, it is not relevant as everyone has moved on including arch enemy Ian Paisley who is sitting in govt with them now.

On B, C..my own opinion ..they are false.

Just on A
O'Bradaigh says that the delegation that met the British Government in the 70s was an IRA delegation and had no SF element
Adams was part of that delegation.


I don't care if he was or was not and I dont expect Adams to tell the truth that is the nature of a secret organisation but IMO he was definitely on the AC of the IRA at some stage.

PoolDude

For me it was a close run thing between Rabitte and McDowell.

Rabitte was more statesman like, calm under pressure and collected in his thoughts. McDowell was passionate and clear about key economic issues while also nailing his opposition on Foreign Direct Investment, which like it or not is the key to our economy. Rabbitte lost out on the final question by not answering a simle yes or no and should expect to be pressed further on it. The simple question being that while we know he has a preference in the scenario that the options available are a FF/Lab government or returning to the country which will he support and secondly in the case of the former will he continue as leader/tanaiste or will he step aside to allow the party be led by someone else based on his stated desire not to work directly with FF, e.g. Brendan Howlin.

In fact I'd like to see what odds Howlin is to be tanaiste as this might be a good bet.

Sargeant was not good and yet he held himself well on some of the key questions

Adams I expected to be the big hitter. I saw him perform before as a great public speaker and good performer in interview style debates. I was therefore shocked at his performance. There was no substance or detail to anything he positioned, he did not seem to be familiar with the issues and his introductory speak was nothing short of shocking - reading from his notes and not addressing the people by engaging the camera was a basic error. I also don't know why he was on it, I'm guessing because of an expectation that he would be a big performer in this type of setting but he is not even standing in the election and will not be tanaiste - should it not have been a sitting SF TD?

Summary:
1. McDowell
2. Rabitte
3. Sargeant
4. Adams

Victor Meldrew

I was shocked at how bad Adams was, It really came across as SF, the one trick pony, once we get outside of NI and getting into power there are no ideas on how to run the counrty. Also Pat's comments on SF deputies performance in the Dail is telling, they are really poor, so irrespectivve of the "other issues people have with SF" there is no policy substance here..

Erin Go Brath

Gerry Adams was a bit disappointing for me tbh, didn't seem to have the answers although he wasn't helped by Mark Little who often cut him off before he got to reply properly. Adams, while a brilliant public speaker, probably needs to do a bit more homework before he goes on shows like this imo. In fairness to Adams though he got shouted down a lot, and is too polite to shout people down the way some of the other candidates did, and as a result didn't get some of his points across as much as he could have. 5/10

I was impressed by McDowell who was well able to take any abuse that came his way. Put his points across very well. He does shout people down a lot though which is annoying. 7/10

Rabbitte was the most impressive, and most in control of the 4 imo. A definite winner I would have thought. Answered questions very well, and the "menapaual paris hilton" jibe at McD was quote of the day. 8/10

Sergent looked a bit flustered and bothered and times. Did make a good point though about a woman sitting in her car in a rail station for an hour in the morning to get a parking place wasting her life away like so many commuters.
5/10

DublinWriter

ZorbaTehZ wrote:

HOLY ****, Sergeant has notes written on his palm.

He's trying to save the planet by not using paper, the feckin' pinko whale-hugger.

Money Shot

1. Pat Rabbitte - kept his calm throughout and got his points across, a lot of which made sense

2. Trevor Sargent - Surprised a lot of people who thought he would be out of his depth. I thought he held his corner well and showed his party in a good light.

3. Michael McDowell - Concentrated purely on attacking everybody else and showed no interest in saying anything constructive. He came across like a raving lunatic.

4. Gerry Adams - Surprised a lot of people by how bad he was. He constantly repeated himself, never answered any of the questions put to him, and just looked well out of his depth talking about anything that isn't Northern Ireland.

Roll on the main event...

PH01

This has probably been said already in the 11 pages I haven't read that McDowell looked like the winner on the night.
And in fairness it wasn't hard for him to do as it was a case of too many cooks on the 'Lefty' side.
It would have been far better if the dabate was against McDowell and Rabbitte.

Anyway, I'd say McDool is very happy with himself this morning after his performance yesterday.

An Election Turner?

gandalf

PH01 wrote:

An Election Turner?

I honestly doubt it. It has probably secured Herr Flicks seat, affirmed alot of peoples views on Sinn Fein bar the loyal supporters.

It may have helped Labour by swinging a few votes their way but tbh hardly any policy was discussed and on occasion especially at the start it was a shouting match which Little lost.

warrenaldo

I agree with a lot of this post - Trevor Sargent did really impress me - especially at the beginning when himself and McDowell were argueing about Greens tax plans - he held is own very well and got the upper hand on McDowell - made it look as though McDowell didnt do his homework on it. As it wore on though it becams more of McDowell trying to attack the other parties - he didnt give us any reason to vote PD - he just tried to give us reasons not to vote the others. I dont really like the way he goes about it.
pat really put himself across very well.
Gerry did get a bit flustered a couple of times - but didnt do too bad i feel - especially for the 1st half.
Sargent - was my man of the night - i expected little but he performed admirably.
McDowell - he said nothing constructive bout the PDs - he wanted a fight.

Money Shot wrote:

1. Pat Rabbitte - kept his calm throughout and got his points across, a lot of which made sense

2. Trevor Sargent - Surprised a lot of people who thought he would be out of his depth. I thought he held his corner well and showed his party in a good light.

3. Michael McDowell - Concentrated purely on attacking everybody else and showed no interest in saying anything constructive. He came across like a raving lunatic.

4. Gerry Adams - Surprised a lot of people by how bad he was. He constantly repeated himself, never answered any of the questions put to him, and just looked well out of his depth talking about anything that isn't Northern Ireland.

Roll on the main event...

Senator

I have to agree with you, PH01. I don't like McDowell or his politics much but he sure kicked Gerry Adams's ass last night. McDowell proved why Adams was the wrong choice for SF to put up in this debate as he knows very little of the detail of the Republic's economy and scurried away from discussion of any fine detail when quizzed on it.

As I said before, Adams sees his role as playing the perpetual victim. "People have rights" was his mantra, over and over. The most fundamental right is the right to life and Adams and his terrorist chums denied that to thousands. The others, but particularly McDowell, wiped the floor with him last night. Good riddance to him and his ilk.

Victor Meldrew

Senator wrote:

McDowell proved why Adams was the wrong choice for SF to put up in this debate as he knows very little of the detail of the Republic's economy and scurried away from discussion of any fine detail when quizzed on it.

Mary Lou would have fared better, she actually knows her stuff, Adams looked very poor and the SF TD's are best confined to posters on lamposts

dodgyme

I am not a McDowell supporter. I did think when he was picked for justice he would do a good job. On balance he did some good thinks but did not live up to the job in so many ways. However he was nearly chairing the debate last night, did was by far the best there. Rabbitte who is normally good was almost asleep, some people think this is keeping the cool but not me, the man nearly was in a coma. Adams was out of his depth and Sergent had the debate wrote on his hand. Much an all as I hate the current government (my no.1 is going to labour/FG) I have to admit McDowell won big time.

LuckyLloyd

Senator wrote:

I have to agree with you, PH01. I don't like McDowell or his politics much but he sure kicked Gerry Adams's ass last night. McDowell proved why Adams was the wrong choice for SF to put up in this debate as he knows very little of the detail of the Republic's economy and scurried away from discussion of any fine detail when quizzed on it.

As I said before, Adams sees his role as playing the perpetual victim. "People have rights" was his mantra, over and over. The most fundamental right is the right to life and Adams and his terrorist chums denied that to thousands. The others, but particularly McDowell, wiped the floor with him last night. Good riddance to him and his ilk.

Sure. On the basis of that debate last night the tables will be reversed, the PDs will gain some sort of decent mandate - and Sinn Feinn will be wiped out in the upcoming election. :rolleyes:

Not Adam's finest ever performance by a longshot. But he didn't descend to personal insults and pettiness like McDowell. Rubberducky has made a very good point in highlighting the downright disgrace that is a Minister for Justice spouting off accusations that have never been taking to a court of law - especially when he launched that tirade to sidestep heat he was taking on his goverment's lack of a comprehensive strategy to tackle drugs in society.

McDowell is a bulldog. And he will secure his own seat. But his days of wielding significant political influence are soon to end.

bacon&cabbage

dodgyme wrote:

I have to admit McDowell won big time.

Agreed
I dont particularily like Mc Dowell either, but I must say that after a poor start he recovered well and scored some good points off the other 3, especially Adams who was really 'found out' last night.

Rabbitte put in a solid performance also.

Senator

LuckyLloyd, why doesn't Adams sue McDowell then ? :eek:

LuckyLloyd

Senator wrote:

LuckyLloyd, why doesn't Adams sue McDowell then ? :eek:

On the same token - why doesn't a minister for justice organise an extensive investigation and produce a charge after 10 years in power if he is so convinced on this stuff? :eek:

nacho libre

RalphCifaretto wrote:

I don't see why people are surprised by how well McDoweel handled himself. The bloke is a barrister, it is quite obvious he can carry himself in a debate.

However, he still lost the debate . I love how he owned Gerry, though. The Sinn Fein advisers must have been pulling the hair out when Gerry left himself open to those jibes from McDowell.

Rabbitte can do it on two levels- he is intellectual and at the same time can relate to the public, McDowell can't. McDowell only seem comfortable in one enviornment- when he is debating. He'll have his niche but never a broad spectrum of support for this reason. I think Rabbitte conveyed this point last night and was the guy who landed the telling blows despite taking a flurry of punches from McDowell.

zAbbo

Thought it was quite good, I'm in the balance on who to vote for, and was hoping for one of the guys to make me swing their direction, certainly not McDowell who seemed more interested in personal attacks and low blows.

I thought Sargent came across quite well, Adams well, God help us if those thugs ever get anywhere near running my country.

As it stands, I'll be voting for an alternative government, most likely Labour, but I will see what happends tonight.

joecoote

I'm no big fan of Adams. He didn't do well last night. But then again he seemed to be only appealing to his core constituency. Word on the street is that a modest gain in the election would suit them. A maintenence of five deputies would also be no disaster. They don't seem to like the economic outlook. The only people who really believe that SF will be destroyed are PD cheerleaders. Not an unbiased lot.

As for the McDowell, well what can you say. He is highly distasteful. He comes across as arrogant and bullying. He has too many tricks up his sleeve. My biggest worry is that he'll do any deal with any party (bar SF) to get into power. His political integrity is nil - his thirst for power limitless.

Last night I couldn't stomach voting for FG. If Kenny does any way well tonight, I'll have consider a vote for his party and hope he'll keep the PD's away from government. Hopefully Labour will counter balance FG's excesses. Over the last 24 hours, the picture has become a little clearer.

rubberduckey

Hi 'Lucky Lloyd'

Rubberducky has made a very good point in highlighting the downright disgrace that is a Minister for Justice spouting off accusations that have never been taking to a court of law - especially when he launched that tirade to sidestep heat he was taking on his goverment's lack of a comprehensive strategy to tackle drugs in society.

This wasn't my point at all.

I was just trying to see what peoples opinions on the three accussations were.

We all know that lack of a conviction, is a red herring due to Adams role in Peace Process etc etc.

i.e. So0 for A B or C do you think the accusations are True or False???

Senator

Adams tries to make a big issue about his own and SF's role in the so-called 'Peace Process'. The point is it was he and his fascist thug comrades who were disturbing the peace. Are we supposed to praise wife-beaters for giving up beating their wives ?

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a northerner and in my 50s now. I come from a Catholic-Nationalist background and a working class council estate. Throughout my early years Adams and McGuinness and their fascist republican 'army' made life a living hell for my family and others who wouldn't go along with the SF/IRA-enforced "freedom struggle". My father and brother died in the Troubles. I myself left the North never to return. And now that SF/IRA have completely turned their backs on all that this struggle was supposed to have been about and have meekly become Her Majesty's ministers in a partitionist parliament, we're supposed to quietly forgive and forget !!!

The fools, the fools, the fools, they have left us our innocent dead.

LuckyLloyd

rubberduckey wrote:

Hi 'Lucky Lloyd'

Rubberducky has made a very good point in highlighting the downright disgrace that is a Minister for Justice spouting off accusations that have never been taking to a court of law - especially when he launched that tirade to sidestep heat he was taking on his goverment's lack of a comprehensive strategy to tackle drugs in society.

This wasn't my point at all.

I was just trying to see what peoples opinions on the three accussations were.

We all know that lack of a conviction, is a red herring due to Adams role in Peace Process etc etc.

i.e. So0 for A B or C do you think the accusations are True or False???

I understand that yopu emphasis was not in terms of my point - but you did draw attention to the fact that it doesn't seem right when you see it on national tv.

Anyway:

A) I have no doubt that he previously served in the army council. But my guess was that he hasn't acted in such a capacity since the mid eighties at the very latest. Essentially 20 years plus.

I personally find these accusations to be ridiculous. Proof please.

C) Nothing conclusive has been proven about the IRAs involvement. As far as Sinn Feinn or Adams himself are concerned - I believe they had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

rubberduckey

Hi daveirl, your post would tally with what I believe to be true.

I'm just amazed that people just don't seem perturbed by the people/parties that they are willing to vote for.

Anyway I'm still a quasi-floating voter, wonder how tonights debate will go?

MikeHoncho

First let me start this post by saying I was undecided on all fronts going in to this debate. There is no party in this country which I feel 100% or even 75% represents my views. I suppose I was torn between voting PD on economic issues or voting green on social / enviromental issues.

Im my opinion McDowell won the debate. It is quite clear that he was the only one at that table with the chops to keep this country going from an economic perspective. He was also brilliant in his responses to Gerry Adam's particularly when Adam's dodged questions by bringing up the peace process and also when he decided to change the subject to the drugs issue (I was sitting in my seat praying for someone to call him a hipocrite). He was also the only person who was NEVER allowed to finish his point before being shouted down and coped admirally under the conditions.

JerkyBoy

McDowell was an embarassment to Irish Politics last night.

All he did was try to denigrate the other guys and had nothing to say about PD policies. I'm beginning to doubt that they actually have any.

He even made Gerry Adams look good.

McDowell simply had nothing informative or useful to say and every time he attacked Seargent or Rabbitte they showed up his smear attacks for what they were by debunking them right off the bat.

The man has ZERO credibility!
I really hope he loses his seat and the PDs get destroyed in this election.
Much like they've destroyed our Health System.