The C&H Irish presidential election discussion thread

Pygmalion

MavisDavis wrote: »

I also don't know if I could vote for him any more anyway.

I think his chances are ruined, but having read the letter I don't think it's nearly as controversial as it's being made out to be.

Basic gist just seems to be that the arrest and original trial were done unprofessionally, that the minor was willing and almost old enough to legally consent, that the person is respectable and unlikely to offend again, and that he's the sole provider for his mother.
He doesn't even ask for a pardon as I've seen claimed in the media repeatedly, he says that community service/probation would be more appropriate, and that he hopes they'll be more lenient given the circumstances.

Not sure if I'd vote for him anyway, but this letter won't really be pushing my hand, IMO it's being completely misrepresented.

At the very least it's no worse than Mitchell's appeal for leniency w.r.t. a murderer in the US on death row a few years previously, which I haven't seen mentioned at all.

MavisDavis

Pygmalion wrote: »

I think his chances are ruined, but having read the letter I don't think it's nearly as controversial as it's being made out to be.

Basic gist just seems to be that the arrest and original trial were done unprofessionally, that the minor was willing and almost old enough to legally consent, that the person is respectable and unlikely to offend again, and that he's the sole provider for his mother.
He doesn't even ask for a pardon as I've seen claimed in the media repeatedly, he says that community service/probation would be more appropriate, and that he hopes they'll be more lenient given the circumstances.

Not sure if I'd vote for him anyway, but this letter won't really be pushing my hand, IMO it's being completely misrepresented.

At the very least it's no worse than Mitchell's appeal for leniency w.r.t. a murderer in the US on death row a few years previously, which I haven't seen mentioned at all.

It's not the controversy itself that has me questioning whether I'd vote for him, I'm just wondering what else there is that we don't know about him. I'm not going to rule him out yet, anyway.

I find it interesting that there seems to be a decided attempt to uncover things which could ruin Norris' chances of getting a nomination. I don't see any other potential candidate being scrutinised in the same fashion by the media. The election campaign isn't even under way yet.

unknown13

I do feel sorry for David Norris because he is a good candidate to be Ireland's president. He was clearly targeted because that letter was written in 1992. That is just politics for you.

KnifeWRENCH

unknown13 wrote: »

Be interesting to see who FF make as their candidate now Norris's campaign looks doomed.

Brian Crowley would be a good bet. He has a pretty good record as an MEP, although it's probably not good enough to win over voters though when they see the FF logo on his election poster.

As for Norris, I'm very disappointed with the revelations of those letters. Using your position as a Government official to appeal for leniency for a loved one involved in a statutory-rape case shows a complete lack of judgement, if nothing else. I still supported him after the Magill incident, which was overhyped tabloid trash, but this is a step too far, unfortunately. I do like Senator Norris; I admire him for all his work on civil rights in this country and was certainly intent on voting for him but this was too large and inexcusable a mistake on his part. Love certainly clouded his judgement, and led him to do the wrong thing. Such a shame.

With that said, I certainly agree that Norris has been the target of witch hunts and smear campaigns more so than any of the other candidates. It's partly to do with his sexuality and partly to do with the fact that he would have romped home to victory if the vote was held last week. These letters are definitely a huge skeleton in the closet though, whereas the Magill thing was barely even a stirrup!* As Pyggy mentioned earlier, there won't be half as much furore over Gay "I'm the Christian Democrat" Mitchell's plea to the governor of Florida to spare the death penalty for a convict who murdered an abortionist. I wouldn't have ever voted for him anyway but I hope it makes those intending on voting for him think twice if they are to hold him to the same standards as Norris.
(Now if it turns out that Mitchell wrote that letter of his own accord and didn't bring his position of TD into it then that's his own business and I won't hold it against him. Still though, you'd have to wonder if he'd have bothered intervening if the murder victim wasn't a "babykiller" :rolleyes:)

As for the remaining candidates, Higgins was my second preference (after Norris) and will now be the candidate I will most likely vote for.

*the stirrup is the smallest human bone in the human body. I googled it to complete my skeleton analogy. No wonder a lecturer once told me I should be a political commentator!

Wolfe Tone

Lots of ignorance over the shinners I see, disappointing really, for what its worth I don't think they will nominate anyone.

To be honest, I see that as Sinn Féin saying "we should hold the presidency for 2016, because the rest of you aren't as Irish as we are".

Yeah, ok, back in your box.

The above is daft tbh.

Norris wont be president at this stage, and apparently there are two further controversies surrounding him still to come out, thats according to some journalist called jackson the lad who just wrote "Norris: Trial by media". I think his book needs a few more chapters.

I'm quite disappointed over all of this, I felt from day one that he wouldn't be suitable to oversee the centenary, I emailed him about that and his answer satisfied me, the magill thing made me go "wtf, thats a bit suss" then this incident has removed any chance of me voting for him.

Apparently Norris doesnt even see what the big deal is, he is a very out of touch character, and tbh I dont think he can be trusted with the office.

MavisDavis

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Lots of ignorance over the shinners I see, disappointing really, for what its worth I don't think they will nominate anyone.

The above is daft tbh.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I think that such an attitude exists in the Sinn Féin party. It certainly comes across that way to me, anyway.
I don't think you can say that I'm being "ignorant" when it comes to Sinn Féin because that's the way they portray themselves to me.

I definitely think that there is a certain amount of entitlement - particularly in the party leadership - towards the 1916 commemoration.

unknown13

Norris has withdrawn. Mods, can you edit the OP

Pigwidgeon

Done.

malahide05

Its a total shame David Norris has been bullied out of the right to be president of Ireland.

Surely to be God it could not be one of the other presidental hopfully.

:eek:Sell the Aras and scrap the president.

shadowninty

I'd personally support Higgins if I had the vote...

Lawliet

Great now I'm going to have to pay attention to this politics crap to pick a president. Bloody media, ruin everything.

Seren_

I was going to vote for David Norris, even with all this letter stuff (which as Pygmalion said above has been made a bigger deal out of than it warrants really imo). Yes, it wasn't the best idea to write the letter in his capacity as a Senator, but still, some people in politics in this country have done worse and there hasn't been half as much uproar.

Unless I am really swayed by another of the candidates, I will most likely spoil my vote (I don't see the point in not voting at all, we are given the chance to get our voices heard). Candidates such as Higgins and Mitchell rely too much on party politics for my liking, and in my opinion the Presidency should be kept apart from party politics.

Wolfe Tone

I will probably vote for Higgins, wont be voting for gay.

Dont see the point of spoiling your vote tbh, I'd vote for someone to keep someone you REALLY dont want out.

Seren_

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I will probably vote for Higgins, wont be voting for gay.

Dont see the point of spoiling your vote tbh, I'd vote for someone to keep someone you REALLY dont want out.

Hmm, I know what you mean. I've been considering that as well. I would rather Higgins get it than any of the others, although it will be hard to vote for him.

shadowninty

I don't want Gay as president, it seems he'd drag the office back 20 years with his Christianity malarkey

KnifeWRENCH

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I will probably vote for Higgins, wont be voting for gay.

Dont see the point of spoiling your vote tbh, I'd vote for someone to keep someone you REALLY dont want out.

I agree. Although I understand Norris supporters spoiling their votes (his name should have been on the ballot papers long ago) I think it may do more damage than good.

Voting tactically to keep someone like Gay Mitchell or Bertie Ahern (if he was running) out would serve a much better purpose than having your vote thrown away and not contributing any -1 for the candidate you want least.

I'll most likely have Higgins as my number 1 now but given the standard of the other candidates I still would have given Norris #2 if his name had been on the ballot.

randylonghorn

Your Text Here wrote: »

I would rather Higgins get it than any of the others, although it will be hard to vote for him.

Why?

Seren_

randylonghorn wrote: »

Why?

It's a bit of a stupid reason really; one of my friends is obsessed with Labour and he has been trying to get me to vote for Higgins for the past while, pissing me off a bit. So it'd be hard to vote for him because of pride more so than any ideological reasons.

KnifeWRENCH

Your Text Here wrote: »

It's a bit of a stupid reason really; one of my friends is obsessed with Labour and he has been trying to get me to vote for Higgins for the past while, pissing me off a bit. So it'd be hard to vote for him because of pride more so than any ideological reasons.

Simple answer - just lie to your friend about who you voted for. :P

shadowninty

Tell him you voted for the ULA crazy

Seren_

shadowninty wrote: »

Tell him you voted for the ULA crazy

Thing is, that wouldn't be a surprise :P I'm of a left-wing persuasion.

shadowninty

aren't we all...


...but not of the crazy persuasion - right? o.0 :pac:

Seren_

I do like a good protest :pac:

amacachi

Hopefully Sinn Fein get a candidate in, that way I can waste a vote without spoiling it. :pac:

Fad

Is the referendum on judge's salaries on at the same time as the election?

Now that Norris is out, I have no interest in the race tbh. Will probably just draw a cock on the ballot paper.... but that'll probably still be added to Gay Mitchell's pile.....

amacachi

There's meant to be 3 referenda at the time of the election I think.

KnifeWRENCH

Normally I never subscribe to the idea of national pride/shame but if Gay Mitchell becomes President of this country, it is the first time I'll ever be forced utter the phrase "I'm ashamed to be Irish."

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Gay-Mitchell-from-becoming-president/260459000646194
http://ansionnachfionn.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/gay-%E2%80%98the-christian%E2%80%99-mitchell/
http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=8857

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'd be more annoyed if Dana ran and won, shes even worse. Very slim chance of this happening of course.

KnifeWRENCH

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'd be more annoyed if Dana ran and won, shes even worse. Very slim chance of this happening of course.

I'd be quite happy to see her name on the ballot; it means Mitchell will get less of a share of the "loony far-right Christian" vote and will damage his chances of winning. She hasn't a hope in hell of winning outright anyway.

unknown13

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I'd be quite happy to see her name on the ballot; it means Mitchell will get less of a share of the "loony far-right Christian" vote and will damage his chances of winning. She hasn't a hope in hell of winning outright anyway.

The PD's will not be represented on the ballot paper for obvious reasons but FG aren't far right. They would be more of a centrist - marginally right party.

Dana won't even get nominated, she didn't poll well in '97 and in '04 was snubbed by everyone to run against Mc Aleese. It just seems that everytime a presidential election comes around she thinks she is more important than she actually is.

I don't really care who gets president once it isn't Higgins. He is a bad candidate and brings a limited amount to the table. At least Mitchell has been over in Europe for the past 7 years.