President Higgins

Ellis Dee

I don't care if an American comedian calls our President a leprechaun. Just as long as he doesn't pronounce it the way I've heard some Yanks do: leh-pre-shun.:D:D

Jimoslimos

TBH I think Americans would warm to Higgins far more than Gallagher, despite his left-wing and anti-tea party credentials.

They're not stupid and Gallagher, a small-time spoofer, would be seen for what he is and be chewed up ruthlessly by real businessmen. These sharks make McGuinness look like a cute puppy dog in comparison.

American business is no different to business around the world - profits are the number 1 priority. They'll see Higgins, despite ideological differences, as someone responsible for massive tax breaks, allowing US film companies to use Ireland for a cheap location shoot and Gallagher......????....exactly.

efb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3E8B1Ufx00

Yahew

Jimoslimos wrote: »

TBH I think Americans would warm to Higgins far more than Gallagher, despite his left-wing and anti-tea party credentials.

They're not stupid and Gallagher, a small-time spoofer, would be seen for what he is and be chewed up ruthlessly by real businessmen. These sharks make McGuinness look like a cute puppy dog in comparison.

American business is no different to business around the world - profits are the number 1 priority. They'll see Higgins, despite ideological differences, as someone responsible for massive tax breaks, allowing US film companies to use Ireland for a cheap location shoot and Gallagher......????....exactly.

If Higgins tones it down, they will love him. In any case, I think Micky D. will love the trappings of power, and will be a great an gracious host in the Aras. He will know something about the building, for one. He would be a great dinner party host. He would explain how the Aras is a bitl like the white house, and so on. I trust him to research his guests, and even ( Amazing, huh for a largely English speaking people?) talk in their language. Fluently, in some cases. ( He can talk the other official language fluently as well if people from the Gaeltacht show up).

Gallagher - he would knock on the wall and bitch about the builders. Norris and Micky. D would have had my vote were I in Ireland, and I never vote socialist.

kyote00

News flash, shocking breaking news....

Ireland elects eloquent, intelligent, well read and empathetic man for its 9th President.

trishasaffron

Jimoslimos wrote: »

TBH I think Americans would warm to Higgins far more than Gallagher, despite his left-wing and anti-tea party credentials.

They're not stupid and Gallagher, a small-time spoofer, would be seen for what he is and be chewed up ruthlessly by real businessmen. These sharks make McGuinness look like a cute puppy dog in comparison.

American business is no different to business around the world - profits are the number 1 priority. They'll see Higgins, despite ideological differences, as someone responsible for massive tax breaks, allowing US film companies to use Ireland for a cheap location shoot and Gallagher......????....exactly.

Exactly what I was sayin to a colleague yesterday. I've been involved in marketing Ireland for 30 years and believe me US business people know what they are up to and can read the sincerity of those they deal with. A cute hoor faliled businessman like gallagher would piss them off mightily while a cultured albeit opinionated poet/academic/politician like Michael D would come across as much more authentic.

I'm delighted for Ireland - rock on Michael D!

oldyouth

I'm just glad the outcome was fairly certain before polling day as I initially felt that my vote would have to be cast to the person most likely to keep the Shinner out, rather than my 1st preference.

hangon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes the fact that you had 'insider' information via boards has disqualified you from that bet,i took it.

Yours sincerely.
NAMA!:p

Min

Nodin wrote: »

....a matter of opinion. Seeing as you have in the past defended Cardinal Sean Brady, I find your high horse here most amusing.

I didn't defend him, you must be mixing me up with someone else.

toxicity234

kyote00 wrote: »

News flash, shocking breaking news....

Ireland elects eloquent, intelligent, well read and empathetic man for its 9th President.

spot on,

Only one problem,
Ireland run Election campain like monkey in a zoo. keep throwing **** untill something sticks,

Patsy fyre

Nice little top up to the pension there Micky, well done.

Einhard

This is the first time I've ever spoken with gratitude about SF, and is the likely the only time anyone will ever hear me say anything positive about that party, so Wolfe Tone and Nodin might want to gather around for it, but thank you Martin McGuinness!!

I'm happy that Michael D got in, but positively delighted that that crook Gallagher wasn't elected. I don't mean crook in the sense of convicted in court, but rather in the Bertie sense. It's obvious that he was up to his neck in dogy dealings, and the presidency and this nation would have been dragged through the mud as revelation after revelation highlighted even more of his cute-hoorism.

Ozymandius2011

Einhard wrote: »

This is the first time I've ever spoken with gratitude about SF, and is the likely the only time anyone will ever hear me say anything positive about that party, so Wolfe Tone and Nodin might want to gather around for it, but thank you Martin McGuinness!!

I'm happy that Michael D got in, but positively delighted that that crook Gallagher wasn't elected. I don't mean crook in the sense of convicted in court, but rather in the Bertie sense. It's obvious that he was up to his neck in dogy dealings, and the presidency and this nation would have been dragged through the mud as revelation after revelation highlighted even more of his cute-hoorism.

Calling someone a crook without evidence is disgraceful behaviour and I hope the mods will take appropriate action. He did nothing illegal - even in the McGuinness version of events. McGuinness was certainly a crook when he was in the IRA and the Evening Herald has just reported he is a suspect in 2 murders.

Einhard

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Calling someone a crook without evidence is disgraceful behaviour and I hope the mods will take appropriate action. He did nothing illegal - even in the McGuinness version of events. McGuinness was certainly a crook when he was in the IRA and the Evening Herald has just reported he is a suspect in 2 murders.

I do have evidence. The same type of evidence I have to assert Bertie was a crook, and Michael Lowry. So go play your clapped out old tune for someone else.

Also, he did engage in illegal behaviour in the way that cheque managed to lodge in his account. The man was not fit for the presidency. Simple as.

Captain Graphite

kyote00 wrote: »

Ireland elects eloquent, intelligent, well read and empathetic man for its 9th President.

Indeed. Delighted for Higgins, I always liked both him and Norris and am happy that one of them has triumphed today.

Ozymandius2011

Einhard wrote: »

I do have evidence. The same type of evidence I have to assert Bertie was a crook, and Michael Lowry. So go play your clapped out old tune for someone else.

Also, he did engage in illegal behaviour in the way that cheque managed to lodge in his account. The man was not fit for the presidency. Simple as.

The Morgan cheque wasn't lodged in his account if that's what you mean. Even Morgan isn't saying it was. If you mean the other cheque that was for a director's loan, what proof do you have that it wasn't an accounting error as Gallagher claims?

dartbhoy

Einhard wrote: »

This is the first time I've ever spoken with gratitude about SF, and is the likely the only time anyone will ever hear me say anything positive about that party, so Wolfe Tone and Nodin might want to gather around for it, but thank you Martin McGuinness!!

I'm happy that Michael D got in, but positively delighted that that crook Gallagher wasn't elected. I don't mean crook in the sense of convicted in court, but rather in the Bertie sense. It's obvious that he was up to his neck in dogy dealings, and the presidency and this nation would have been dragged through the mud as revelation after revelation highlighted even more of his cute-hoorism.

We had our differences 2 weeks ago but I agree with you on this one,well said. Delighted that conman Gallagher didn't get elected.

Einhard

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Morgan cheque wasn't lodged in his account if that's what you mean. Even Morgan isn't saying it was. If you mean the other cheque that was for a director's loan, what proof do you have that it wasn't an accounting error as Gallagher claims?

I'm not talking about the Morgan cheque. If you don't know about the well flaged incident I'm talking about, then perhaps you should stop defending Gallagher until you fully acquaint yourself with the facts?

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

This is the first time I've ever spoken with gratitude about SF, and is the likely the only time anyone will ever hear me say anything positive about that party, so Wolfe Tone and Nodin might want to gather around for it, but thank you Martin McGuinness!!

I'm happy that Michael D got in, but positively delighted that that crook Gallagher wasn't elected. I don't mean crook in the sense of convicted in court, but rather in the Bertie sense. It's obvious that he was up to his neck in dogy dealings, and the presidency and this nation would have been dragged through the mud as revelation after revelation highlighted even more of his cute-hoorism.

We'll make you into a shinner yet! :pac:

Einhard

dartbhoy wrote: »

We had our differences 2 weeks ago but I agree with you on this one,well said.

But we agreed in the end that I was correct, and you were wrong- right?

dartbhoy

Einhard wrote: »

But we agreed in the end that I was correct, and you were wrong- right?

Well you accused me of been an SF supporter when I'm not and made some silly accusations about me but I don't expect an apology from you because obviously you still think I'm an SF supporter. I'm glad Gallagher wasn't elected like yourself.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Paparazzo wrote: »

I think the reason people voted for him is because anyone with half a brain could see he was the best of the 7 by a country mile.
Any of the other 6 would be an embarrassment to the country.

you mean safe bet and only one term

Jesus Wept

What odds OP?
wp.

Lockstep

Delighted to have canvassed for him. One of the nicest and most articulate gentlemen I've ever met and someone well suited for the role of first citizen and statesman.
I felt very proud to have worked for such a man and am delighted he will be both my president and my commander-in-chief.

Min wrote: »

Michael D is a former member of FF.

I see this bouncing around a fair bit.
He was indeed a member of FF.
For a few months. 50 years ago.
One of this technically true but extremely misleading lines that Irish politics delights in.

efb

AnnyHallsal

efb wrote: »

Surprisingly good

V_Moth

Lockstep wrote: »

One of this technically true but extremely misleading lines that Irish politics delights in.

Like SG being an entrepreneur?

HugoBradyBrown

kyote00 wrote: »

News flash, shocking breaking news....

Ireland elects eloquent, intelligent, well read and empathetic man for its 9th President.

Yes, and more: we the people in our wisdom have elected a person who understands the legal, constitutional, political, representative & rhetorical facets of the role. We will have a president who has a long public record, whose opinions, whose temperament, who attitudes are known to the people.

It is heartening that the public acted as one of the "checks and balances" in the system, rather than those who actually are charged with this task. Some county councils, in particular, have demeaned themselves by nominating people who are merely well known for being well known. The constitutional architecture of the state was thus exposed to the danger of well-meaning but ill-suited people getting through the selection process.

The Drafters would have intended the county councils to be sober men with a background in politics, who would nominate only people of substance, gravitas and either legal or political experience. Through misguided populism, this route towards candidature could be opened to people in the penumbra of suitability and such people might in the future get their names on the ballot paper.

It might be opportune for the professional political establishment to exert a surer guiding hand on the lowest form of political life on the local councils, and ensure that only serious candidates possessing the necessary core competencies for the constitutional role are on the ballot paper. As one poster wisely said elsewhere on Boards, 'we dodged a bullet this time'.

The electorate turned out to be more reliable and more to be trusted than the grand-standers of the county councils, who misinterpreted their single solemn constitutional role, and who could in future put the reputation and the stability of the state in peril.

As they say in the Phil: "Shame!"

Hugo Brady Brown

dsmythy

HugoBradyBrown wrote: »

Yes, and more: we the people in our wisdom have elected a person who understands the legal, constitutional, political, representative & rhetorical facets of the role. We will have a president who has a long public record, whose opinions, whose temperament, who attitudes are known to the people.

It is heartening that the public acted as one of the "checks and balances" in the system, rather than those who actually are charged with this task. Some county councils, in particular, have demeaned themselves by nominating people who are merely well known for being well known. The constitutional architecture of the state was thus exposed to the danger of well-meaning but ill-suited people getting through the selection process.

The Drafters would have intended the county councils to be sober men with a background in politics, who would nominate only people of substance, gravitas and either legal or political experience. Through misguided populism, this route towards candidature could be opened to people in the penumbra of suitability and such people might in the future get their names on the ballot paper.

It might be opportune for the professional political establishment to exert a surer guiding hand on the lowest form of political life on the local councils, and ensure that only serious candidates possessing the necessary core competencies for the constitutional role are on the ballot paper. As one poster wisely said elsewhere on Boards, 'we dodged a bullet this time'.

The electorate turned out to be more reliable and more to be trusted than the grand-standers of the county councils, who misinterpreted their single solemn constitutional role, and who could in future put the reputation and the stability of the state in peril.

As they say in the Phil: "Shame!"

Hugo Brady Brown

I think anybody should be able to run for the office without any council input.

HugoBradyBrown

I disagree. I think that we need to distinguish between the popular representative function of the lower house and other parts of our constitutional apparatus. (I would commend to readers the works of Burke and of Bagehot, for readily assimilable considerations of some of these topics.)

Otherwise, why would we stop at the President? Some might argue for direct popular election of the head of the executive, or for the judges, or for county managers, or for schools inspectors, or for county sheriffs, or for Garda Chief Superintendant, or for the Chief of Staff of the PDF.

The republican Romans of old demanded experience of their office-holders, through the requirement to pursue a political career through the cursus honorum before being eligible for election to the chief magistracy.

An ability to appear convincing to people so intellectually degraded as to consume Dragons' Den willingly does not of itself fit a person to hold an important civil office in this state. It might equip them to be a judge on X Factor, though I suspect that even there, some standards of relevant experience would be applied.

A President in this state, who must exercise constitutional functions, needs parliamentary or legal experience, to be able to have an individual personal opinion. If he or she did not, they would in effect farm their constitutional role out to such advisors as they had. And if, as could happen, people with irrelevant or no experience had been appointed by them to the Council of State, we would then bear the consequences of rank amateurism arising from the exercise of one of the most solemn actions of our constitutional officers.


Hugo Brady Brown

Dirk Gently

Any reason why Mitchel and Davis didn't speak at the final result on live at the moment. All candidates where invited to speak before Michael D but didn't see either of the above there.

steelcityblues

Anyone else find his tone of voice slightly disturbing, there?

Amtmann

Great to see the lack of FF politicians on the podium at the count centre.

Coillte_Bhoy

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I have nothing against him but he got a very easy ride compared to the other candidates and that diminishes his acheivement. We rely on the media to inform our decisions, and they failed to subject him to the levels of scrutiny visited on his opponents. I never considered voting for him because he is on the Left and soft on asylum.

Speak for yourself. Some of us are capable of independent thought

Teclo

Tremelo wrote: »

Great to see the lack of FF politicians on the podium at the count centre.

i saw two runaways

wow sierra

I am so happy today that we have elected a candidate of such caliber as Michael D Higgins. He is a man with a wonderful record with regard to human rights and civil and workers rights at home and abroad. He is a champion of the marginalised. A man of great intellect who is passionate about people, his heritage and his native language and culture. A great day to be Irish.

He will be an enormous credit to the country and to the million plus of us who voted for him.

With regard to the media being easy on him - that is rubbish. A man with 50 years of scholarly, political and human rights achievements who is very popular and amiable. And he was constantly depicted as little more than being too old and not tall or handsome enough:mad::mad::mad:, not to mention as he said himself "his Columbian knee".

steelcityblues

wow sierra wrote: »

I am so happy today that we have elected a candidate of such caliber as Michael D Higgins. He is a man with a wonderful record with regard to human rights and civil and workers rights at home and abroad. He is a champion of the marginalised. A man of great intellect who is passionate about people, his heritage and his native language and culture. A great day to be Irish.

He will be an enormous credit to the country and to the million plus of us who voted for him.

With regard to the media being easy on him - that is rubbish. A man with 50 years of scholarly, political and human rights achievements who is very popular and amiable. And he was constantly depicted as little more than being too old and not tall or handsome enough:mad::mad::mad:, not to mention as he said himself "his Columbian knee".

You put him over there like he is Gandhi or Mandela.

He is a personable man - I will give him that - but he was mostly a water carrier for one of the morally bankrupt establishment parties throughout his life.

Yahew

steelcityblues wrote: »

You put him over there like he is Gandhi or Mandela.

He is a personable man - I will give him that - but he was mostly a water carrier for one of the morally bankrupt establishment parties throughout his life.

Labour was hardly ever in power and never on it's own, of course. It is nonsense to tar all political parties ( or even everybody in FF). That kind of argument tends to trend towards hatred of democracy itself.

steelcityblues

Yahew wrote: »

Labour was hardly ever in power and never on it's own, of course. It is nonsense to tar all political parties ( or even everybody in FF). That kind of argument tends to trend towards hatred of democracy itself.

For most of the eighties in coalition with FG, when unemployment rose steadily up.

Early 90s with FF Mid 90s with FG.

Higgins was a TD during all of this time, yet did he achieve that much?

Yahew

There was a genuine boom in the 90's. FF have always been corrupt, occasionally they did some good things ( Free education, for example). The rainbow coalition seemed ok. Garret Fitzgerald, before my time, gets good press.

You have just dismissed all governments of our flawed but functional liberal democracy for the last 30 years. What do you want? Who do you support?

steelcityblues

Yahew wrote: »

There was a genuine boom in the 90's. FF have always been corrupt, occasionally they did some good things ( Free education, for example). The rainbow coalition seemed ok. Garret Fitzgerald, before my time, gets good press.

You have just dismissed all governments of our flawed but functional liberal democracy for the last 30 years. What do you want? Who do you support?

I voted for Norris, one reason because he took on a big fight (and won) in this country against the criminalisation against homosexuality. I know he can be annoying, but given the climate of 1980s Ireland, it is very admirable.

With all respect to Michael D, I can't remember him fighting a political challenge on the same level. Nor several other candidates.

Why shouldn't I dismiss governments? They have become more authoritarian if anything in recent years, and we are still a country of emigrants.

Yahew

steelcityblues wrote: »

I voted for Norris, one reason because he took on a big fight (and won) in this country against the criminalisation against homosexuality. I know he can be annoying, but given the climate of 1980s Ireland, it is very admirable.

With all respect to Michael D, I can't remember him fighting a political challenge on the same level. Nor several other candidates.

Why shouldn't I dismiss governments? They have become more authoritarian if anything in recent years, and we are still a country of emigrants.

That still hides a huge reality; twenty years where we weren't a country of emigrants, and ten where we were a country of large scale immigration - and during the good times the rainbow coalition was in charge. For some, at least.

You have dismissed the Dail, the "establishment" politicians en masse. Thats pretty scary rhetoric. It tends to drive people to extreme parties. Not saying you, but some.

steelcityblues

Yahew wrote: »

That still hides a huge reality; twenty years where we weren't a country of emigrants, and ten where we were a country of large scale immigration - and during the good times the rainbow coalition was in charge. For some, at least.

You have dismissed the Dail, the "establishment" politicians en masse. Thats pretty scary rhetoric. It tends to drive people to extreme parties. Not saying you, but some.

The fact that you label some parties 'extreme' confirms your biases too.

Glad to see you celebrate mediocrity 'Oirish' style, by thinking 10 years without mass emigration was great.

Yahew

steelcityblues wrote: »

The fact that you label some parties 'extreme' confirms your biases too.

Glad to see you celebrate mediocrity 'Oirish' style, by thinking 10 years without mass emigration was great.

It was twenty years without mass emigration. Can you not read? It was ten with large immigration.

And what is wrong with labelling extreme parties extreme? You are opposed to all parties in the Dail, apparently, for the last 20-30 years, even the minority Labour party.

You still haven't answered who - what party - you would vote for, and whom you would have preferred to have in power during the last 30 years. Theres a lot of slippery nonsense going on to justify MDH as an "establishment" politico, but we have yet to hear what you consider non-establishment.

steelcityblues

Yahew wrote: »

It was twenty years without mass emigration. Can you not read? It was ten with large immigration.

And what is wrong with labelling extreme parties extreme? You are opposed to all parties in the Dail, apparently, for the last 20-30 years. Even though that does include some extremists, like the Workers Party.

You still haven't answered who - what party - you would vote for, and whom you would have preferred to have in power during the last 30 years. Theres a lot of slippery nonsense going on to justify MDH as an "establishment" politico, but we have yet to hear what you consider non-establishment.

The parties, or individuals, who are non-establishment are those currently opposing the inept bailout measures, big government referenda, and the growing centralisation of the EU.

In this election, Norris, McGuinness and Dana were obviously the more vocal against what I have outlined, and probably explains their more critical media treatment.

SF, ULA, Libertas to varying degrees at party level.

I'm not saying I agree with everything these individuals/parties say, but at least they are speaking out on these issues, and I can invest a vote in them for that reason.

Michael D is establishment, because he has been very quiet on all of the above, while muttering feel good jargon about being President for all the people. It is a ceremonial role he will now enter, and some Labour supporters on forums are losing the run of themselves since his election.

As a democrat, I am not opposed to the will of voters, btw.

Yahew

steelcityblues wrote: »

The parties, or individuals, who are non-establishment are those currently opposing the inept bailout measures, big government referenda, and the growing centralisation of the EU.

In this election, Norris, McGuinness and Dana were obviously the more vocal against what I have outlined, and probably explains their more critical media treatment.

SF, ULA, Libertas to varying degrees at party level.

I'm not saying I agree with everything these individuals/parties say, but at least they are speaking out on these issues, and I can invest a vote in them for that reason.

Michael D is establishment, because he has been very quiet on all of the above, while muttering feel good jargon about being President for all the people. It is a ceremonial role he will now enter, and some Labour supporters on forums are losing the run of themselves since his election.

As a democrat, I am not opposed to the will of voters, btw.

Fair enough, good explanation. However by retrospectively attacking all parties for the last 20-30 years you did seem a bit anti-democratic, now I get it.

I agree with your position on the bailout. And I too would have preferred Norris, but not Dana.

As for MDH he used to tend towards a Marxist position, I wonder exactly why he is now a friend of the bondsmen, or if he is. Or if the Labour party instructed him to say nothing during the campaign. It's moot as the President has no power.

steelcityblues

Yahew wrote: »

Fair enough, good explanation. However by retrospectively attacking all parties for the last 20-30 years you did seem a bit anti-democratic, now I get it.

I agree with your position on the bailout. And I too would have preferred Norris, but not Dana.

As for MDH he used to tend towards a Marxist position, I wonder exactly why he is now a friend of the bondsmen, or if he is. Or if the Labour party instructed him to say nothing during the campaign. It's moot as the President has no power.

He was smart enough during the debates to briefly answer the questions put to him, and not interrupt others.

Even with the Gallagher Frontline meltdown, he didn't interject much.

I think this media strategy got him extra votes.

Moomoo1

Min wrote: »

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: What of President Daniel Ortega?

Surely Ortega represents the Nicaraguan people as well as himself?

Moomoo1

darkman2 wrote: »

You can live in a world of unreality if you want. The very image of this fella makes us a laughing stock - fact. Read international articles going up to see what I mean. He is so the stereotypical leprechaun "top of the mornin to yeh" paddy president and it's not funny. It's embarrassing. Maybe that image will sink in when he actually has to meet a head of state. Not to mention the silly accent.

If you believe this fella is a patch on McAleese or DeVelera or any other president your completely and utterly deluded. No one will have respect for him. I trust he will be capable of keeping his mouth shut when he meets a US president or is he going to call him a "wanker"? He is anti American. And I can guarantee right now that is the message from the wires in the US embassy going to the Obama administration.

is Ireland so much a satellite of the US that we need to worry about what American media and the Obama administration think?

(Talking about the US, Bush managed to insult half the world, and people still wax lyrical about what a great president he was, so they really have no right to point fingers)

HugoBradyBrown

This is an outrageous slur on the fine man who has been elected by the people of Ireland in a transparent democratic manner. Even to utter the statement clearly debases the person making it, and it demeans me to have to read it. It is puerile, ugly, ill-informed, vulgar and simply shameful.

To examine those who have found favour with the Americans over the decades would reveal an pretty unsavoury and undemocratic bunch, I can assure you.

I would urge the poster to reflect on her comments, and to desist in future until she has learned some elementary civility.


Hugo Brady Brown

darkman2 wrote: »

You can live in a world of unreality if you want. The very image of this fella makes us a laughing stock - fact. Read international articles going up to see what I mean. He is so the stereotypical leprechaun "top of the mornin to yeh" paddy president and it's not funny. It's embarrassing. Maybe that image will sink in when he actually has to meet a head of state. Not to mention the silly accent.

If you believe this fella is a patch on McAleese or DeVelera or any other president your completely and utterly deluded. No one will have respect for him. I trust he will be capable of keeping his mouth shut when he meets a US president or is he going to call him a "wanker"? He is anti American. And I can guarantee right now that is the message from the wires in the US embassy going to the Obama administration.