Where's Gay Mitchell and Mary Davis - not on the winners podium with others?

vicwatson

Why no Gay Mitchell nor Mary Davis up on the stage with the other failed candidates ? (RTE one live now 16.56 pm) Sour grapes !? :rolleyes:

Zaph

Mary Davis isn't there either. Can't imagine too many people missing either of them.

tonycascarino

sore losers i'd say..embarrassed too

rodento

Very poor showing by FG on all counts

charlemont

Ah, Is Gay all upset ??? Good enough for him all he did was winge and sulk the whole election.

Godofhellfire

Gay has gone back to his mop bucket and Mary has finally been airbrushed into another dimension

Spacedog

They're Dead!

Ozymandius2011

Skulking on the sidelines.

mickdw

vicwatson wrote: »

Why no Gay Mitchell nor Mary Davis up on the stage with the other failed candidates ? (RTE one live now 16.56 pm) Sour grapes !? :rolleyes:

Absolute disgrace imo

AnamGlas

Sums up their campaigns really - going nowhere.

Marcusm

vicwatson wrote: »

Why no Gay Mitchell nor Mary Davis up on the stage with the other failed candidates ? (RTE one live now 16.56 pm) Sour grapes !? :rolleyes:

Are yousuggesting that they've got a more important appointment elsewhere TOGETHER? I doubt it.

RachaelVO

mickdw wrote: »

Absolute disgrace imo

TOTALLY agree! They should have been there, and they should have been seen to endorse MDH. It's not like the result was even that close, he won definitively and should have been respected as such.

The two of them are VERY ungracious in defeat. At least the other candidates were gracious enough to attend, and the spoke in the most glowing terms about him, I'd say only Norris meant it, but at least they were there.

Mitchell and Davis are very sore losers and should be ashamed of themselves!

Laois_Man

At the very start of the campaign, Davies was gonna get my #1, she ended up with my #5

Mitchell was always gonna get, and got my #7

In light of their behaviour today, neither of them even deserved to use any pencil lead on!

nesf

I can forgive Davis, she's a political novice, but it has to have been a deliberate snub by Mitchell of his coalition partner. Shows him up for the tetchy little grump that he is really.

mickdw

nesf wrote: »

I can forgive Davis, she's a political novice, but it has to have been a deliberate snub by Mitchell of his coalition partner. Shows him up for the tetchy little grump that he is really.

I don't think anyone needs politicians experience to realise that they should be there. It is simply outrageous that they didn't show. Hope the media get the chance to properly question them on it. Rte political reporter thought it very strange.

Einhard

I dunno, I'd be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think we sometimes forget that politicians are people too. Perhaps Mitchell was so devestated by the result that he just couldn't face the media scrum and the glare of attention. Perhaps he was having a personal crisis? It's not all that unlikely in the light of the scale of his defeat, and the negativity directed at him through the campaign.

I agree it was odd, and would have been far more dignified to show up, but they're both human, and have human feelings and emotions. I don't think it's all that surprising if, Mitchell especially, they just weren't feeling emotionally up to being on that stage.

Cicero

Einhard wrote: »

but they're both human, and have human feelings and emotions. I don't think it's all that surprising if, Mitchell especially, they just weren't feeling emotionally up to being on that stage.

..well..they inflicted themselves on the electorate for long enough....I understand they're human etc...but still...the finish line was today, not yesterday...if they didn't appear for Michael D, they should have at least appeared for the sake of their supporters and the people who voted for them....they all know how PR works when it suits them..

Einhard

Cicero wrote: »

....they all know how PR works when it suits them..

Doesn't that undermine your point? If it's all about PR, and they're so aware of PR, then surely they would have made been at the Castle?

I remember when Dublin won the All Ireland, and their keeper walked straight off the pitch and into the dressing room. People were talking for days about how arrogant/rude/strange he was, but the end of the day, it was his way of dealing with what must have been an emotionally charged experience for him.

I look at Mitchell and Davis' no-show in much the same way. Perhaps they are sore losers and ungracious, but it's at least as likely that they are devestated at the very public rejection of them, and simply cannot put themselves out there again.

vampire of kilmainham

Einhard wrote: »

I dunno, I'd be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think we sometimes forget that politicians are people too. Perhaps Mitchell was so devestated by the result that he just couldn't face the media scrum and the glare of attention. Perhaps he was having a personal crisis? It's not all that unlikely in the light of the scale of his defeat, and the negativity directed at him through the campaign.

I agree it was odd, and would have been far more dignified to show up, but they're both human, and have human feelings and emotions. I don't think it's all that surprising if, Mitchell especially, they just weren't feeling emotionally up to being on that stage.

ahhhhhhh diddumsssss

cyberhog

Einhard wrote: »

I look at Mitchell and Davis' no-show in much the same way. Perhaps they are sore losers and ungracious, but it's at least as likely that they are devestated at the very public rejection of them, and simply cannot put themselves out there again.

The other candidates could be just as devestated by the public rejection especially Gallagher but they all still managed to show up at Dublin Castle.

Mitchell and Davis are definitely sore losers.

mark17

I for one perceived him as a sneering self righteous little clown all through the campaign. By not turning up at Dublin Castle he vindicated my view totally. Goodbye Gay

Happyman42

If they couldn't make it they should have sent somebody in their places. Absolutely arrogant.
FG is a mess on this issue, unable to convincingly weigh in behind their 'chosen' candidate and unable to control him and his mouthing off when he did run.
I would have thought that he could have been ordered to appear for the good of the party, because I can not believe that the party would have favoured a no-show. Does Gay accept the result one wonders?... because it looks very arrogant to me.

argosy2006

Footage release of where they were. His wife caught them,

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

I can forgive Davis, she's a political novice, but it has to have been a deliberate snub by Mitchell of his coalition partner. Shows him up for the tetchy little grump that he is really.

Davis was on the radio this morning saying she didn't realise she was expected to turn up until she saw them all there on the 6 news, which is plausible. The ever pleasant Mr Mitchell has yet to offer any word on the matter.

Dirk Gently

I actually felt sorry for Enda when he spoke yesterday and had to congratulate Michael D on Gay Mitchells behalf. It was like an embarrassed father apologising for his cheeky pup of a son. That was fairly cringe-worthy tbh. He probably would have been better off not mentioning Mitchell at all in his speech as it only highlighted his absence. I don't remember Enda offering any reason for Mitchells absence in the speech either.

Perhaps it's just me but when Enda said it was a great day for Michael D, a great day for his family, a great day for his supporters and a great day for labour I was expecting him to continue and say it was a great day for the country too, or something broader than a great day Michael D and his family and party. He didn't though, he just stopped after mentioning labour and I immediately thought to my self, obviously not a great day for Enda.

anymore

In fairness M D Higgins, his family and supporters are entitled to celebrate thier victory without those of us who didnt vote for them trying to spolil the party too much. But equally maybe those who werent presemt shouldnt be treated too harshly.

Einhard

cyberhog wrote: »

The other candidates could be just as devestated by the public rejection especially Gallagher but they all still managed to show up at Dublin Castle.

Mitchell and Davis are definitely sore losers.

Ah yes, because every single human is exactly the same, and respond to difficult situations in exactly the same manner. Glad we've cleared that up.

Godofhellfire

I read today that Mary Davis said she didn't know it was expected of her to show up, just as well she didn't win other wise she might of kicked the people who did show up off stage.

I believe Gay Mitchell is finished in politics and would be very surprised if he gets elected to anything again.

gbee

charlemont wrote: »

Ah, Is Gay all upset ??? Good enough for him all he did was winge and sulk the whole election.

Ah, Is Gay all upset ??? Good enough for him all he did was winge and sulk the whole election.

I say, I say, you can say that again.

Dirk Gently

Just watching 6:01 there, Mitchell seems unrepentant for his absence, saying people are nit picking at him while Davis apologised for not being there and said it was a mistake on her part.

BrenCooney

And so Fine Gael continues a grand tradition of slighting the office of the President.

PennyLane88

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Just watching 6:01 there, Mitchell seems unrepentant for his absence, saying people are nit picking at him while Davis apologised for not being there and said it was a mistake on her part.

Well if Davis didnt know she was expected to show up, then im glad she got the vote she did, and as for Gay....... i won't even bother, i just dont know how FG let him run for the office.

Gergiev

Spacedog wrote: »

They're Dead!

Genius!

charlemont

Mitchell appears to be the type of guy that would run up to teacher after school and grass up his classmates.

Gergiev

BrenCooney wrote: »

And so Fine Gael continues a grand tradition of slighting the office of the President.

Yes Bren, Fine Gael have plenty of form on this matter.

Including Alan Dukes declining to turn up in Dublin Castle in 1990 at the same stage of the proceedings when Mary Robinson was declared the winner.

Even Haughey and Lenihan were there to do the right thing despite the great bitterness over the "shafting" of Lenihan during the campaign.

Captain Graphite

I'm no fan of Mary Davis but I do believe it was genuinely a mistake in her case. I can't imagine her being ungracious enough to intentionally snub Mr. Higgins.

Mitchell you'd think would be a bit more clued in but he was supposedly told "there was no need"; http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1031/1224306806754.html I would take a much dimmer view on him not showing up than I would of Davis.

oppenheimer1

Gergiev wrote: »

Yes Bren, Fine Gael have plenty of form on this matter.

Including Alan Dukes declining to turn up in Dublin Castle in 1990 at the same stage of the proceedings when Mary Robinson was declared the winner.

Even Haughey and Lenihan were there to do the right thing despite the great bitterness over the "shafting" of Lenihan during the campaign.

Not quite the complete picture there. At that time there was major confusion about the protocol for the declaration and the presiding officer forgot to inform the FG team about it.

Mitchells absence was far worse, because he knew of the protocol in advance and chose to stay away.

efb

Gay on the Week in Politics was is usual whiney self, Mary Davis once again exposed as a political novice.

skelliser

apparently Gay gained the nickname "mitch the bitch" from some of the people who worked on his campaign.

not surprising really.

horrible individual.

mark17

He went off to Brussels on sunday night, I hope he will be saying goodbye to all his "contacts" over there, as I really cannot see him being re-elected in 2014 for europe. The theme I got from his interview on the news, is that it was everybody else's fault he got hammered except his. He actually thought he had a chance of getting in, my god that is major arrogance.

RachaelVO

Well here's what Mr "sore loser" Mitchell had to say

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/presidential-election/electorate-didnt-want-another-fg-victor-says-mitchell-2921390.html

FINE Gael presidential candidate Gay Mitchell last night defended getting the party's lowest vote in a presidential election, saying the electorate did not want a Taoiseach and president from the same party.

And he also accused people of "nit picking" for criticising his failure to show up at the declaration of the final count on Saturday, saying he was "tired" and had behaved "honourably" throughout the long campaign.

Mr Mitchell got just over 6pc of the national vote during the election, saying that organisational and strategic issues helped lose him the election.

It was the lowest-ever result for the government party in a presidential campaign.

Mr Mitchell would not speak to the Irish Independent yesterday, but told RTE News that he had congratulated President-elect Michael D Higgins both publicly and privately on Friday, when the results of the first count were announced.

"At no stage was my integrity, my ability, my energy or my conduct called into account," he said. "I lost it because people felt having a Fine Gael president and Fine Gael Taoiseach was not ideal. There's probably other reasons -- organisational reasons, strategic reasons.

"I was there. I did my duty. People want to nit-pick. I was on the platform if anyone wanted to meet me. I spoke to Michael privately and publicly and I wish him the best, he'll make a very fine president. I think it's sour grapes to be asking me this. I'm tired. I've behaved honourably throughout."

Asked if Taoiseach Enda Kenny had given him adequate support during the campaign, Mr Mitchell said he did not expect to see the Taoiseach on the trail too often.

"The Taoiseach is running the country. I didn't expect to see him out with me for months on end. He was out with me on a number of occasions," he added.

Meanwhile, the only other candidate not to appear at Dublin Castle on Saturday, Mary Davis, said her absence was a mistake.

"Genuinely I was unaware of the protocol," she said. "I didn't realise that I should have been there. I thought Saturday was there for Michael D, Sabina and their children. It was only when I saw the news I realised I should have been there."

He really doesn't come out well in this at all. Nearly as bad as Dana with her death thread paranoia

gbee

RachaelVO wrote: »

He really doesn't come out well in this at all. Nearly as bad as Dana with her death thread paranoia

No he does not, he seems pretty arrogant, pity us if he gets any more power.

Dana is an innocent thing ~ that thought was planted in her head by a stupid AA person.

pubview

gbee wrote: »

Dana is an innocent thing ~ that thought was planted in her head by a stupid AA person.

Good job it wasn't the ROYAL Automobile Club !

Gergiev

FINE Gael presidential candidate Gay Mitchell last night defended getting the party's lowest vote in a presidential election, saying the electorate did not want a Taoiseach and president from the same party.

"I lost it because people felt having a Fine Gael president and Fine Gael Taoiseach was not ideal."

More delusionary rubbish from Mitchell.

Mairead McGuinness or Pat Cox would have been contending for victory not down at the bottom of the poll, competing to get their deposit back.

gbee

Gergiev wrote: »

More delusionary rubbish from Mitchell..

He just never stops does he, he's dug a hole for himself already deep enough for the Empire State building but he keeps on digging.

When he's next not re-elected he'll say something like "I wish someone would have told me I was making a fool of myself"

RachaelVO

gbee wrote: »

He just never stops does he, he's dug a hole for himself already deep enough for the Empire State building but he keeps on digging.

When he's next not re-elected he'll say something like "I wish someone would have told me I was making a fool of myself"

Who was it who said the between him and Jim, that he was the lesser of two evils???

Coillte_Bhoy

RachaelVO wrote: »

Who was it who said the between him and Jim, that he was the lesser of two evils???

Was it not the 'evil of two lessers'?

RachaelVO

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Was it not the 'evil of two lessers'?

Yeah it was :o:o

Gergiev

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Not quite the complete picture there. At that time there was major confusion about the protocol for the declaration and the presiding officer forgot to inform the FG team about it.

Pull the other one, Oppenheimer.

I was watching it live in Co Louth at the time and could have made it to the declaration in time after his absence was remarked upon during the TV broadcast.

And that includes driving up on the old N1!

(And btw, it's the Returning Officer in this case, not your local constituency Presiding Officer).

It's not a matter of protocol but doing the right thing...which should come naturally, of course...