If Mary McAleese were able to run for a third term, would you vote for her?

SparkyTech

I think this lady has done a remarkable job as president during her time in office, both in humanitarian/peace efforts and representing Ireland Inc abroad, especially during the recent visit of Lizze. Though law stipulates she can hold no more then two terms in office, if she was given a third opportunity to run for president, im sure she'd continue for another term. Would you vote for her again? Or do you think now is the right time for her to finish her time in office and let another person take over?

shofukan

Nope.
Each president brings something new to the office. No arguing, she's done a good job, but change is always a good thing.

Tipsy McSwagger

Wow

phasers

We have a president?

Kojak

I wouldn't vote for her - sure we all have to vote for Jackie healy Rae.

Aoifey!

Depends who the other options are.

Zebra3

SparkyTech wrote: »

I think this lady has done a remarkable job as president during her time in office, both in humanitarian/peace efforts and representing Ireland Inc abroad, especially during the recent visit of Lizze. Though law stipulates she can hold no more then two terms in office, if she was given a third opportunity to run for president, im sure she'd continue for another term. Would you vote for her again? Or do you think now is the right time for her to finish her time in office and let another person take over?

Maybe this time round the people can actually vote. :rolleyes:

Her acceptance of the office without the vote of the people makes her a parasite in my eyes. A real democrat would have refused the office.

efb

If we were in Russia, she would make herself PM, change the law, and them go back to being prez!

Nolanger

She didn't exactly speak out during the banking crisis until it was too late?

later12

SparkyTech wrote: »

I think this lady has done a remarkable job as president during her time in office, both in humanitarian/peace efforts

Name one such an effort she made which was remarkable. We've hardly heard a miog out of her, and only now is she attempting to make her record.

azezil

Eh hello, where's the poll?
I simply can't offer an opinion without a poll.

Biggins

If it came down to between her and Ahern, yes - no question. I would vote for her.

Otherwise, I would say it was time for change and congratulate her on a job well done considering the restrains she works under in her role (she CANNOT open her mouth on some issues but a lot of folk don't know this), then chose her next replacement.

gerrybbadd

I think the office of President should be abolished, theres absolutely no need fit it, and appears to be just a symbolic position. And a massive waste of taxpayers money.

Mike 1972

Zebra3 wrote: »

Her acceptance of the office without the vote of the people makes her a parasite in my eyes. A real democrat would have refused the office.

Er nobody else was nominated for election.

What would have been the point of holding an election with only one name on the ballot paper ?

Would you make it illegal for a person to do any job unless there had been two or more applicants for it

questionmark?

Zebra3 wrote: »

Maybe this time round the people can actually vote. :rolleyes:

Her acceptance of the office without the vote of the people makes her a parasite in my eyes. A real democrat would have refused the office.

At least we got to vote for her once. The British are still waiting to vote for a head of state.

ejmaztec

The candidates at the moment are all a bit meh as far as I'm concerned. At least the last two presidents have had a bit of get up and go.

KyussBishop

I don't know...doesn't she have to sign in most new laws, i.e. has been in the position to single-handedly stall the most damaging ones over the past few years?

I don't know much about the status of her job though, i.e. how much of it is just a token position or what not; so it's probably not fair to hold that against her I suppose.

dave1982

What do she do exactly?

At least her husband got a job in the Seanead this week:rolleyes:

ejmaztec

questionmark? wrote: »

At least we got to vote for her once. The British are still waiting to vote for a head of state.

If it was brought to the vote tomorrow, they'd probably all vote for their queen anyway.

strokemyclover

Someone from Fianna Fail done a good job? Surely not!

Zebra3

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Er nobody else was nominated for election.

What would have been the point of holding an election with only one name on the ballot paper ?

Would you make it illegal for a person to do any job unless there had been two or more applicants for it

Nobody else was nominated due to the collusion of political parties.

In a real democracy there still would have been a vote and people could have chosen her or voted against her.

If more people voted against her than for, back to square one.

Helix

what difference does it make who the president is anyway, its not like they do anything

all you need is someone who can press the flesh with other useless figureheads really

Cookie_Monster

No, she's been largely useless over the last 14 years, see no reason to give her another 7 to do nothing but claim expenses in

Hulk Hands

No, for the sole reason that when a new president is elected we get a day off, similar to a bank holiday.

Actually being honest, I can't see myself voting in the first place

Mike 1972

questionmark? wrote: »

At least we got to vote for her once. The British are still waiting to vote for a head of state.

I am really at a loss to comprehend some peoples absolute obsession with how another country selects their head of state.

Zebra3 wrote: »

If more people voted against her than for, back to square one.

If there were three or more candidates more people could have voted against her than for and she might well still have been electecd.

As indeed was the case when she was elected originally.

Cheeky_gal

Just before the Queen to Ireland I was unaware of who our President was

philstar

she got in a via a bye pass the last time, so no

14 yrs is enough

Agricola

Fair play for good work done but 14 years is enough for anyone. If she began her presidency with a theme of building bridges then I think she could see the events of this week as a nice final chapter in that.
Time for someone new.

Helix

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Just before the Queen to Ireland I was unaware of who our President was

probably says more about you than mary mcaleese though to be fair

pow wow

Nope, don't like her.

CorkMan

GET HERE OUT NOW!!!

*raises pitchfork*

later12

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Just before the Queen to Ireland I was unaware of who our President was

Seriously? Are cheeky_gals not interested in constitutional democracy?

No way the term length is already far too long and should be shortened
secondly she had the chance to put the bank bailouts and NAMA to a referendum and did not.
Thirdly she is FIANNA FAIL

JohnMearsheimer

No, I've had enough of her after 14 years. Still better than Dana though!