Dana Rosemary Scallon to run for the Park again

hotmail.com

According to Today FM, Dana is going to enter the presidential race, despite ruling it out a few weeks ago.

So she's running because she thinks she might win. Pathetic.

Magic Beans

Get Norris back quick.

Tabnabs

She makes Sarah Palin look liberal and progressive. :eek:

Can't stand her, but will enjoy seeing her and her supporters pouring campaign money down the drain.

FreudianSlippers

Pathetic :rolleyes:

Seems this woman will do anything for a bit of attention. She's thick as a plank too!

hotmail.com

She gave an infamous interview with Vincent Browne during the campaign in 1997 and VB got so annoyed with her evading questions, he kept sighing. Here's just a small bit, I would love to hear the whole interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-FZcasa0OU

Total waffle from her.

On a political note, she will split Mitchell's conservative Catholic vote, so it's bad news for Mitchell's campaign,

Callan57

Oh Good Lord ... someone nominate Olivia O'Leary quick

hotmail.com

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Pathetic :rolleyes:

Seems this woman will do anything for a bit of attention. She's thick as a plank too!

Pathetic because she's being opportunistic and isn't running for the president other than to boost her own ego.

De Hipster

Dana nomination = Ethnic cleansing required.

tayto lover

Dana running !! Points gun at head.

Dirk Gently

another Christian conservative. at least it will split the rural right wing vote and lessen the chances of one of them getting elected. There's some chancers throwing their hat in he ring. between her, mitchell and the FF dragons den guy it looks like a 70 year old M higgins is the only reasonable choice so far.

maxxie

Would she ever **** off!!!

The Falcon

God help us all!

Agent Smith

I cant see her getting nominated tbh

sensibleken

You still would though wouldn't you.

Dirk Gently

Agent Smith wrote: »

I cant see her getting nominated tbh

Labour should facilitate her just to split Mitchells vote :pac:

RonMexico

*awaits announcement from Dustin*:pac:

sink

Dirk Gently wrote: »

another Christian conservative. at least it will split the rural right wing vote and lessen the chances of one of them getting elected. There's some chancers throwing their hat in he ring. between her, mitchell and the FF dragons den guy it looks like a 70 year old M higgins is the only reasonable choice so far.

Since Presidential use AV, splitting the vote doesn't have that much of an impact, when a candidate gets eliminated their votes are redistributed.

bijapos

sink wrote: »

Since Presidential use AV, splitting the vote doesn't have that much of an impact, when a candidate gets eliminated their votes are redistributed.

The idea would be to split the right-wing conservative vote thus forcing Mitchell from a possible high first preference to a lower one in the hope he will be eliminated earlier.

the groutch

hotmail.com wrote: »

So she's running because she thinks she might win.

if she could'nt beat Mary "Plankette" McAleese, what chance does she have against Michael D?

View

According to The Belfast Telegraph, the Rev Ian Paisley is apparently considering a run for the Park also. He reckons he could be in with a good chance given the field to date - and he might be right.

Condatis

Dana represents a substantial constituency and could have a significant impact on the election.

Her views on moral issues are respectable and shared by many middle class and working class voters.

She would broaden the choice available to the electorate and that in itself is worthwhile. In fact her conservative bias would fill a void in the offerings likely to be before us. At the moment there is a sort of a socialist, an entrepreneur of undefined political philosophy, a liberal community activist with a good international reputation and connections and a political hyena who would represent us well in Eastern Europe.

The five would pretty well cover most of the political spectrum and as such is a good scenario for democracy. All elements of society should be happy with the choice – as there is still a gay among them.

There is not point in slagging candidates without making a rational argument – to do is simply puerile.

raymon

If she runs - at least Sean Gallagher won't limp across the line in last place.

What a miserable choice , I see no presidential qualities in any of them.

Mary Mac should turn rogue and become a dictator .

MadsL

God, look what happens when Norris get's fked over. You'll be see Mary Harney running next...

charlemont

View wrote: »

According to The Belfast Telegraph, the Rev Ian Paisley is apparently considering a run for the Park also. He reckons he could be in with a good chance given the field to date - and he might be right.

Ha, Thats class but strangely enough I would give him my vote, Big Ian would be comical in the Áras, The rest of the candidates are the same ol' same ol', And Dana, Not a hope would I vote for her, I reckon she will try and talk about making amends with the church to get their backing.

PeterIanStaker

She'll appeal to the Coir/Youth defence/legion of mary types; i.e. nobody whose opinion matters.

De Hipster

If Dana is running ...I'm voting for Baron Bannside in protest!

jill_valentine

MadsL wrote: »

Mary Harney running

*shudder*

anymore

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Pathetic :rolleyes:

Seems this woman will do anything for a bit of attention. She's thick as a plank too!

Gosh, wonder who she takes after ? Who was that fella who was telling an Israeli judge way back in 1992, that he was being spoken of as a Presidential candidate ? .........anyone remember that fellas name ?

Guy:Incognito

hotmail.com wrote: »

So she's running because she thinks she might win. Pathetic.

Why else would someone run?

hotmail.com

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why else would someone run?

She ruled out running a few weeks ago presumably because she felt she couldn't win. So I don't think she's standing for the right reasons, otherwise she would have thrown her hat into the ring earlier.

anymore

hotmail.com wrote: »

She ruled out running a few weeks ago presumably because she felt she couldn't win. So I don't think she's standing for the right reasons, otherwise she would have thrown her hat into the ring earlier.

Maybe she detected that there were cracks appearing in the facade of politically correct liberal ireland. I have been an extremely vociferous critic of the catholic church for years, but it sure shocked me to see so many people who suddenly went silent when asked to look at the other side.

Condatis

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

She'll appeal to the Coir/Youth defence/legion of mary types; i.e. nobody whose opinion matters.

All opinions matter. That's how our system works – Youth Defence are well organised are well organised, well financed and their stance will certainly influence the outcome.

Zubeneschamali

Condatis wrote: »

All opinions matter. Youth Defence are well organised are well organised, well financed and their stance will certainly influence the outcome.

Yes, whoever they back goes last on my ballot.

anymore

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

She'll appeal to the Coir/Youth defence/legion of mary types; i.e. nobody whose opinion matters.

You appeared to be confused about how democracy works so here is a little lesson : One person, one vote.
I didnt vote for her last time, but i wouldnt be surprised if there many people who now vote for as a form of protest against the phony liberalism that is myopic.

nesf

Oh lovely, another arch-conservative into the mix.

Godge

The list of candidates really is pathetic.

If you don't want to vote for an arch-conservative (Mitchell, Dana or O'Cuiv should he be the FFer) or a doddery old man (Michael D) or a man whose views on child abuse are dodgy (Norris) or a lightweight nobody really knows (Davis, Gallagher) you really have nobody credible to vote for.

I am sure that there are a lot of people in the middle who have similar opinions on that list who are really stuck for someone to vote for.

steelcityblues

This will only play into Michael D's hands, and split the potential Mitchell vote.

dvpower

When are Jedward declaring?

Condatis

dvpower wrote: »

When are Jedward declaring?

People here are obviously trying to make a contribution to a serious issue. Boorish comments worthy of a gombeen are out of place.

Zubeneschamali

Condatis wrote: »

Boorish comments worthy of a gombeen are out of place.

OK, forget Jedward. Elect Johnny Logan!

hotmail.com

Condatis wrote: »

People here are obviously trying to make a contribution to a serious issue. Boorish comments worthy of a gombeen are out of place.

Do you not have a sense of humour!?

Duke Leonal Felmet

I was going to vote 'None of the above', but now that there is a joke option I will vote for her.

sparkling sea

Callan57 wrote: »

Oh Good Lord ... someone nominate Olivia O'Leary quick

Excellent suggestion

raymon

Let's get Twink altogether and it would be like an episode of celebrity president, with Dana and the dragon Gallagher

Guy:Incognito

hotmail.com wrote: »

She ruled out running a few weeks ago presumably because she felt she couldn't win. So I don't think she's standing for the right reasons, otherwise she would have thrown her hat into the ring earlier.

Maybe she figured she couldnt beat Norris, but now he's out.

Zubeneschamali

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Maybe she figured she couldnt beat Norris

Now she just has to figure out that she couldn't beat Bosco.

Lapin

Ivan Yates put it nicely this morning on Newstalk.

"If Dana is the answer, what is the question ?"

Condatis

hotmail.com wrote: »

Do you not have a sense of humour!?

I do. However inane comments do not qualify as humour. In this instance they demonstrate a lack of intellectual capacity to participate in a debate which others are taking seriously – just like the bully who runs away with the ball because the other boys are having a good time.

I can jest with the best and enjoy the company – face-to-face or on line of raconteurs, but also enjoy structured debate.

bmaxi

sensibleken wrote: »

You still would though wouldn't you.

Not even with yours, mate.

Maybe the answer is to drop the requirement for the backing of members of the Oireachtas or County Councils. After all, anyone who can put up the deposit can run for the Dáil, why not the Park? All the current system does is perpetrate political patronage, ensuring that there never will be a President of the people.
Mary Robinson was the closest we came to this and that only because another Brian Lenihan was found to be less white than white, surprise surprise.

grumpymunster

Would have to seriously consider the boat if Dana was elected, would also have to cultivate a non Irish accent lest I would be associated with her.
David Norris made a mistake which we are all going to have to pay for by the looks of it given the choice we have for the park. For my mind MDH just about swings it, none really inspire me.

conorhal

Lapin wrote: »

Ivan Yates put it nicely this morning on Newstalk.

"If Dana is the answer, what is the question ?"

I'd imagine the question is, "Which candidate can I vote for that isn't a whore to either Brussels, the liberal agenda or both?" Believe it or not there are those of us asking that question that consider themselves entitled to representation too. Not that I think Dana is the right candidate or anything, as an answer to that question she is something of a mumbled faltering response.

Yeats is a bitter partisan that see's Dana as likely to drain Mitchell's support. His dismissive attitude is sickening.