2011 Presidential Debate, The Late Late Show

Denerick

I'm so underwhelmed. The only viable President is Michael D.Higgins, and thats only because he looks like he should be President. He looks like the kind of fellow who belongs on currency.

Norris - Loud, irritating and just a little bit obnoxious. I'm rapidly going off him.

Mary Davis - Apparantly has the 'skills' to be President. Makes me want to vomit.

McGuinness - Amiable but his IRA past will haunt him.

Gallagher - Meaningless waffle, will mop up the 'decent country people' vote.

Dana - How many times does she need to say 'constitution'? The kind of moron who'd make you want to emigrate.

Mitchell - Undoubtedly clever, but has an arrogant streak. Does not have the vox populi. A complete hack as well.

Michael D.Higgins - Best of a bad bunch? I think he is going to get my number one. At least he has integrity.

Hogzy

I dont think the Late Late Show was a fair platform. Tubridy/RTE did a terrible job if you ask me. Dana was silent for nearly everything, she was rarely asked a question. And i think not asking Norris about the Church confidentiality was a big mistake. Im glad Norris called Tubridy up on it.

Every question asked should have been asked to each individual candidate. Not those who shout first.

Im currently Stuck between Norris or Michael D. Norris came across as an undisciplined schoolboy. I was a bit disappointed, but then again i do think he was treated a little unfairly which gave him just cause to butt in

Eliot Rosewater

Norris' interjections in the shared debate last night - saying "hear, hear" etc - did strike me as obnoxious and self-indulgent. There were seven candidates there and if they all interrupted as much as he did it would have been a racket!

The problem is, as you outline, there is something off-putting about every candidate. As usual one is forced to assume a "least worst" attitude and fill your ballot paper from 7 upwards instead of 1 downwards. But Dana, I will admit, was particularly bad.

Sully

Watched the debate last night, really enjoyed it tbh. Though Tubs gave a good craic at it. Here were my views;

Dana - Acted like a bit of a loony. Had nothing to say bar harp on about Europe and the constitution. Seems to think she has the power to tell the EU and Irish government to feck awf and refuse things she doesn't agree with. Seemed clear to me that she is running for the position to heckle and shout and offer nothing constructive or useful in the slighest. Was given many opportunities to put her best sales pitch forward and couldn't get past the euro skeptic nonsense. She pretty much said she didn't want to be president when asked outright. To top it all - she disagrees with reporting child sex abuse and seems to indicate she wouldn't support that piece of legislation which would force it.

Mary Davis - Ah Mary. Poor poor Mary. Looked a bit overwhelmed. The girl amongst the men. I thought she might be a good choice but she didn't seem to be able to offer very much. No real experience and I don't even remember her saying or doing much. Seemed a little bit awkward around the question of money and who is backing her campaign.

Norris - The heckler. Seemed to busy interrupting and shouting in the background than contributing anything meaningful. Made a complete arse of himself reading out the legal notice at the end of the RTE Email re: seating to prove his point that different people have different legal opinions. He also made it out that he was only taking the advise that said not to release the letters despite many other legal advisers saying go for it. Clearly trying to push the spotlight away from his past and shadowed history. The loud mouth and that irritating smile. Just seemed so fake. Also complained before the show about being "muzzled" despite getting more air time than the others.

Gallagher - Handled the Fianna Fail question well. But ultimately has no political experience to take such a huge job on. Nice chap and seems to mean well. But not really a suitable candidate because he lacks experience and seems to be a small fish in a big pond. The whole anti-poster PR stunt isn't working seeing as he is printing out leaflets and putting them on cars. Kinda made his PR stunt a bit mute and pointless.

Higgins - Finally, experience. Decent, genuine and hard working. Would look like the granddad of Ireland and I think would be a good role model. Has to be the front runner, without a doubt. But aside from all of that - that was just his image. He didn't speak as well, present himself as a perfect candidate. His sales speech sucked a bit.

Mitchell - Very much experienced. A quiet man, but well able to throw the digs without getting loud, pushy or aggressive. Himself and Higgins stole the show. Father and son! He has a lot of experience behind him, more than Higgins and everybody else. He is a pleasant, quiet and well respected candidate. Perhaps that is why people are not warming so well to him - we are used to the loudness, the obnoxious, the pushy and the ever so cocky. He has political will, leadership, and most of all - passion. Would make a fine president and would be the perfect head of state (the big head, not the Enda head!). His quietness and sometimes reserved nature is good, but he proved that he is a fighter and wont lie down and take ****e. Fought back well when the questions about money, the poll ratings for him and McGuiness were put to him.

McGuiness - The IRA man who used a gun on the streets of Derry but somehow never manage to kill anybody. His soapbox was the economy and jobs - a more relaxed and serious talking Sean Gallagher. Only, people would take McGuiness more serious because of his experience. His political experience and knowledge is all North. A politician coming from North to South, clearly knowing nothing and using popular pieces to win the hearts - money and jobs - is a bit of an insult. Saying he isn't a Sinn Fein candidate is obviously even more bull**** as he clearly is. He has Sinn Feinn written all over him. His past, his views and his political know-how is not appropriate for the South of Ireland. Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. A respected head of state. Not someone with a dodgy past who back in May wouldn't even met the Queen but somehow will now embrace her. Thanks, but no thanks. Thats all he can offer in his sales pitch. He probably doesn't even know who the hell these people were or who was doing the interview "Ryan who?"

Min

Is David Norris a bit deaf or does he think everyone else is?

Talked way too loud for my liking.

foggy_lad

Min wrote: »

Is David Norris a bit deaf or does he think everyone else is?

Talked way too loud for my liking.

He just loves to hear himself speak.

Wolfe Tone

It wasnt a debate, it was a Q and A.


I had liked Norris but its clear to me that (letters and stuff aside) he is the type of eccentric man who is amusing and entertaining in small doses, but simply a headwrecker in higher concentrations. He just would not shut the fcuk up, loves the sound of his own voice.

Michael D is a very old 70 I feel, he looks dithery and a bit shakey. Besides that he did well albeit waffled a bit. Fact remains he looks like a garden gnome.

I thought Dana did well enough actually and I cant help but feel that some people are letting their bias against her cloud their view.

MMG did grand, handled himself quite well.

Mitchell is such a boring character and made a fool of himself with "22 counties".

Sonnenblumen

Sully wrote: »

Watched the debate last night, really enjoyed it tbh. Though Tubs gave a good craic at it. Here were my views;

What? On the contrary, he was appalling and displayed his utter lack of experience was obvious. Often disjointed, interruptive, inconsistent, and at times blatantly allowed rudeness and clear bias which obstructed any hope of a balanced and equitable Q&A.

This was evident when he crumbled when confronted about these flaws by some of the candidates, ef David Norris, Dana etc

John Bowman would have been a better choice.

Sonnenblumen

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It wasnt a debate, it was a Q and A.


I had liked Norris but its clear to me that (letters and stuff aside) he is the type of eccentric man who is amusing and entertaining in small doses, but simply a headwrecker in higher concentrations. He just would not shut the fcuk up, loves the sound of his own voice.

Michael D is a very old 70 I feel, he looks dithery and a bit shakey. Besides that he did well albeit waffled a bit. Fact remains he looks like a garden gnome.

I thought Dana did well enough actually and I cant help but feel that some people are letting their bias against her cloud their view.

MMG did grand, handled himself quite well.

Mitchell is such a boring character and made a fool of himself with "22 counties".

Get over it, a small slip or trivial error during a live debate? Michael D looks like a 'gnome', the fact is, he is a human being and a very erudite one at that.

No need to explain why you think MMG did grand?:o:o

When it comes to headwrecking nothing will come close to the facile World according to Glasgow Celtic FC Republicanism

Wolfe Tone

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Get over it, a small slip or trivial error during a live debate? Michael D looks like a 'gnome', the fact is, he is a human being and a very erudite one at that.

No need to explain why you think MMG did grand?:o:o

When it come sto headwrecking nothing will comes close to the facile World according to Glasgow Celtic FC Republicanism

Lighten up for gods sake. It was a joke. Thanks for clarifying that he is indeed a human being.

DreadedJudge

Dana - A complete loon, she would have us revert 30 years. She's a mouth piece for the pro-life anti-europe anti-gay section of the country. The Catholic Church would love her to be elected President.

Mary Davis - Nice enough woman, don't know much about her, but she came across as pleasant. I wonder though on all these boards she was on, what she really did and how much she paid.

Norris - I'd like to hear more on what he would do with the job, I'm kind of fed up listening to the letters row.

Gallagher - Seemed like an affable man, would maybe get out into schools and college's rather than hiding away in the Aras.

Higgins - I simply think he's too old, at 70. we would probably have to have another presidential election to replace him before the end of his term. And every time I hear him I just think of the Gift Grub skits. But he probably does have the statesman like qualities for the position.

Mitchell - Yawn, I just found him very boring. He does have the ability to do the job and I like that he is anti the death penalty.

McGuinness - Completely untrustworthy, he has far too many skeletons in his life. 4 months ago he said the Queen shouldn't be welcome to come on a state visit, now he says he would be happy to meet her. Somehow I can't ever see him being invited to Buckingham Palace like Mary McAleese was. Having him as our President would harm our relationship with the Uk and our economy needs a relationship with the UK


After watching last nights Late Late show, I didn't decide who I would vote for but I ruled out a couple I definitely wouldn't vote for. So 3 down and 4 left to decide between.

thebman

Sully wrote: »

Mitchell - Very much experienced. A quiet man, but well able to throw the digs without getting loud, pushy or aggressive. Himself and Higgins stole the show. Father and son! He has a lot of experience behind him, more than Higgins and everybody else. He is a pleasant, quiet and well respected candidate. Perhaps that is why people are not warming so well to him - we are used to the loudness, the obnoxious, the pushy and the ever so cocky. He has political will, leadership, and most of all - passion. Would make a fine president and would be the perfect head of state (the big head, not the Enda head!). His quietness and sometimes reserved nature is good, but he proved that he is a fighter and wont lie down and take ****e. Fought back well when the questions about money, the poll ratings for him and McGuiness were put to him.

I thought the digs he took were quite cheap. I have a lot more respect for Higgins who tried to stay away from such cheap shots at other candidates.

Gallagher did a lot of it too I thought. The reality is the president is supposed to be dignified and having a go at other candidates just isn't dignified IMO.

The other issue is Mitchell was the only one not to make his position on Gay Marriage or the Cloyne Report in the show. Not being asked the question isn't good enough, Norris offered to answer it and Tubridy and the producer of the LLS should have had the sense to ask him as it is probably the issue he has the potential to have the most controversial stance on and they took up every other candidate on the issues they had controversial stances on or the controversial issues highlighted by the media prior to the show.

Of all the candidates, he got the easiest ride IMO. Higgins didn't have too hard a ride either but it doesn't really appear there is much dirt on him. The worst thing people bring up is him calling a tea party representative a wanker for opposing Obama's Medicare bill I think it was which from everything else seems out of character for the man and to be the least controversial candidate so far.

Higgins does need to explain his plan to redefine what it means to be Irish better. All I get is it is about community but what exactly about communities is he hoping to redefine and move away from the focus on acquiring possessions and how likely is he to achieve it in the limited role of the presidency?

Vomit

That Mary Davis is a hottie!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/07/15/article-1035510-01F6B63C00000578-861_468x496.jpg

COYW

Dana - Was far more agressive and media savy than I expected. I expected her to be rock bottom of the lot but she certainly wasn't.

Mary Davis - Nice enough woman but just didn't do it for. She lacked spark.

Norris - Came across as loud and mouthy. Thought Tubridy did a poor job when questioning him.

Gallagher - Liked what I saw. He is a smart man who would get out and about. I have little doubt that he will do his best to bring in trade etc if he got the role. Still think he lack of political nouse will cost him.

Higgins - Strikes me as the most tailored for the role at this point. I think he has given the job a fair amount of thought already.

Mitchell - Some needs to shake him. A smart man who is more than capable of doing a good job. Liked his stanch on the death penalty.

McGuinness - Someone needs to tell him that the president is a lacky for the government of the day. The amount of SF related, independent my derriere, populist nonsense he came out with was unreal from "embarrassing" high earners to taking on unemployed graduates to work in the Aras. I would give anything to know how is plans on embarrassing high earners. Will he stand outside their place of work and heckle them or name and shame them publicly in College green?

farmersboy

Having watched the debate I was struck by the very low standard of candidates presenting themselves to the electorate to be our next president....Norris was loud, angry and abusive , Mitchell not at the races, Dana ..beind the Singer Dana, Gallagher thought he was doing his tv programme, Higgins came accross as a nice man, fit to tell bed time stories to hi great grand children...McGuinness as genuine but very nervous, lets say nothing abput that davis woman of the many boards....

If I had to make a choice now it would be McGuinness .....

radiat

Tubridy was much better than i expected. When he started doing the late late he did a few serious interviews and he was a disaster, became way too aggressive. Much better last night.
Nobody really shone for me.
Gay Mitchell has a lot more to give and i reckon will come out of his box a lot more in the coming weeks.
Norris is getting annoying. The RTE email thing was a bit pathetic, and the here,here business...
I thought Dana was going to hit someone with that constitution.
Mary Davis and Sean G were pretty quiet. I like Sean G but maybe needs a bit more experience.
Bad idea from Michael D to start explaining about his leg. He's only bringing attention to his health and age. I still think he'll get my number one.

fitflip

Denerick wrote: »

I'm so underwhelmed. The only viable President is Michael D.Higgins, and thats only because he looks like he should be President. He looks like the kind of fellow who belongs on currency.

Norris - Loud, irritating and just a little bit obnoxious. I'm rapidly going off him.

Mary Davis - Apparantly has the 'skills' to be President. Makes me want to vomit.

McGuinness - Amiable but his IRA past will haunt him.

Gallagher - Meaningless waffle, will mop up the 'decent country people' vote.

Dana - How many times does she need to say 'constitution'? The kind of moron who'd make you want to emigrate.

Mitchell - Undoubtedly clever, but has an arrogant streak. Does not have the vox populi. A complete hack as well.

Michael D.Higgins - Best of a bad bunch? I think he is going to get my number one. At least he has integrity.

Very well said I would haveto agree

ianobrien

I found the interview informative, in that I have changed my preferences based on peoples performances. Firstly, Ryan Tubridy came across better than what I thought, but if a heavyweight like Brian Dobson had been asking the questions it would have been much more informative.

McGuinness - Was better than what I anticipated he would be. Seemed to come across quite well but the IRA past will haunt him. I reckon the night was a positive for him.

Davis - How many bloody times did she mention "Special Olympics" and the last time she was on the council of state. The name dropping was a major turn off. The night completely turned me against her and she will be getting no vote off me anyway.

Dana - Does she actually know and understand the role of the President in relation to the signing into law an Act of the Oireachtas? The slogan "burn the bondholders, not the constitution" demonstrates this lack of knowledge. Does she know that she can not refuse to sign any act if it's constitutionality has been checked by the Supreme Court? Her answers in relation to the confidentiality of the Confessional was the final nail in the coffin. Came across as unknowing the role and bigoted. Got aggressive once of twice. Disaster night for her.

Gallagher - An informative night. He knew what he knew, and when he didn't know, he said so (a refreshing change for anybody aspiring to political office). Past Fianna Fail involvement may be a help or hinderance, but dealt with it reasonably well. If Dobbo or O'Rourke was asking the questions, it might have been a different matter. Won't be getting my first preference, but will be getting a vote.

Mitchell - Dull, monotone and instantly forgettable I'm afraid is what I took from the night. A few digs were thrown but this may yet backfire. Gone down in my order of preference.

Norris - The cheap reflection of the "letters" with the email was a poor attempt. None of the other candidates took him up on it. Has presence and a powerful, almost theatrical delivery of a point. (At least you'll listen to him). No real banana skin for him (email aside). I can't see him getting enough transfers though from the other candidates to get in though.

Higgens - Came across as the best on the night, even though labouring on about the leg was a mistake. He might seem a bit like a West Galway Artist Type, but at least you know that's what he's always been and will continue to be.