Will FG supporters own up and admit Mitchell was a bad choice?

steelcityblues

On here - and other forums - a lot of FG supporters show themselves to be a highly sensitive lot when it comes to criticism of their party and their months to date in government (along with Labour).

The party brass decided to choose Gay Mitchell as the Presidential Candidate for 2011. Mitchell, as we have seen, is a guy who has spent way more time talking negatively about others, than highlighting any positives - about either Ireland, FG, or himself.

This is the main reason as to why he is on a lowly 8% in the current poll - certainly an unacceptable figure for a party who got 36% in this year's General Election. Of course, he won't win this Pres. Election now.

Anyone willing to defend the indefensible, on this?

mikemac

I wanted Mairéad McGuinness

An MEP, well known for her RTÉ work and she did work for the Indo and Farmers Journal

Youngish, positive and enthusiastic

thebman

FG are discovering that the GE isn't FG support but the swing vote from FF to them because they had the policies people had most respect for in the GE. Best of a bad lot really.

Gay Mitchell is just a crap candidate IMO. Not even properly respected among the FG vote so what hope has he with the swing vote or anyone else?

nesf

No FG supporter I knew was happy when Mitchell got the nod. Most wanted McGuinness and the rest wanted Cox.

maygitchell

Never

steelcityblues

mikemac wrote: »

I wanted Mairéad McGuinness

An MEP, well known for her RTÉ work and she did work for the Indo and Farmers Journal

Youngish, positive and enthusiastic

It could have been McGuinness vs McGuinness

Einhard

Not a FG supporter, but did vote for them in the last GE. Mitchell never really had a hope of winning. I think a lot of members voted for him out of a sense of loyalty or personal feelings.

Einhard

steelcityblues wrote: »

It could have been McGuinness vs McGuinness

Mairead McGuinness Vs Grenade McGuinness. :pac:

gandalf

I am not a FG supporter either but I agree they chose the wrong person with Mitchell. However I do not believe he was the candidate that the top brass wanted. I think they wanted Pat Cox. Mitchell got voted in by the members probably because he was a long standing member of the party.

If they were running Pat Cox or Mairead McGuinness I do feel they would be higher in the polls.

lugha

gandalf wrote: »

I am not a FG supporter either but I agree they chose the wrong person with Mitchell. However I do not believe he was the candidate that the top brass wanted. I think they wanted Pat Cox. Mitchell got voted in by the members probably because he was a long standing member of the party.

If they were running Pat Cox or Mairead McGuinness I do feel they would be higher in the polls.

That's it in a nutshell. Mitchell probably looked like a solid choice when viewed by the party faithful but not for the first time have FG made an awful political decision. Cox was clearly the man to go with.

gyraterosboy

FG have got this one completely wrong! I feel embarrassed as a FG supporter all my life. How come the views at grass root level are not taken into account when it comes to candidate selection? GM has no charisma and does not appeal to the electorate outside his constituency. Does FG not realise that this a Presential Election? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Kristopherus

Ah, sure the FG vote will come out in strength when they realise Gallagher could win. Can't have even a whiff of FF near the top table now, can we? :D:D:D:D

gandalf

Kristopherus wrote: »

Ah, sure the FG vote will come out in strength when they realise Gallagher could win. Can't have even a whiff of FF near the top table now, can we? :D:D:D:D

I don't think so, I believe that if Gallagher is getting a bounce it probably is from traditional FG voters.

steelcityblues

gandalf wrote: »

I don't think so, I believe that if Gallagher is getting a bounce it probably is from traditional FG voters.

Some of them for Higgins, too.

gandalf

steelcityblues wrote: »

Some of them for Higgins, too.

I don't think a sizeable number will give Higgins their number 1. He is guaranteed the majority for the second preference I would say.

meglome

Not party political but did vote FG in the last election. Wouldn't vote for Mitchell and I agree he was a bad choice. Either Mairead McGuinness or Pat Cox would have been a far better choice.

Wider Road

Einhard wrote: »

steelcityblues wrote: »

It could have been McGuinness vs McGuinness

Mairead McGuinness Vs Grenade McGuinness. :pac:

That maybe partially true.
However the problem with your statement is that the Labour Party support the same objectives as FG disagree with.
A certain Bernard Lynch husband of Kathleen Lynch Labour TD & Junior Minister is employed by THIS govt even though he was a proven Murderer in 1975. Such action has caused FG & Labour to lose ground. I know several FG supporters disgust in this sad case.
FG & Labour can't have it both ways.

lugha

Wider Road wrote: »

That maybe partially true.
However the problem with your statement is that the Labour Party support the same objectives as FG disagree with.
A certain Bernard Lynch husband of Kathleen Lynch Labour TD & Junior Minister is employed by THIS govt even though he was a proven Murderer in 1975. Such action has caused FG & Labour to lose ground. I know several FG supporters disgust in this sad case.
FG & Labour can't have it both ways.

Ok, I'll bite.
First, a minor thing, it is misleading to say that "he was a proven murderer" as his conviction was quashed. Technically and grammatically you are correct but it would also be correct to say that say the Birmingham six were proven murderers. (I take it you do not?)

More importantly, and the reason he does equate with Martin McGuinness, is because his actions have not been endorsed by the Labour party, or have you heard them insist that his actions were right and just at the time?

I think the worst charge that could be made against the TD was that she showed a lack of sensitivity to the victims family in appointing her husband PA (again, to say he is employed by the government is over-egging it a little). But then, she has a bit of form there.

LordSutch

steelcityblues wrote: »

Will FG supporters own up and admit Mitchell was a bad choice?

Even if he does get wiped out, I think his mission will have been a success

Wallflower

LordSutch wrote: »

Even if he does get wiped out, I think his mission will have been a success

If I correctly understand what you are inferring - keep McGuinnes out - then would not putting-up a candidate with a chance of winning would have been even better idea? Not only that help keep the FFer out?

timbel

I'm not sure what FG were doing nominating Mitchell.
He reminds me of the John Major puppet in Spitting Image years ago.

The puppet had more to charisma too...

johngalway

mikemac wrote: »

I wanted Mairéad McGuinness

An MEP, well known for her RTÉ work and she did work for the Indo and Farmers Journal

Youngish, positive and enthusiastic

Yep, me too.

storker

mikemac wrote: »

I wanted Mairéad McGuinness

An MEP, well known for her RTÉ work and she did work for the Indo and Farmers Journal

Youngish, positive and enthusiastic

Arrogant and unpleasant to deal with, in the opinion of a relative of mine who was on the receiving end of her "youngish, positive enthusiasm". One way to suss out a person's character is to watch how they deal with minions.

Stork

storker

gandalf wrote: »

If they were running Pat Cox or Mairead McGuinness I do feel they would be higher in the polls.

I'm not so sure about that. Cox is a serial party member whose interest in FG membership, by amazing coincidence, peaked about the time FG started looking for a presidential candidate. I can't really see the FG faithful getting behind that, even if he had been railroaded through. One would hope (against hope, perhaps) that the electorate would also have seen through such blatant opportunism.

Stork

thebman

storker wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. Cox is a serial party member whose interest in FG membership, by amazing coincidence, peaked about the time FG started looking for a presidential candidate. I can't really see the FG faithful getting behind that, even if he had been railroaded through. One would hope (against hope, perhaps) that the electorate would also have seen through such blatant opportunism.

Stork

Ah but such things are irrelevant to the actual man for the actual position. Opportunism in running the best candidate that the people might actually want to vote for is not a bad thing IMO.

Personally I find it far more distasteful when political parties field candidates because they have been loyal to the party for years like Mitchell no matter how much the general public don't actually want them or no matter how much they know they aren't really suitable for the position.

That is far more disgusting if you are not part of one of these parties, dreaming of getting some scraps thrown your way one day.

storker

thebman wrote: »

Ah but such things are irrelevant to the actual man for the actual position.

I suppose it's up to the individual voter. For my money, some opportunist chancer isn't worthy of a vote for president.

Stork

steelcityblues

timbel wrote: »

I'm not sure what FG were doing nominating Mitchell.
He reminds me of the John Major puppet in Spitting Image years ago.

The puppet had more to charisma too...

I found John Major quite likeable - not like Mitchell.

cardwizzard

Yeah I think Gay was a bad pick alright by FG. He didn't seem to come across well at all, sly digs and petty. He should have focused on his positives, emphasized the good work he has completed and tried to offer something different from other candidates.

Of course its easy to say this now, but FG should have went down a different route. Pat Cox, maybe.

petronius

Agreed Mitchel was the wrong candidate... it was an emotional appeal to the party base that got it.
Mairead McGuinness would have been better (but may run next time!)

Pat Cox (who i dislike) should not have parachuted into fine gael he should have done the Dana route via councils to get on the ballot and who knows could have been elected, since the candidates we have seem to not have it.

jmayo

mitchell was the worst one to pick and I get the feeling it was the parliamentary party trying to show Kenny they could flex their muscles by not going with the likes of cox.

Cox would be handy with his high profile connections around Europe, but those connections also made him harder to elect as there is huge anti EU feeling around.
The last thing some people want is an avowed Europhile as our president.

McGuinness would have been the best bet but of course once again the FG party decide to shoot themselves in the foot. :rolleyes:

I have said it numerous times how unhappy I was with the choice of Gay Mitchell. I feel blunders like this are a huge slap in the face to people like myself who braved the cold to go out and canvas in the last election.

What good is our work when the momentum can't be maintained by the leadership? Were either cox or mcg nominated we could be looking at a labour/fg two horse race. Where is the promising, young, forward looking, energetic FG of a few months ago?

Teclo

Where is the promising, young, forward looking, energetic FG of a few months ago?

It never existed, they won the GE by default with their dour conniving leader who only had to point out they were not FF.

bijapos

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Where is the promising, young, forward looking, energetic FG of a few months ago?

Its doing what it is told to do; namely shut up and sit down.

FG were in opposition for 14 years, you didn't seriously think that some of the older TD's were going to give way to some new thinking when they now had the chance to sup from the golden chalice?

Having said that, Labour isn't much different to what was there in 1997 either.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Wider Road wrote: »

That maybe partially true.
However the problem with your statement is that the Labour Party support the same objectives as FG disagree with.
A certain Bernard Lynch husband of Kathleen Lynch Labour TD & Junior Minister is employed by THIS govt even though he was a proven Murderer in 1975. Such action has caused FG & Labour to lose ground. I know several FG supporters disgust in this sad case.
FG & Labour can't have it both ways.

you brought this up on mc guinness thread several times ,so are you trying to get sf support on this thread,

Monty Burnz

Wider Road wrote: »

That maybe partially true.
However the problem with your statement is that the Labour Party support the same objectives as FG disagree with.
A certain Bernard Lynch husband of Kathleen Lynch Labour TD & Junior Minister is employed by THIS govt even though he was a proven Murderer in 1975. Such action has caused FG & Labour to lose ground. I know several FG supporters disgust in this sad case.

Are you determined to raise this story in every thread?

I'm damned sure not voting for Higgins now that I've learned that some woman's husband was cleared of murdering someone 40 years ago in a 'war'...:rolleyes:

If you're going to throw dirt, you might want to throw it a bit closer to the candidate.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you determined to raise this story in every thread?

I'm damned sure not voting for Higgins now that I've learned that some woman's husband was cleared of murdering someone 40 years ago in a 'war'...:rolleyes:

If you're going to throw dirt, you might want to throw it a bit closer to the candidate.

Higgins now that I've learned that some woman's husband was cleared of murdering someone 40 years ago in a 'war'...

??
whats this
you have link so can read