Why did the media leave Michael D alone?

Lemlin

It doesn't really make sense. All the other candidates were criticised in some form but Michael D. got off very lightly with the media. And I don't think it's because there was nothing there.

He claims to campaign for the disadvantaged yet claimed 69k just in expenses in 2002:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/former-ff-minister-tops-dail-expenses-at-pound71000-305173.html

This was expenses for a man who claims to use public transport for travelling to the Dail. That's alot of train and bus rides.

He also claimed Dail overnight expenses while he was actually abroad.

The other thing I can't understand is that he has been sitting in the Dail while all of the chaos unfolded and yet no-one has said a word re this. I realise he was in opposition but he was still being paid 100k or so plus expenses and I've yet to see him show any list of legislation that he voted against, as Norris has done. In fact, I've seen various articles confirming that he supported the bailout.

maxer68

The media didn't want to be too had on an old man.

who the fug

medicore boring old fart stories don't sell papers

Pride Fighter

Lemlin wrote: »

In fact, I've seen various articles confirming that he supported the bailout.

He was one of only 18 Dail TD's to vote against the bailout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dqw4XNGIks

Snakeblood

Lemlin wrote: »

It doesn't really make sense. All the other candidates were criticised in some form but Michael D. got off very lightly with the media. And I don't think it's because there was nothing there.

He claims to campaign for the disadvantaged yet claimed 69k just in expenses in 2002:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/former-ff-minister-tops-dail-expenses-at-pound71000-305173.html

This was expenses for a man who claims to use public transport for travelling to the Dail. That's alot of train and bus rides.

He also claimed Dail overnight expenses while he was actually abroad.

The other thing I can't understand is that he has been sitting in the Dail while all of the chaos unfolded and yet no-one has said a word re this. I realise he was in opposition but he was still being paid 100k or so plus expenses and I've yet to see him show any list of legislation that he voted against, as Norris has done. In fact, I've seen various articles confirming that he supported the bailout.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dqw4XNGIks
Speaking, and later voting against the bailout.

seamus

Michael D is inoffensive.

Ask most people about him and they won't have any particularly strong opinions about him, negative or positive.

But ask them about Dana, McGuinness or Norris and you'll find that most people give you a very strong answer in one direction or the other.

So printing stories about them sells more papers than stories about Michael D.

fishy fishy

they couldn't see him behind the podium?? :D

I'd say Michael D will get it.

anymore

Pride Fighter wrote: »

He was one of only 18 Dail TD's to vote against the bailout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dqw4XNGIks

I will give him credit for that but then I have to penailsie him because his existing 3 PS pensions means that the private sector workers are already providing him with his own ' Bail Out'.

Wallflower

Lemlin wrote: »

It doesn't really make sense. All the other candidates were criticised in some form but Michael D. got off very lightly with the media. And I don't think it's because there was nothing there.

He claims to campaign for the disadvantaged yet claimed 69k just in expenses in 2002:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/former-ff-minister-tops-dail-expenses-at-pound71000-305173.html

This was expenses for a man who claims to use public transport for travelling to the Dail. That's alot of train and bus rides.

He also claimed Dail overnight expenses while he was actually abroad.

The other thing I can't understand is that he has been sitting in the Dail while all of the chaos unfolded and yet no-one has said a word re this. I realise he was in opposition but he was still being paid 100k or so plus expenses and I've yet to see him show any list of legislation that he voted against, as Norris has done. In fact, I've seen various articles confirming that he supported the bailout.

Because anything on him paled into insignificance in comparison to the antics of Norris, McGuinness and Gallagher

maxer68

fishy fishy wrote: »

they couldn't see him behind the podium?? :D

I'd say Michael D will get it.

Sarkozy will be pleased

as will Bono:D

Pity he's just a tad on the mature side, but assuming he gets it, he'll do a good job.

Pride Fighter

anymore wrote: »

I will give him credit for that but then I have to penailsie him because his existing 3 PS pensions means that the private sector workers are already providing him with his own ' Bail Out'.

What utter nonsense. He's an ex public representative and ex-University lecturer. He paid into those pensions and as a TD he did not take any pensions while in office. He also said he will only draw down one of his pensions giving the rest back. The man gave 28 years public service as a University lecturer to UCG, 25 years in the Dail, 9 years in the Seanad. Who else has given that much public service to Ireland?

Lemlin

Pride Fighter wrote: »

What utter nonsense. He's an ex public representative and ex-University lecturer. He paid into those pensions and as a TD he did not take any pensions while in office. He also said he will only draw down one of his pensions giving the rest back. The man gave 28 years public service as a University lecturer to UCG, 25 years in the Dail, 9 years in the Seanad. Who else has given that much public service to Ireland?

What a saint. He only had his TD wage of 100k or so plus 68k in expenses to keep him warm at night.

Incidentally, how much is the one pension he is going to draw down worth?

minotour

Pride Fighter wrote: »

What utter nonsense. He's an ex public representative and ex-University lecturer. He paid into those pensions and as a TD he did not take any pensions while in office. He also said he will only draw down one of his pensions giving the rest back. The man gave 28 years public service as a University lecturer to UCG, 25 years in the Dail, 9 years in the Seanad. Who else has given that much public service to Ireland?

So if he paid into them, then who is he giving them back to? that dont not make no sense.

jaykay74

Lemlin wrote: »

What a saint. He only had his TD wage of 100k or so plus 68k in expenses to keep him warm at night.

Incidentally, how much is the one pension he is going to draw down worth?

The question of TD salaries, expenses & pensions are a collective issue not a Michael D Higgins issue. He was/is entitled to his salary, he was entitled to expenses & he is entitled to his pension.

Accepting brown envelopes are a personal issue and a stain on how our system works.

_Whimsical_

While I quite like and respect Michael D I have to say I've got no idea why he got such an easy ride. If its just because he wont sell papers then that's a pretty shocking indictment of our media and doesn't really explain why no one challenged him at all during the debates.

He did have questions that could have been thown at him, an example being his outspokenness on American issues including his widely known distaste for Republicanism (which in fairness most of us share here). However its quite likely a Republican will be the next president of the US and Micheal D has particularly been harping on about how a president needs to represent us abroad and garner the respect of other heads of state if we are to encourage their investment in Ireland. Is he going to come over all fawning and sweet on our behalf in the White House now? Will he be telling a Republican president that he didn't really mean his past outcries against his/her party affiliation. I think this is one of a few questions that would've been interesting to get an answer to.

r3nu4l

Lemlin wrote: »

What a saint. He only had his TD wage of 100k or so plus 68k in expenses to keep him warm at night.

Incidentally, how much is the one pension he is going to draw down worth?

Well if this is all you can drag up on him then compared with some of the others he's up against he pretty much is a saint. I'd expect Dana to start praying to him he's so saintly!!

Lemlin

jaykay74 wrote: »

The question of TD salaries, expenses & pensions are a collective issue not a Michael D Higgins issue. He was/is entitled to his salary, he was entitled to expenses & he is entitled to his pension.

Accepting brown envelopes are a personal issue and a stain on how our system works.

Do you really think he should be entitled to 68k in expenses?

Well I'd see claiming 68k in expenses, the second highest in the Dail that year, when you claim to act on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, as just as bad as accepting brown envelopes.

It's also been shown that he wrongly claimed expenses and was caught doing this so why didn't any of the media remind us of that story?

UDP

Lemlin wrote: »

Do you really think he should be entitled to 68k in expenses?

It depends, what were the expenses for?

jprender

Lemlin wrote: »

Well I'd see claiming 68k in expenses, ...., as just as bad as accepting brown envelopes.

That is just so wrong.

jaykay74

Lemlin wrote: »

Well I'd see claiming 68k in expenses, the second highest in the Dail that year, when you claim to act on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, as just as bad as accepting brown envelopes.

17k spread covers the top 30 (71k to 54k). His expenses were not much out of sync with the others. Fair removed from the stink of the envelope culture.

Dodgy expense claim, don't know anything about it but if it exists then he should answer that.

cosmicfart

Wallflower wrote: »

Because anything on him paled into insignificance in comparison to the antics of Norris, McGuinness and Gallagher

What about been an (inept) politician on the opposition side who, for whatever reason, along with the rest who are now in power.....did feck and could not see the disaster that has befallen our country. Sure give him the presidency for not doing anything really good or bad just getting his paycheck.

Pride Fighter

minotour wrote: »

So if he paid into them, then who is he giving them back to? that dont not make no sense.

He will give the money back to the state as they were state jobs he had.

UDP

jaykay74 wrote: »

17k spread covers the top 30 (71k to 54k). His expenses were not much out of sync with the others. Fair removed from the stink of the envelope culture.

Dodgy expense claim, don't know anything about it but if it exists then he should answer that.

and to add to this - Bertie Ahern had the lowest expenses claim in 2002. So if we are to use that to judge TDs then I think there is something wrong.

Min

Michael D has supported communist regimes.

He complained about Hamas being deemed a terrorist organisation by the EU.

He has anti-American views.

He supports Shell to sea.

The media left him alone on purpose.

prospect

I noticed this most on 'The Frontline' debate on Monday.

Gallagher was asked which way he would vote in the two constitutional referendums and he said he wouldn't say, to which he was met with loud 'boo-ing' from the audience.

Two minutes later Higgins gave the same response to the same question to total silence.

Go figure.

Liam Byrne

Min wrote: »

Michael D has supported communist regimes.

So ? Considering where those who supported out-and-out capitalism led us to, I don't see that as a bad thing.

Min wrote: »

He complained about Hamas being deemed a terrorist organisation by the EU.

I've seen this idea posted by a number of SF/IRA contributors to different sites, and I find it very ironic, given that they didn't see themselves as a terrorist organisation.

And just like SG's "envelope" comment was represented falsely by some as "brown envelope", I don't like second-hand info as it can be spun, even if the original comment was objectionable in itself. So I'd like to hear/see what he ACTUALLY said, so do you have a link to the original quote ?

Min wrote: »

He has anti-American views.

No. He objects to horrendous foreign policies such as the unjustified invasion of Iraq.

Min wrote: »

He supports Shell to sea.

In theory I do to, however I object to the tactics of the rent-a-mob gang up there, which is - or should be - a separate issue.

Pride Fighter

Min wrote: »

Michael D has supported communist regimes.

Like who? The Sandinista's in Nicaragua who overthrew an absolute butcher and as soon as they got in implemented a mass literacy programme, universal health care and gender equality. Also the US backed the Contra rebels against them who were no saints.

He complained about Hamas being deemed a terrorist organisation by the EU.

Again untrue, he believes there can be no peace without Hamas. Could there have been peace in Northern Ireland without the IRA and Loyalists paramilitaries? The answer is no. He is fighting for peace for the region.

He has anti-American views.

There is a difference between anti-Imperialist views and anti-American views. Michael D won the first MacBride peace prize for his work on international peace, and in that work he worked with many US senators and members of the house of representatives. If the US hated him so much how come 2 of Hollywoods biggest studios came and filmed Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan here creating hundreds of jobs in the film industry and thousands of temporary jobs. I've heard a false argument if he's elected President US company's will pull out which is complete baloney.

He supports Shell to sea.

He thinks we should tax shell more and would believe in protecting our environment.

The media left him alone on purpose.

Yet various sections of the media have criticised him for being too old for the office when some of our previous presidents were even older? Every candidate has had some negativity in the media and Michael D is no different.

ellinguistico

prospect wrote: »

I noticed this most on 'The Frontline' debate on Monday.

Gallagher was asked which way he would vote in the two constitutional referendums and he said he wouldn't say, to which he was met with loud 'boo-ing' from the audience.

Two minutes later Higgins gave the same response to the same question to total silence.

Go figure.

Re-watch. He answered.

fishy fishy

Min wrote: »

Michael D has supported communist regimes.

He complained about Hamas being deemed a terrorist organisation by the EU.

He has anti-American views.

He supports Shell to sea.

The media left him alone on purpose.

can you clarify the communist regimes in south america - you posted this in your other thread too but did not elaborate.

Min

Michael D Higgins spoke out in favour of the communists in Nicaragua, he is friends with Daniel Ortega who came to visit Higgins in Galway.
Ortega has been accused by his stepdaughter that Ortega sexually abused her, he was immune from prosecution as he was a member of parliament and then the timeframe for criminal proceedings had passed, very convenient, in the end the government made a settlement with the stepdaughter though Ortega continues to deny he sexually abused her.

Israel puts up a wall to keep people out of Israel who want to blow up Israelis and by stopping the suicide bombings in Israel we get Michael D doing this:



Israel's apartheid wall he say then he complains that his friends in Hamas were deemed terrorists by the EU:

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Several questions immediately arise from the Minister of State’s response. …Does he agree that the credibility of the European Union is badly damaged by, in the first instance, the clearing house decision that added Hamas to a proscribed list, with no accountability to this Parliament or any parliament in Europe, and, following that, its failure to recognise the result of the election, which was acknowledged as free and fair by several international bodies, including the Carter Centre? All we had from the EU was a mealy-mouthed statement expressing gratitude that no lives had been lost in the course of the election. It is absolutely absurd to suggest it is dealing with all the parties. What contact has the EU with Hamas?

We had all the work with Martin McGuinness and his support of terrorism, yet we have others who turn a blind eye to Michael D's support of terrorism by Palestinians and by his friend Yasser Arafat and by Hamas.

This is what the media has allowed to happen, a free ride for Michael D as if age was his biggest problem...

UDP

Min wrote: »

Israel puts up a wall to keep people out of Israel who want to blow up Israelis and by stopping the suicide bombings in Israel we get Michael D doing this:



Israel's apartheid wall he say then he complains that his friends in Hamas were deemed terrorists by the EU:

Talk about oversimplication of what is happening in Israel/Palestine. It is disgraceful what the israelis are getting away with and I commend Michael D for taking a stance.

Liam Byrne

Min wrote: »

We had all the work with Martin McGuinness and his support of terrorism, yet we have others who turn a blind eye to Michael D's support of terrorism by Palestinians and by his friend Yasser Arafat and by Hamas.

Nowhere near treating like with like, I'm afraid. Was Higgins ever a member of Hamas ?

Min

UDP wrote: »

Talk about oversimplication of what is happening in Israel/Palestine. It is disgraceful what the israelis are getting away with and I commend Michael D for taking a stance.

A wall that keeps suicide bombers out is wrong according to Michael D. What is the alternative measure Israel could have to stop suicide bombers, when Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel? Michael D is a man with no answers.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Nowhere near treating like with like, I'm afraid. Was Higgins ever a member of Hamas ?

No, but why did he has to complain about Hamas being made a proscribed organisation in the EU? When these people are terrorists. He is giving them support by his words and actions.

He would rather Israel had no wall and then would we hear him when people travelling on bus or eating in a restaurant are blown to pieces, no, he would continue to support the terrorists.

Jimoslimos

Min wrote: »

He would rather Israel had no wall and then would we hear him when people travelling on bus or eating in a restaurant are blown to pieces, no, he would continue to support the terrorists.

No, you don't get it. His and many others problem was the indiscriminate mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. Would you have the British army launching bombing raids and preventing free movement of Irish citizens because of IRA attacks in the UK?

Coillte_Bhoy

Min wrote: »

Michael D Higgins spoke out in favour of the communists in Nicaragua, he is friends with Daniel Ortega who came to visit Higgins in Galway.
Ortega has been accused by his stepdaughter that Ortega sexually abused her, he was immune from prosecution as he was a member of parliament and then the timeframe for criminal proceedings had passed, very convenient, in the end the government made a settlement with the stepdaughter though Ortega continues to deny he sexually abused her.

Israel puts up a wall to keep people out of Israel who want to blow up Israelis and by stopping the suicide bombings in Israel we get Michael D doing this:



Israel's apartheid wall he say then he complains that his friends in Hamas were deemed terrorists by the EU:



We had all the work with Martin McGuinness and his support of terrorism, yet we have others who turn a blind eye to Michael D's support of terrorism by Palestinians and by his friend Yasser Arafat and by Hamas.

This is what the media has allowed to happen, a free ride for Michael D as if age was his biggest problem...

The Sandinistas were not communists and in the first free and fair elections in Nicaraguan history after the revolution won an overwhelming majority.

Liam Byrne

Min wrote: »

No, but why did he has to complain about Hamas being made a proscribed organisation in the EU? When these people are terrorists. He is giving them support by his words and actions.

Again, check closer to home. Some people on here pretend that the IRA & McGun weren't terrorists.

The fact remains that MDH is the best of a bad lot.

Jeboa Safari

Min wrote: »

He supports Shell to sea.

He was asked by Pat Kenny if he still supports shell to sea, but he weaseled out by saying he'll be president in a few weeks so couldn't possibly answer

Min

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, you don't get it. His and many others problem was the indiscriminate mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. Would you have the British army launching bombing raids and preventing free movement of Irish citizens because of IRA attacks in the UK?

So the Palestinians are very stupid people? I mean they send thousands of rockets into Israel in the hope they murder someone and then expect not to have the Israeli state respond?
The Irish government never were involved in firing rockets into the UK. The Irish government never had the destruction of the UK as part of its ideals.
it is disgusting how some people try and justify what the Palestinians do, why do they give reason for Israel to attack them?

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

The Sandinistas were not communists and in the first free and fair elections in Nicaraguan history after the revolution won an overwhelming majority.

They were getting support from communists regimes which lead to the US supporting the contras.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Again, check closer to home. Some people on here pretend that the IRA & McGun weren't terrorists.

The fact remains that MDH is the best of a bad lot.

They were terrorists and the fact remains Michael D Higgins spoke up and questioned why Hamas were listed as a terrorist organisation in the EU.
I have no problem calling the IRA terrorists but Michael D Higgins should not be getting a free ride simply due to some being anti-Israel when he is easy on Palestinian terrorists. He spoke out in favour of Yasser Arafat, when his PLO group were involved in suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

He got no vote from me. It will be an embarrassment if Michael D Higgins is our next president.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

He was asked by Pat Kenny if he still supports shell to sea, but he weaseled out by saying he'll be president in a few weeks so couldn't possibly answer

Yeah I heard that, Pat was the only one to give him a proper interview. Then journalists on the show on Monday admitted they went easy on him.

dav3

Min wrote: »

He got no vote from me. It will be an embarrassment if Michael D Higgins is our next president.

I'm not sure it's possible to give him a no vote...unless you spoiled your vote?

Do you get embarrassed easily?

fishy fishy

Min wrote: »

Michael D Higgins spoke out in favour of the communists in Nicaragua, he is friends with Daniel Ortega who came to visit Higgins in Galway.
Ortega has been accused by his stepdaughter that Ortega sexually abused her, he was immune from prosecution as he was a member of parliament and then the timeframe for criminal proceedings had passed, very convenient, in the end the government made a settlement with the stepdaughter though Ortega continues to deny he sexually abused her.

Israel puts up a wall to keep people out of Israel who want to blow up Israelis and by stopping the suicide bombings in Israel we get Michael D doing this:



Israel's apartheid wall he say then he complains that his friends in Hamas were deemed terrorists by the EU:



We had all the work with Martin McGuinness and his support of terrorism, yet we have others who turn a blind eye to Michael D's support of terrorism by Palestinians and by his friend Yasser Arafat and by Hamas.

This is what the media has allowed to happen, a free ride for Michael D as if age was his biggest problem...

no offence but you are either very very young or you should try and educate yourself a little better on what is going on in the world.

fishy fishy

Min wrote: »

So the Palestinians are very stupid people? I mean they send thousands of rockets into Israel in the hope they murder someone and then expect not to have the Israeli state respond?
The Irish government never were involved in firing rockets into the UK. The Irish government never had the destruction of the UK as part of its ideals.
it is disgusting how some people try and justify what the Palestinians do, why do they give reason for Israel to attack them?






They were getting support from communists regimes which lead to the US supporting the contras.



They were terrorists and the fact remains Michael D Higgins spoke up and questioned why Hamas were listed as a terrorist organisation in the EU.
I have no problem calling the IRA terrorists but Michael D Higgins should not be getting a free ride simply due to some being anti-Israel when he is easy on Palestinian terrorists. He spoke out in favour of Yasser Arafat, when his PLO group were involved in suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

He got no vote from me. It will be an embarrassment if Michael D Higgins is our next president.




Yeah I heard that, Pat was the only one to give him a proper interview. Then journalists on the show on Monday admitted they went easy on him.

id say get ready to be embarrassed then and as for a "no" vote for MIchael D - did you get a different voting card than the rest of the country. LOL

MrJoeSoap

Lemlin wrote: »

In fact, I've seen various articles confirming that he supported the bailout.

I'd like to see the links for these articles, if you have them handy.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

He was one of only 18 Dail TD's to vote against the bailout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dqw4XNGIks

Snakeblood wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dqw4XNGIks
Speaking, and later voting against the bailout.

Funny how this point became lost in the crossfire...

Jeboa Safari

He was strongly against taxi deregulation, calling it disastrous, supporting the previous uncompetitive situation instead of something that would increase supply and lower cost for people

Coillte_Bhoy

Min wrote: »

They were getting support from communists regimes which lead to the US supporting the contras.

So what? they were a democratically elected Govt. And if they didnt have to face up to a belligerent and powerful nieghbour, the US, they might not have had to look to 'communist' countries for support.

Liam Byrne

Min wrote:

They were terrorists and the fact remains Michael D Higgins spoke up and questioned why Hamas were listed as a terrorist organisation in the EU.
I have no problem calling the IRA terrorists

So you're against terrorists and those speaking up for them, and against abuse of children and those who are friends with them ?

Do I take it that you were therefore 100% consistent with your interpretation and avoided voting for either Norris or McGun ?

Pride Fighter

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

He was strongly against taxi deregulation, calling it disastrous, supporting the previous uncompetitive situation instead of something that would increase supply and lower cost for people

Turns out he was right there,taxi deregulation has been a disaster.

Carlos Orange

Min wrote: »

A wall that keeps suicide bombers out is wrong according to Michael D. What is the alternative measure Israel could have to stop suicide bombers, when Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel? Michael D is a man with no answers.
.

I wonder if people would have less issues with the wall if they built it at the border instead of building it down the middle of someone elses country.

Jimoslimos

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

He was strongly against taxi deregulation, calling it disastrous, supporting the previous uncompetitive situation instead of something that would increase supply and lower cost for people

I don't agree with every decision any single politician has made - but for me it sure as hell beats sitting on the fence and forming no opinion for fear of losing votes.

Ellis Dee

He's an all-round decent sort, a large-calibre intellectual and an honest man. I always vote Sinn Fein, but I gave Michael D. my number 2 and am sure it will help him get in.:D

Good luck to him. And thanks to Martin McGuinness for lamping that phoney stealth Fianna Failer Gallager in the debate the other evening and helping avert what would have been a disaster for our country.;);)

Now Martin can go back to his more important job in the North and know that Michael D. will do at worst a passable job in the Presidency.:)

Jimoslimos

Min wrote: »

So the Palestinians are very stupid people? I mean they send thousands of rockets into Israel in the hope they murder someone and then expect not to have the Israeli state respond?

Can you supply the evidence showing every Palestinian man, woman and child firing rockets at Israeli settlement? If not, please refrain from making wild accusations?

Bluntly - pics or GTFO

MrJoeSoap

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I always vote Sinn Fein...

Now Martin can go back to his more important job in the North

If it is more important, why did he give it up to come down here and run for President?