So Michael D IS running again!

realdanbreen

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

pixelburp

realdanbreen wrote: »

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

Stats on that please: I seriously doubt people en masse voted purely on his decision to run a single term, versus the broadly mediocre to suspect crowd of other candidates. That Sean Gallagher was a serious contender before his gaff about 'brown envelopes' said a lot about the overall standard.

The status of President has barely any executive power, it's a purely diplomatic, aspirational & ambassadorial role - so in that respect Higgins has done Ireland proud and would be happy for him to continue.

realdanbreen

pixelburp wrote: »

Stats on that please: I seriously doubt people en masse voted purely on his decision to run a single term, versus the broadly mediocre to suspect crowd of other candidates. That Sean Gallagher was a serious contender before his gaff about 'brown envelopes' said a lot about the overall standard.

The status of President has barely any executive power, it's a purely diplomatic, aspirational & ambassadorial role - so in that respect Higgins has done Ireland proud and would be happy for him to continue.

I never said people voted for him en masse and I never said anything about executive power. He said one term, now he's going again, therefore he lied or is there another word for it?

Sam Russell

Hesh's Umpire wrote: »

Correct. He lied his way into many votes on that basis. He's just another dishonest politician.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I never said people voted for him en masse and I never said anything about executive power. He said one term, now he's going again, therefore he lied or is there another word for it?

He said he would only go one term, but that was not central to his campaign but was incidental to it.

He should be allowed to alter his intentions - maybe he has been inundated with requests to go a second term.

He had an overwhelming vote when he was elected and will get another overwhelming mandate to retain his office.

The wannabe candidates are trying to grandstand to raise the non-existent profiles in the hope of getting a nomination.

pixelburp

realdanbreen wrote: »

I never said people voted for him en masse and I never said anything about executive power. He said one term, now he's going again, therefore he lied or is there another word for it?

You literally said:

Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

The inference seemed clear enough, you're imply he somehow deceived voters who only voted for him because of a promise to serve a single term. And if you don't think people en-masse voted, then why even bring it up as a rod to beat him with?

Beyond his age being a negative - to which I'd be a little reluctant myself - do you feel he has done a bad job as president?

Sam Russell

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Fupp him, the president who goes on about a social Europe and yet he aided the blue shirts by signing the water bill which would have heaped more financial hardship on people.

The bill was constitutional so he signed it into law. What else could he do?

L1011

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Fupp him, the president who goes on about a social Europe and yet he aided the blue shirts by signing the water bill which would have heaped more financial hardship on people.

You don't understand the Constitution.

pixelburp

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Fupp him, the president who goes on about a social Europe and yet he aided the blue shirts by signing the water bill which would have heaped more financial hardship on people.

Constitutional experts can confirm or deny this, but our President has no executive powers to block or refuse to sign a bill. He can only refer it to lawyers if he suspects its unconstitutional. This isn't America.

It's all well and good going "rhubarb rhubarb, bloody politicians", and god knows there's enough reason to hold elected officials to account - but it helps to at least understand the limits and ceilings of those in power.

In fact if I recall , Higgins made this point abundantly clear in the TV debates - having to correct about 2 or 3 pie-in-the-sky candidates who thought they could stand on the soapbox and waffle on about performing all sorts of populist things. So to the OP what I'd say persuaded people was a candidate who understood the Constitution (again, correct me if I'm wrong)

WoollyRedHat

I’m going file this into the I ‘don’t give a damn’ cabinet. He’s acted statesmanlike in what is largely a ceremonial role. If people really don’t want him, vote for somebody else.. not like he defacto gets it. I do think he should have a big party and invite everyone if he wins 2nd term though.. except people from Cavan.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more ranting please. This is a forum for serious discussion.

James Brown

I'm glad. He's the best president we've had IMO. There is generally an element of ego and novelty for many running, however he's proved himself to be a great ambassador.

Johnnycanyon

Sam Russell wrote: »

The bill was constitutional so he signed it into law. What else could he do?

Refer it to the Supreme Court .

Johnnycanyon

L1011 wrote: »

You don't understand the Constitution.

You are obviously not au fait with the Constitution either... letter asked the President to invoke Article 26, which allows the President – after consulting the Council of State – to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

Hotblack Desiato

'Liar' :rolleyes: ? Not if that was his intention at the time. People are allowed to change their point of view. We will see if voters who supported Higgins the first time around will change their mind or not. I expect him to win easily against any possible candidate.

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

You are obviously not au fait with the Constitution either... letter asked the President to invoke Article 26, which allows the President – after consulting the Council of State – to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

So you're saying that the president should refer a bill which is clearly constitutional to the Supreme Court, the SC proclaims it constitutional and then the president is obliged to sign it into law

Apart from wasting everyone's time and money, what exactly has that achieved? (apart from wasting everyone's time and money being some sort of populist leftist objective in itself...)

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Why do people think he's a great president?

James Brown

8j1w94vbmnlt05 wrote: »

Why do people think he's a great president?

Represents the country well. Is well spoken and knowledgeable on many issues.

Here's a scare; Sean Gallagher may be looking to run again. He's contacted local councils telling them how they should go about nominations.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sean-gallagher-encourages-councils-to-nominate-presidential-candidates-854269.html

L1011

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

You are obviously not au fait with the Constitution either... letter asked the President to invoke Article 26, which allows the President – after consulting the Council of State – to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

And when found to be constitutional, which it inevitably would have been (and rapidly), he would have had to sign it in to law. So you wanted him to perform a populist waste of money for no reason?

Also, one letter may have requested the (pointless) referral. There were large blocs calling for a refusal to sign at all as if that was a power he held.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Does anybody remember anything exceptional he said or did?

James Brown

8j1w94vbmnlt05 wrote: »

Does anybody remember anything exceptional he said or did?

"Gender equality is a right, not a gift"

“We must never let down our guard, and confront, not just violence, but prejudice and disrespect wherever it arises."

oscarBravo

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Refer it to the Supreme Court .

Only if he thought it was unconstitutional, which it isn't.

For Forks Sake

The name of Joan Freeman keeps getting bandied about (she founded Pieta House and is currently in the Senate).

I'm sure the above is how she will be introduced - she's the sister of Theresa Lowe and aunt of Maria Stein of the Iona Institute.

Unsurprisingly Mattie McGrath seems to be the one pushing her nomination

James Brown

For Forks Sake wrote: »

The name of Joan Freeman keeps getting bandied about (she founded Pieta House and is currently in the Senate).

I'm sure the above is how she will be introduced - she's also an Iona Institute member, sister of Theresa Lowe and aunt of Maria Stein of the same parish.

Unsurprisingly Mattie McGrath seems to be the one pushing her nomination

Where in the world...did she spring from?

L1011

Assuming FG/FF/SF/Labour sit out any Oireachtas noms, that leaves 34 Dail and 16 Senate votes for nominations - going to be difficult to get 1 let alone 2 out of that. Of course SF may still nominate someone but if they nominate one of their own that basically slams the door on Craughwell via that route

After the clowncar last time out I could see parties trying to sit on their councillors to stop that route - last time there didn't seem to be any real efforts that way and indeed Labour councillors were asked to assist in getting Norris nominated (and they had a much higher % of the total too) Theres, what, five councils in the country that don't have a clear FF+FG majority? And zero where FF+FG+SF isn't a strong majority.

GarIT

L1011 wrote: »

getting Norris nominated

I would be sickened if he got elected.

I don't particularly like Michael D. Higgins, but I'd pick him over Norris by a mile.

L1011

Just actually remembered there are less qualifying councils than in 2011 also - 31 rather than 34. If they do nominate and someone 'does a Davis' and keeps getting nominations after they had the 5 that could become significant.

touts

Let him stand but let him be opposed. He has returned the presidency to the old man sitting in the park. Compared to the likes of Mary Robinson and Mary Mcaleese he has don't little or nothing. An election will expose that.

And imagine if someone as far on the right wing of the political spectrum broke his promise not to run again and was looking to be reappointed unopposed for another 7 years. The media would be screaming about fascist dictatorship and there would be a large angry mob outside the Aras tonight led by the more vocal members of our Dail. But because he is a leftist quasi-communist the media and mob don't want to call it what it is. Undemocratic.

Let there be a proper election and let him stand on his paltry record. I won't vote for him.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Matt Barrett wrote:

"Gender equality is a right, not a gift"

Matt Barrett wrote:

“We must never let down our guard, and confront, not just violence, but prejudice and disrespect wherever it arises."

Are these statements really original? Has he said or did anything that would stand him out from anyone else?

downwesht

They are like a couple of drunks that won't leave the bar at closing time........

Has a serving president ever died?

GarIT

touts wrote: »

Let him stand but let him be opposed. He has returned the presidency to the old man sitting in the park. Compared to the likes of Mary Robinson and Mary Mcaleese he has don't little or nothing. An election will expose that.

And imagine if someone as far on the right wing of the political spectrum broke his promise not to run again and was looking to be reappointed unopposed for another 7 years. The media would be screaming about fascist dictatorship and there would be a large angry mob outside the Aras tonight led by the more vocal members of our Dail. But because he is a leftist quasi-communist the media and mob don't want to call it what it is. Undemocratic.

Let there be a proper election and let him stand on his paltry record. I won't vote for him.

You mean because he was popular people want him to get in again but if he was unpopular people wouldn't, makes sense to me.

TomOnBoard

I'm delighted that we're having an election and that MDH is running. I hope there's lots of candidates. Proper democracy at work is a truly great thing!!

L1011

bubblypop wrote: »

Has a serving president ever died?

Erskine Childers. Initially FF wanted to replace him with his wife without an election, in the end he got replaced by Cearbhall O'Dalaigh (without an election) who resigned and was replaced by Hillery (without an election!). Hillery served 14 years without ever being voted in by the public.

O'Dalaigh would have died in office had he not resigned and of course Lenihan and McGuinness also died before the term they ran for expired.

badtoro

I hope a decent candidate will run against him.

Etc

badtoro wrote: »

I hope a decent candidate will run against him.

Remember 2011 ?

Here's who he was up against...

Sean Gallagher
Martin McGuinness
Gay Mitchell
David Norris
Dana Rosemary Scanlon
Mary Davis.

The only name I've heard bandied so far has been Miriam O'Callaghan, I may have missed others but reflecting back on the last list of candidates who would be better and why ?

touts

L1011 wrote: »

Erskine Childers. Initially FF wanted to replace him with his wife without an election, in the end he got replaced by Cearbhall O'Dalaigh (without an election) who resigned and was replaced by Hillery (without an election!). Hillery served 14 years without ever being voted in by the public.

O'Dalaigh would have died in office had he not resigned and of course Lenihan and McGuinness also died before the term they ran for expired.

So does the clock restart on the death of the president and they can serve 14 years without an election? Does that mean if Michael D somehow lasts another 6 years and 11 months they could just pop Enda Kenny in his place and we wouldn't get to vote for 28 years.

L1011

touts wrote: »

So does the clock restart on the death of the president and they can serve 14 years without an election? Does that mean if Michael D somehow lasts another 6 years and 11 months they could just pop Enda Kenny in his place and we wouldn't get to vote for 28 years.

It resets on them leaving office for any reason - death, resignation or timing out. Imprisonment for >6 months probably also as I believe normal Oireachtas rules apply.

However, as soon as it resets anyone who can get nominated can run - its not that there can't be an election. There were mutterings about nominating people against O'Dalaigh and Hillery and also Norris and Fergus Finlay discussed running against McAleese in 2004.

If the parties agree a unified candidate and nobody can get through the council route we could never have an election again. It probably looked quite like that coming up to 1990 when there'd been 3 different holders since the last election!

We don't have anything like the US system of having a VP to replace without an election, there is always the potential for an election when a President leaves office

Happy4all

bubblypop wrote: »

Has a serving president ever died?

No. Guarantees him another 7 years living

James Brown

8j1w94vbmnlt05 wrote: »

Are these statements really original? Has he said or did anything that would stand him out from anyone else?

"I'm the President"?
Here, Google. You asked had he done, said anything. He went to the states, but so did I...so not sure what you're looking for.

ligerdub

pixelburp wrote:

The inference seemed clear enough, you're imply he somehow deceived voters who only voted for him because of a promise to serve a single term. And if you don't think people en-masse voted, then why even bring it up as a rod to beat him with?

I think it's an entirely valid point to make, especially considering how often presidential terms are entered unopposed/without an election.

If it wasn't seen as relevant to how somebody may vote then he and the others wouldn't have been asked if they planned on being a one term President.

It's largely unsuitable to put a figure on the % of people who voted for him on the basis of him being a one term only guy (because that's not what we were asked on the ballot paper). It's probably not significant in this case anyway as from what I can remember Higgins won quite easily. In some cases though even a 1% shift due to an issue like this could sway an election, so it's not immaterial.

I don't get this take of "who cares? It's a ceremonial and insignificant role." "I like him so let him carry on" and "people are chirping up so they can stand against him" and the likes. It's a role of great significance to the nation and people should have the right to contest an election.

I'll probably vote for him again myself but let's see a contest here, and let's not bat away any contenders because a vote might be seen as an inconvenience to those who don't want to get off their arse to vote.

badtoro

Etc wrote: »

Remember 2011 ?

Here's who he was up against...

Sean Gallagher
Martin McGuinness
Gay Mitchell
David Norris
Dana Rosemary Scanlon
Mary Davis.

The only name I've heard bandied so far has been Miriam O'Callaghan, I may have missed others but reflecting back on the last list of candidates who would be better and why ?

Miriam isn't running last I heard, thankfully. I don't have a prefered person in mind, I don't like our current president due to a past action. Theresa Lowes sister has been mentioned, but how about Theresa Lowe herself as a wildcard. She's intelligent and photogenic which doesn't hurt, and she's a dinger at geography as well as being a former TV personlity and now barrister.

Roger_007

Most people that I know don't give a hoot who the president is, as long as they are ok at the 'meet and greet' stuff and don't embarrass us on the world stage. The role is largely ceremonial anyway with no executive power.
I don't know why some posters seem to think that Higgins has no right to stand again having indicated that he wouldn't at the last election. He is perfectly entitled to change his mind. In a democracy anyone who is legally eligible to stand for any elected office can do so.

gandalf

The guy is a figure head with no power. He's our version of the Queen without the bling.

Given the non-candidates who have revealed themselves any election would be a waste of time and resources. Also if Sean Gallagher is whinging then Michael D is doing something right.

Sam Russell

It is ironic that Mary Lou McDonnald is looking for an election as that would be democratic - just as SF elected their president the last two times.

No, wait ......

Bellerstring

Everone says Mickey D has done us proud and performed his duties as President with absolute excellence.
How could he not?
Going to sports events, having meet & greets, cutting ribbons, laying wreaths, shaking hands..
When was the last time we had a President were most people said " They're a really bad/ordinary President".
They all carried out their duties with dignity and aplomb.
He should be on his way.
My personal choice would be David Norris, but he said he wouldn't run (again)

L1011

Bellerstring wrote: »

When was the last time we had a President were most people said " They're a really bad/ordinary President".

O'Dalaigh didn't justify the comment that led him to resign but he wasn't great; Hillery was extremely bland but it suited the era.

Rjd2

Bellerstring wrote: »

Everone says Mickey D has done us proud and performed his duties as President with absolute excellence.
How could he not?
Going to sports events, having meet & greets, cutting ribbons, laying wreaths, shaking hands..
When was the last time we had a President were most people said " They're a really bad/ordinary President".
They all carried out their duties with dignity and aplomb.
He should be on his way.
My personal choice would be David Norris, but he said he wouldn't run (again)

Roger_007 wrote: »

Most people that I know don't give a hoot who the president is, as long as they are ok at the 'meet and greet' stuff and don't embarrass us on the world stage. The role is largely ceremonial anyway with no executive power.
I don't know why some posters seem to think that Higgins has no right to stand again having indicated that he wouldn't at the last election. He is perfectly entitled to change his mind. In a democracy anyone who is legally eligible to stand for any elected office can do so.

Actually think both of those posts have serious merit. I agree I don't care who the president is nor does any of my social circle and if Michael D gets another term it doesn't bother me whatsoever, but those who are putting him on a pedestal need to calm down.Its a relatively easy job which you can't really balls up. Heck if Trump was our president he wouldn't be that much of a disaster:D

GarIT

Bellerstring wrote: »

My personal choice would be David Norris, but he said he wouldn't run (again)

Even after he tried to get a convicted paedophile released from prison by pretending he was acting in an official capacity?

David Norris is no better than any of the priests that stood by while they knew what was going on and said nothing in my opinion.

I'm just reading up more on him now, in 2011 he said he wanted to use the presidency as a platform to tackle homophobia around the world and confront leaders of regimes that oppress gay people. I'm totally against that. The responsibility of our president is to make us look good not to start verbal fights with non-neutral countries. I much prefer the presidential approach of being peaceful and friends with everyone or at least just say nothing and not "call out" people like Putin and whoever rules Saudi Arabia like Norris wanted to.

jimmycrackcorm

pixelburp wrote:

The status of President has barely any executive power, it's a purely diplomatic, aspirational & ambassadorial role - so in that respect Higgins has done Ireland proud and would be happy for him to continue.

I'd like to have a choice though. In many respects he reminds me of Hillary.

Matt Barrett wrote:

I'm glad. He's the best president we've had IMO. There is generally an element of ego and novelty for many running, however he's proved himself to be a great ambassador.

I think Mary Robinson was a far better president.

JustAThought

This country is taking giant steps backwards . An utterly depressing backward leap. Just what we need - another self important failed politician engorged with taxpayers wealth and privelige who delivers nothing but costs millions. The most nauseauting champagne socialist. 36 rider motorbike escorts? A black hole of entitlement and absolute waste - while casually signing away the rights of the people,the ownership of water and facilitating the taxi service in the med courtesy of the army while pensioners lie terrified in their beds of criminal gangs let run amock tgroughout the country while the rest of the army sits on their arses because noone has the balls to use them. This same man declares himself the commander in chief of the army and armed forces at privileged showcase events but treats law abiding irish citizens with derision by his apathy and unwillingness to make a decision to.improve the lives of our countrymen and law abiding citizens. What use is he - a fridge magnet would do as much if it could speak..

realdanbreen

pixelburp wrote: »

Beyond his age being a negative - to which I'd be a little reluctant myself - do you feel he has done a bad job as president?

Whether he has done a good or bad job is immaterial to the point I was making, but of course you know that full well.
With all the advisors, aides, PA's, staff etc it is a job that is pretty hard to balls up. By going back on his promise during the last election he has shown that despite all the rawmations and poetry quoting and the breaking into Irish and the pontification that he goes on with he is still just another cute hoor.

pixelburp

realdanbreen wrote: »

Whether he has done a good or bad job is immaterial to the point I was making, but of course you know that full well.

With all the advisors, aides, PA's, staff etc it is a job that is pretty hard to balls up. By going back on his promise during the last election he has shown that despite all the rawmations and poetry quoting and the breaking into Irish and the pontification that he goes on with he is still just another cute hoor.

Dunno what the defensive snark is for tbh; the point you seemed to be making was that "many"only voted for him because he said he'd run a single term - it's not an unreasonable ask to know where you got that stat. Citations do tend to be preferred on this forum. Was that your reasoning for voting for him? Maybe most voted for him because he was the best of a bad batch; let's not forget he was up against the likes of Gay Mitchell and Sean Gallagher.

Well from what I recall of the 2011 debates, Higgins' age constantly came up as challenge, which IIRC the Pat Kenny TV debate correctly, was where he spoke his decision to run for a single term. As mandates go, it's hardly "build a wall", or "scrap tuition fees" level of failed promises now is it? Be fair. Is he not allowed change his mind, having served his 7 years and figured that hey, there's life in the old dog yet.

I mean honestly I'm not sure what people exactly WANT from a President - it's a ceremonial role to fly around the world and make happy diplomacy, keep Ireland's presence on the world stage vaguely relevant. It has no executive power, so what else do you do with it?

I'd rather someone at least eloquent and dignified representing Ireland - hell to be really factitious, his love of poetry and 'harmless pixie grandad' appearnce has generally gone down well - and given the election only ever seemed to be an excuse to remind folks that Dana was still around, I'm not going to pillory a man for changing his mind.