eastwest wrote: » That's not an issue, believe me. It was reasonable for him not to commit to one term at the time and to change his mind when he was comfortable with giving all.his time to the job. This issue was raised early on in the campaign by a few anti-higgins people but it never got traction, and it won't. Most of them realise that now and have given up this line of argument.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The Dragons are not politicians at all, they are rank amateurs at this stuff. They haven't a snowball's chance in hell unless Higgins self destructs somehow. I will vote: 1. Higgins 2. Freeman (despite her possible ultracatholic links) 3. Ni Riada (despite her thinking SF is a good idea) 4. Casey (marketing droid) 5. Duffy (Hunting? Seriously?) 6. Gallagher (back under your rock, bagman).
Zubeneschamali wrote: » 2. Freeman (despite her possible ultracatholic links) 3. Ni Riada (despite her thinking SF is a good idea) 4. Casey (marketing droid) 5. Duffy (Hunting? Seriously?) 6. Gallagher (back under your rock, bagman).
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » None of the above is worthy of a preference, IMHO and ideally none of them would get their expenses back.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Zubeneschamali wrote: » The Dragons are not politicians at all, they are rank amateurs at this stuff. They haven't a snowball's chance in hell unless Higgins self destructs somehow. I will vote: 1. Higgins 2. Freeman (despite her possible ultracatholic links) 3. Ni Riada (despite her thinking SF is a good idea) 4. Casey (marketing droid) 5. Duffy (Hunting? Seriously?) 6. Gallagher (back under your rock, bagman). I'm not one to quote Miriam Lord too often but she is right when she says that 'Michael D strong on vision guff - but it is of the highest quality'. All presidents have done this 'vision' speak and it is part of the job description and nobody matches Higgins at it in my opinion, such is his intelligence and scholarly understanding of our culture and society. As you say, it is his to lose.
Hurrache wrote: » The 'debate' is on RTE Radio 1 news at the moment. Gallagher still sticking with being petulant sending in a statement that he'll only do debates in which all candidates are present and having a dig at RTE.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » I'm not sure who his voter base is on his platform of being anti-RTÉ; this seems to be his only issue in his Presidential bid.
BarryD2 wrote: » It's a big axe that needs to be ground. Heard him being interviewed yesterday and he was asked several times where he'd been in the last seven years and what he was up to. He couldn't answer it coherently except to say that he was involved in family matters. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's a bit much to just roll up after 7 years and put the name down again, with little or nothing of public substance in between.
Hurrache wrote: » Well watch Higgins's odds drop through the floor after this spectacle.
“I have no difficulty in constructing a formal statement that can live within the Constitution and at the same time accept the independence of the president whoever he or she is,” he said of the allowance which has been available since 1938, and at is present level of €317,000 since 1998.... Asked about comments by Senator Gerard Craughwell that he stayed in suite at a luxury hotel in Switzerland this year , costing more than €3,000 per night, the President maintained he had never asked to stay in a particular hotel. “The arrangement for the President and where he stays are made by the Department of Foreign Affairs without consultation. “I have never asked to stay in a particular hotel. I have stayed in hostels and stayed in tents and with Concern in Somalia. “It is a question I never ask. I don’t really think… about all of that when I do go abroad. “The ambassador and the host country are involved and then there are those who have security concerns,” he said.... “We had a conversation. There were a few things we discussed. When that was finished I left the room under my own volition. “She was then interviewed by a senior garda. She was an unemployed person. I wished her well. That’s how it should be.” Asking himself about Mr Casey’s charge it was a stunt, he said: “Maybe that candidate is not too long back from America.”https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/higgins-defends-%C3%A1ras-allowances-as-he-launches-re-election-bid-1.3642332
VinLieger wrote: » Especially considering the monumental issues that the country has passed by referendum in those 7 years and the big social issues still ongoing like housing. He didnt need to be active everyday, but his complete and utter absence from any political discourse on these huge issues is pretty damning
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Of the four debating today, Duffy came across the best - not setting the world alight, but generally seemed the steadiest in terms of his pitch.
marieholmfan wrote: » Freeman is a perfectly reasonable candidate.
The senator and Pieta House founder spoke at the National Novena in Knock in 2015 and recounted a visit to the shrine as a teenager. "One of the first times I came here was when I was 16 and I had eczema on my hands. They were very, very bad. They were so bad that if I flexed them at all my skin would burst open and I placed my hands on the wall here in Knock on the shrine and I've never had eczema again," she said, to applause. "I'm telling you that was because behind that cure was faith. It was the foundation of belief of divine intervention and it became the cornerstone of the next 40 years of my life."
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » 'Knock cured my eczema,' says presidential hopeful Joan Freeman
pixelburp wrote: » It's a sorry bunch of candidates, and reflects poorly on the engagement of Irish politics that someone of substance or decency can't give Higgins a fair run for his money. Maybe Higgins' stature and popularity scared away the serious candidates, who knows. It's funny how there was a much animated debate over the continued existence of the Seanad (followed by a empty promise for reform), yet the subject of the President hasn't really gained as much traction. I am suddenly wondering if we should do away with the role completely, move the small amount of legislative power over to some existing branch of government. I genuinely like Higgins, and think he has performed his duties well and with the kind of decorum a ceremonial role demands. But that's kinda it: the role is ceremonial, doesn't seem to hold any great appeal in the hearts of politicians of any stripe, and feels increasingly redundant.
pixelburp wrote: » the role is ceremonial, doesn't seem to hold any great appeal in the hearts of politicians of any stripe, and feels increasingly redundant.
pixelburp wrote: » I am suddenly wondering if we should do away with the role completely, move the small amount of legislative power over to some existing branch of government.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » The Peace Corps idea, in fairness, has its merits, but would be up to Foreign Affairs to establish.
And does anyone think some of these are using this election as a profile raiser for 7 years time?
Matt Barrett wrote: » I think we need a national representative removed from day to day politics. It's an ambassadorial role.
