Zubeneschamali wrote: » YOU would rather? I thought neither yourself nor happyman were affiliated with SF?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Then why pick a relative unknown using that criteria you posted when there are many more who fit the criteria, with a higher profile? Doesn't make any sense from a party which is fairly astute at these kind of things.
blanch152 wrote: » There aren't that many who fit the criteria. So many of them have skeletons in the closet, or infamous relations or have been too close to Adams in the past. Of course, the other criterion we haven't mentioned is that the candidate has to be expendable in the sense that if elected President, they won't be needed again. That rules out the young tyros in Sinn Fein like Doherty and McDonald who have other ambitions and all of the older ones have baggage. So no baggage, young, personable, electable to popular positions and expendable. Can't see anyone else other than Ni Riadh. Caoimhin was another possibility but the slightly unhinged grandad with a beard probably didn't make the poll numbers.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It's always the grand sinister conspiracy with you. Yeh, McGuinness was 'expendable' and wasn't needed again. Do you ever read what you write?
blanch152 wrote: » No grand old conspiracy. Gay Mitchell was expendable. Patrick Hillery was expendable. Brian Lenihan Sr. was expendable. Michael D. Higgins was expendable. None of them were needed by their political parties in the medium term, hence they were suitable Presidential candidates. I am just applying the same principle to Sinn Fein. The difference for them is that the older unneeded politicians - Ferris, Ellis, O'Snodaigh, Quinlivan, Adams - are unelectable as President, and many of the younger ones - Doherty, McDonald, O'Reilly, O'Broin etc - are either too ambitious or are needed to hold down Dail seats. Perhaps you could give me an example of a suitable candidate that Sinn Fein overlooked given you have claimed that "there are many more who fit the criteria, with a higher profile".
FrancieBrady wrote: » You are talking about candidates put forward by parties who seen the Aras as a reward. And no, I don't want to play 'go down the rabbit hole with blanch' by naming candidates for you to rubbish.
blanch152 wrote: » Look, you posted this: All I am asking is for some examples of what you were talking about.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And I said, No, I don't want to play your game. If you don't think there are more high profile members of SF well then I think you may have been living under a rock. You were probably the first to find and post what you thought was some dirt on this candidate. You will just do the same and we will be down that rabbit hole again. Big yawn to that.
blanch152 wrote: » Of course, there are more high profile members of SF, but none of them fit the profile of a Presidency candidate as I set out.
FrancieBrady wrote: » blanch152 wrote: » Look, you posted this: All I am asking is for some examples of what you were talking about. And I said, No, I don't want to play your game. If you don't think there are more high profile members of SF well then I think you may have been living under a rock. You were probably the first to find and post what you thought was some dirt on this candidate. You will just do the same and we will be down that rabbit hole again. Big yawn to that.
Alan_P wrote: » SF is fairly astute at there things ? When did that happen ? Perhaps in their own perception, I don't share it. Nevertheless, it is the case that this is the first significant political judgement SF's current leader has made, and it seems to be backfiring badly. More experienced party leaders, like Varadkar and Martin, looked at the situation and decided not to run a candidate ("Only Daniel O'Donnell could beat Michael D"). .I suspect they're not remotely surprised he's polling at 70%.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Plus you'd think MDH would be a president SF could row in behind - 'soft' republican, leftie, gaeilgeoir - as much as any 'establishment' politician I can think of really. It's a bit of a conundrum: why were they so keen to force a competition unless they thought they could make a serious impact on the race, if not actually win it? And if they were serious about that, why did they go with such a low-key candidate? If they genuinely believed Ni Riada would really resonate with the the public once they got to know her, that shows poor judgement on their part.
seamus wrote: » The illness which killed McGuinness is genetic and degenerative. I wonder if he knew it was in the post and decided that a shot at the presidency was worth it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Or maybe, just maybe, the new female leader of SF had a look at the presidency and wondered, can we find somebody of a similar age to run for the park. Mary Robinson was 46 Mary McAleese was 47
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Or just MLM gravitating toward another nice, respectable middle-class wife and mother, as I'm sure her enemies in the party will be muttering if Ni Riada flops as badly as it looks like she will.
FrancieBrady wrote: » First full debate about to begin. Fireworks incoming? Personally I think this one will be respectful, anyone holding fireworks will wait until the televised debate to ignite them, to maximise the impact, so to speak.
touts wrote: » Micky D is coming across as very cocky on his expenses. Sighing and huffing at questions and waffling answers. Sounds like a man who already thinks he has this in the bag and hugely frustrated having to go through this election thing.
AGC wrote: » This isn’t a debate. Peter Casey is a disgrace.
