Presidential Election 2025

This goes to the heart of it for me. Its politics, this is what always happens at election time. Stories emerge, and are discussed and debated. Issues surrounding a candidacy can have an effect on the election campaign. Complaining about this, calling it a smear, with no evidence to support said claim; its not just silly, it tends to be counterproductive.

I saw the Gavin story RE 'Rent not being refunded', its popping up in a few places. And the reaction of some of his FF supporters is ludicrous. As if to say, this story is being used to wreck his chance in the election. To that i would simply respond… WHAT CHANCE? Gavin doesnt have a chance. Unless Jim Gavin is a Time Lord, who regenerates into a skilled politician and debater in the next 48 hours - he has no chance. And the only question that will come from his candidacy, is why he ended up a candidate in the first place.

Humphrey's seems to be sailing in relatively smooth water. Yes there remains an attempt to impune her 'orange' cultural association, and the lack of the Irish Language. But for me, it is not landing any serious punches. It actually reminds me of the Fox News tactics during Obama V McCain 2008. For those unfamiliar, for quite a while, Fox decided to use Obama's full name, in any discussion about the election. It was McCain versus Barack Hussein Obama. And everyone and their granny, understood why they were doing this. Eventually, realizing that it was going nowhere, they stopped.

I see Shane Ross decided to break cabinet confidentiality, and attack Humphreys on supposed expressed opinions behind closed doors. Namely that, in a Confidential Cabinet Meeting, she expressed missgivings on legislation RE Drink Driving. I really cant see this landing either. The debates have been had in public by other politicians, relating to the disproportionality of Alcohol/Driving laws, between Rural and Urban communities. I have no doubt HH probably did raise this point… in a Confidential Cabinet Meeting. This says more about Shane Ross than it does of HH.

Im not going to reprosecute the ongoing drama around Connolly, except to say she is the master of her own disaster on this front. I will debate anyone on these points, and have offered to do so many times. My view is clear, the left backed the wrong horse. I could make the same case for FF having chosen badly, but the problems are the entire opposite in this case.

Im still waiting on polls; Anyone have any idea on this front?

Two poor candidates and Catherine Connolly.

The election is HH to lose.

Gavin is the FF candidate, thus no vote here. His candidacy is one of opportunism and cynicism. He's vaccuuos and FF must already know they've made a blunder. I sincerely hope he finishes third and is decisively beaten.

HH, FG candidate so no vote here - she retired less than a year ago and yet here she is, she is clearly a reluctant candidate and only here because McGuinness pulled out. She'll probably win with core FG vote, disaffected FF and then transfers from JG.

CC, she's a decent woman who's politics I'd broadly echo, MDH played an important role particularly in his second term on world affairs, CC can continue that role - electing one of the other two gov stooges is an utterly pointless exercise in my view.

Likely outcome is 1. HH 2. CC 3. JG with HH the likely victor - time will tell.

Is that her with the glasses on her head? Tarten skirt of the photo of 3.

https://eirigi.org/latestnews/2019/1/23/irg-ard-fheis-2019-report-and-cat-photo-gallery

calling it a smear, with no evidence to support said claim;

Connolly seems to be getting at that now, but will likely not get any traction as the powers that be and the media won't want to shine a light to bright on it.
But where did this story come from? And why now?

Edit: I do think Connolly has to address the new info on this by the way.

I just think its counter-productive to attack the source of a story, or question why a story is being covered in the first place.

Things are covered because they are stories. Where do they come from? Its the job of a journalist to source, and cover stories of interest to the public. The later is always in overdrive during elections. Initially i thought the Journal were making mountains out of Ant-hills. Clearly that is not the case.

For me, the above, covers the Why, and the Where.

Imagine if Brian Lenihan Snr, 1990, attacked Garret FitzGerald and journalists, for bringing up the story of his phone call to President Hillery? Would anyone have felt that was credible? Not that Lenihan painted himself in glory with how he handled it at all, btw. But im just giving it as an example.

Just address the story. Conclusively addressing it, with evidence to back up your stance; That is how candidates need to deal with stories and controversy surrounding their campaigns. Honestly it is as simple as that in my opinion.

Only a political ingenue would believe that there are not people out there trawling every minute of the candidates lives.

That's how it's been and each will have their stories to deal with.

For me the crux of this story is,

1. did CC have a sinister motive in allowing this person access?

2. was she giving a person a second chance?

I cannot for the life of me see anything in CC's career that would explain a sinister motive. There is zero.

So I conclude she was doing the second and may or may not have been duped.


However where this story came from is a tad sinister IMO.

And if the Journal cannot confirm it's 'source' then I think we can deduce it most likely came from within the Gardai.

That should worry everyone imo.

Sorry Francie, when it comes to gun running seditionists and the Oireachtas, in the post GFA world, second chances simply do not arise.

Especially as Ní Shionnáin had ONLY JUST been released from prison following her conviction for offences against the State, and WAS STILL a member of said seditious organisation.

Its an existential matter for Connolly's campaign at this point. And the Week in Politics TV debate tomorrow lunchtime will be very instructive as to how bad.

Again with blaming the storyteller rather than CC.

She isn't a victim in this imo, she's a big participant with satisfactory explanations as to how it happened needed. Blaming whoever released the story is typical I got caught but no one was ever supposed to find out syndrome . Whistle-blowers are a necessary part of a lot of controversial cases. If she was so good as to take on Ni Shionan, then Shionan, if she has any respect for Connolly should at least dispel any rumors regarding her so good former boss.

I dont have to suspect a 'sinister motive' as a serious considertion in this story.

But it is a story, that needs to be examined.

• What was her political reasoning for chosing someone with an extremist background
• Did she believe that the lady had reformed fully
• Did she have evidence to support this possibility
• Was she aware of the FULL extent, of the ladies extremist background
• Did she view the video of, a mock execution of a foreign head of state, and did it alter her thinking on the matter
• Does she believe that the lady taking part in such a stunt, should be relevent to her appointment to Leinster House
• Did she believe that the selection would not be contentious, or at least, shouldnt be
• Did she sincerely believe that, if appointed, the lady would pass a Garda background check
• Does she see now, that it reflected poor judgement on her part
• If it was merely a question of giving someone a 'second chance', would appointing the lady to an OFF SITE position, not have demonstrated better judgement
• Could the lady have been employed in a contituency office, requiring less background checking by the Gardai
• Given all of the above points, does she now regret her decisions surrounding this affair
• Given a similar situation for another person, or persons; would she make the same choices regarding the selection of person(s) to work in Leinster house

To outline even a few points of contention -