O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

Het-Field · 24-09-2009 11:41pm

Round 1

M Martin v J.Higgins = Draw

Round 2

P.Cox v M.L McDonald = Cox Victory

Round 3

D.Ganley v M.O Leary = Ganley Victory.

MOL has committed a fundamnetal error, which has cost major brownie points for the Yes Camp. He resorted to ad hominem attacks, and displayed no knwledge of the treaty beyond the guarantees. im still glad he was honest and conceeded the lines about jobs was a falsification, and that it is simply goowill which will be created, which may result in FDI.

Ganley looked composed and experienced. The anoraks over on P.IE feel the complicated nature of Ganley's rhetoric lost him the debate. I disagree, he appeared trustworthy, and competent, while his opponant was sheepish and blundering. He took a risk by debating with Ganley, and lost.

Cox continues to impress for the Yes camp, while MLM did herself no harm, and was fairly composed against a far superior opponant. I still feel his uncovering of the often forgotten about defence vetos clinched this one for the I4Europe Chief

The Martin v Higgins bout was informative, however, it had no fireworks. Both are of different ideological persuasions, and one would never convince the other. I think they played each other into a stalemate.

Overall it was entertaining. However, as a Yes voter, I feel it probably will be viewd more favourably by the No Camp. The video contributions were also of dubious merit, and Gay Mitchell and Niamh Ui Bhrian will cost more votes with their contributions, then they will gain.

An Capall Dubh · 24-09-2009 11:41pm

I'm a yes voter, but have to say Ganley won the debate hands down. It was a mistake to let MOL near that debate tonight. Hopefully it's done little to sway the undecided vote towards voting no as it would be a disaster for this country.

The yes campaign needs to recruit more sports people/celebrities/people respected by the majority of the population, to ensure we vote yes on Oct 2. The mistrust of the politicians promoting the yes vote can only be detrimental.

Plotician · 24-09-2009 11:43pm

MoL was easy pickings really. Ganley recognised him as RTE entertainment fodder. It was also pretty obvious MoLs views about the treaty were pretty narrow so not good for a wider debate.

Martin also made a mistake launching a personal attack on Ganley on the Matt Cooper program earlier (questioning his patriotism). It came across as a bit of desperation whether you regard his stance ok or not.

On the whole though any debate is better than no debate, and today may have been a small step in balancing things up a bit.

drkpower · 24-09-2009 11:46pm

It is a little embarassing that a few people are stating that MOL did anything other than lose the debate badly. It only drags down one's credibility to make such a patently false assertion.

Im no fan of Ganley but you have to hand it to him; he is a skilled debater. He handled MOL so well from start to finish. It reminded me of McDowell 'owning' Adams in the famous pre-election debate in '07.

Pride Fighter · 24-09-2009 11:47pm

Het-Field wrote: »

Round 1

M Martin v J.Higgins = Draw

Round 2

P.Cox v M.L McDonald = Cox Victory

Round 3

D.Ganley v M.O Leary = Ganley Victory.

MOL has committed a fundamnetal error, which has cost major brownie points for the Yes Camp. He resorted to ad hominem attacks, and displayed no knwledge of the treaty beyond the guarantees. im still glad he was honest and conceeded the lines about jobs was a falsification, and that it is simply goowill which will be created, which may result in FDI.

Ganley looked composed and experienced. The anoraks over on P.IE feel the complicated nature of Ganley's rhetoric lost him the debate. I disagree, he appeared trustworthy, and competent, while his opponant was sheepish and blundering. He took a risk by debating with Ganley, and lost.

Cox continues to impress for the Yes camp, while MLM did herself no harm, and was fairly composed against a far superior opponant. I still feel his uncovering of the often forgotten about defence vetos clinched this one for the I4Europe Chief

The Martin v Higgins bout was informative, however, it had no fireworks. Both are of different ideological persuasions, and one would never convince the other. I think they played each other into a stalemate.

Overall it was entertaining. However, as a Yes voter, I feel it probably will be viewd more favourably by the No Camp. The video contributions were also of dubious merit, and Gay Mitchell and Niamh Ui Bhrian will cost more votes with their contributions, then they will gain.

Pretty rational assesment. I agree with all except the MLM vs Cox debate. I thought MLM struck a telling blow by quoting the Wall Street Journal and Cox calling Sinn Fein terrorists was a serious blunder. I thought Martin performed surprisingly well, Joe did well too, I'd agree with a draw or a narrow Joe win. As for Ganley vs MOL, it was a turkey shoot. Ganley obliterated MOL. Clearly.

squod · 24-09-2009 11:47pm

All I know is, it was better than the usual Dick Roche falling over himself on live TV stuff I'd usuall see on RTE.
Is M. Martins appearance finally a sign the FF are actualy taking Lisbon seriously? Can't wait to see a serious debate between two genuinely interested and informed parties on the tele. ( It'll never happen).

Pete M. · 24-09-2009 11:47pm

An Capall Dubh wrote: »

The yes campaign needs to recruit more sports people/celebrities/people respected by the majority of the population, to ensure we vote yes on Oct 2. The mistrust of the politicians promoting the yes vote can only be detrimental.

Yeah, I can imagine folks like Brian O'Driscoll, Ryan Turdbridy and maybe even Dana **rolls around floor laughing** really putting a compelling, succinct argument forward when Mr. Magic Capitalist guru par excellence, haha, O'Leary can't.

Reckon Dustin and any other worthy celebs would be No voters anyway.

imeddyhobbs · 24-09-2009 11:49pm

RTE seem to have taken the line that the Irish people would like to see Ganley V O'Leary.I dont know about you but my intelligence was insulted by what i watched on the TV tonight,all that was missing was Eamon Dumphy frothing at the mouth in his normal stance as a populist,pathetic.

Do you think you will ever see O'Leary on newsnight debating a serious issue ?

Never.

An Capall Dubh · 24-09-2009 11:51pm

Reckon Dustin and any other worthy celebs would be No voters anyway.[/quote]

Ha Ha, ya I'd say Dustin's still p*ssed off over the whole Eurovision fiasco alright.

badinfleunce · 24-09-2009 11:53pm

Michael O leary made a complete ass of himself by entering into a debate with Ganly.

He was like a fish out of water with 2 points which he really had no back up for and was quite confused on the whole issue of Lisbon.

In fairness to Ganly he knows what he is talking about and in my mind made O Leary look like a complete eejet exposing why he really is backing Lisbon.

Its not for Jobs or anything else, its for O learys personal gain yet again to assist in acquiring Aerlingus by wine-ing, dining and 69ing the European commisioner of travel.

O leary is a good businessman but when it comes to politics and debates of this nature he really should remain behind the scenes as he has not got the ability to engage in an arena like this. His PR team should be shot! Free advertising - fair enough, but what it does for the reputation of the man himself is hugely damaging. My advice to O leary is :
Stick to the travel business and ripping people off - because thats what he does best!

FACT: Did you know that if you fail to check in online with ryanair 4 hours prior to departure you are charged 40euro per passenger pass per flight. Thats 80euro return! and if there is 4 of you (2 adults 2 kids) thats 320euro return. Another Ryanair Ripoff.

I think out of all the politicians we have out there Ganly is the best read on Lisbon. He has a passion for Europe and Ireland and whether or not his intentions are face value he highlights the facts as they stand. He won the NO vote on Lisbon on that basis in the last election.

The FFs are using the recession and the effect that Lisbon will have if we vote No. Boll*x!

I think we should Vote No on the basis that all these hypothetical facts that we will no longer be part of Europe, that we will be side lined etc. etc. are really trying to scare monger the electorate because the supporting parties have nothing else thats of worth to the people to fight this campaign on.

Why are they not fighting the campaign on actual fact that is stated in the treaty and selling the benefits of this.????

Im sick of this current government - Im sick of Europe and the fact that we already voted No and now they want us to Vote again on a Treaty that in body has not changed one word. We already Voted No and I for one will Vote No again to defend democracy and to stop Europe advancing its military might. No to Lisbon - No to conscription. - Don't sign a treaty that may end up sending you son or grandson to War!

K-9 · 24-09-2009 11:53pm

Stark wrote: »

What a disaster of a debate. Much as I despise lying weasly Ganley, O'Leary was better off against lightweights like McKenna imo.

Ganley won the debate, O'Leary won the one liners. We all know how important that is.

nullzero wrote: »

O'Leary made a fool of himself, albeit not for the first time I know.
The debate wasn't helped by the fact that it was almost a word for word repeat of the Today FM Lisbon special broadcast on the Matt Cooper show in the early evening, all the way down to the Dana gags swapped between Ganley and O'Leary.

Seemed fixed, down to the knowing smiles between each other.
Both are more alike than they care to admit.

Higgins slightly ahead of Martin, which considering it is FF, Martin did well.

Mary Lou did well but she mentioned the "so called" guarantees.
She questioned the guarantees and Cox nailed that one. If it is good enough for the GFA, it is good enough now.

Ganley beat MOL as expected, but as Declan proved before, that doesn't matter. Sound bites win.

Failed politician, 500,000 unemployed, no democratic mandate.

Sam Vimes · 24-09-2009 11:53pm

Captain Furball wrote: »

Ganley actually came across as someone who could infact hold a conversation about the lisbon treaty.
O'Leary looked like an ejit down in the pub half loaded talking ****e lol.

You can talk about something forever when you don't care about facts or truth or even being logically consistent. Everything he said was a lie. He may have said it eloquently but it was still lies

roosh · 24-09-2009 11:54pm

Ganley schooled O'Leary. O'Leary lost all credibility when Ganley showed he is only interested in currying favour in Europe. O'Leary's arguments were merely in keeping with the empty rhetoric, logical fallacies and scaremongering, being used by the Yes campaign.

Pete M. · 24-09-2009 11:54pm

Ya he's a real euroskeptik since that episode I'd say.

Shur an experience like that would only drive you nuts or make a commie outta ya.

But seriously, bigger picture, you should vote No....
If you don't, that's ok, but don't be pissed off when someone says told you so...

Plotician · 24-09-2009 11:56pm

'Failed politician' is a pretty generic term these days don't you think?

Riddle101 · 24-09-2009 11:58pm

I only caught the Ganley/MOL debate but I do agree, Ganley won that. Did anyone else notice how Micheal O Leary had to keep resorting to calling Ganley a failed politician and mock him about losing out at the European elections. But you know what I'm not surprised by the outcome. I heard O Leary was going to be debating tonight and I imagined he wouldn't be able to stand his ground. The guy is a businessman not a politician and he just came off as an uninformed dolt. Ganley was right though, where was freakin Cowen and the rest of Government? I seriously don't think our Government really has any knowledge of how to handle the Lisbon and I feel they are doing everything half-arsed. How do they expect people to vote yes for Lisbon when they're not making people feel safe about it. I'm sure if Obama was Taoiseach he'd proberly have gotten the yes vote last time.

BTW I not saying this as either a yes supporter or a no supporter but as a spectator.

Het-Field · 24-09-2009 11:59pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can talk about something forever when you don't care about facts or truth or even being logically consistent. Everything he said was a lie. He may have said it eloquently but it was still lies

Regrettably it wont matter one wit to those voters who sought to rely on this show for guidance.

Remember what was said in Walt Disney's classic "Bedknobs and Broomsticks". "It doesnt really matter what I say, what I say, as long as I say it with a flair"

It can cover up lies, misrepresentations, untruths, half truths etc, but to the average punter who knows nothing of the Lisbon Treaty, it will appear that O Leary is a buffoon, who is only anxious to boost his ego. His contribution (outside of mentioning guarantees) was televisually the worst performance of many a yes campaigner during the two referenda

badinfleunce · 25-09-2009 12:00am

Het-Field wrote: »

Round 1

M Martin v J.Higgins = Draw

Round 2

P.Cox v M.L McDonald = Cox Victory

Round 3

D.Ganley v M.O Leary = Ganley Victory.

MOL has committed a fundamnetal error, which has cost major brownie points for the Yes Camp. He resorted to ad hominem attacks, and displayed no knwledge of the treaty beyond the guarantees. im still glad he was honest and conceeded the lines about jobs was a falsification, and that it is simply goowill which will be created, which may result in FDI.

Ganley looked composed and experienced. The anoraks over on P.IE feel the complicated nature of Ganley's rhetoric lost him the debate. I disagree, he appeared trustworthy, and competent, while his opponant was sheepish and blundering. He took a risk by debating with Ganley, and lost.

Cox continues to impress for the Yes camp, while MLM did herself no harm, and was fairly composed against a far superior opponant. I still feel his uncovering of the often forgotten about defence vetos clinched this one for the I4Europe Chief

The Martin v Higgins bout was informative, however, it had no fireworks. Both are of different ideological persuasions, and one would never convince the other. I think they played each other into a stalemate.

Overall it was entertaining. However, as a Yes voter, I feel it probably will be viewd more favourably by the No Camp. The video contributions were also of dubious merit, and Gay Mitchell and Niamh Ui Bhrian will cost more votes with their contributions, then they will gain.

Even though Im a No Voter I have to agree with Het - he hit the nail on the head and in my view Ganly took O' Leary out like a heavy weight fighting a feather weight! Great for RTE ratings.

K-9 · 25-09-2009 12:00am

Plotician wrote: »

'Failed politician' is a pretty generic term these days don't you think?

No democratic mandate is a great response to No means No.

Anyway, anybody with sense will ignore the MOL, DG Pissing contest.

Run_to_da_hills · 25-09-2009 12:01am

Plotician wrote: »

'Failed politician' is a pretty generic term these days don't you think?

There all "failed politicians" these days, just look at the state of the country that they got us in to. More the reason to not pay any attention to them in their campaign. :pac:

Euro_Kraut · 25-09-2009 12:01am

Riddle101 wrote: »

I only caught the Ganley/MOL debate but I do agree, Ganley won that. Did anyone else notice how Micheal O Leary had to keep resorting to calling Ganley a failed politician and mock him about losing out at the European elections. But you know what I'm not surprised by the outcome. I heard O Leary was going to be debating tonight and I imagined he wouldn't be able to stand his ground. The guy is a businessman not a politician and he just came off as an uninformed dolt. Ganley was right though, where was freakin Cowen and the rest of Government? I seriously don't think our Government really has any knowledge of how to handle the Lisbon and I feel they are doing everything half-arsed. How do they expect people to vote yes for Lisbon when they're not making people feel safe about it. I'm sure if Obama was Taoiseach he'd proberly have gotten the yes vote last time.

BTW I not saying this as either a yes supporter or a no supporter but as a spectator.

Micheal Martin was on earlier debating with Joe Higgins.

Turtwig · 25-09-2009 12:04am

Honestly, I got to ask, Is MOL secretly on the 'No' side or something, he was quite possibly the worst YES proponent I've seen on live TV:mad:

Ganley's faired no better though, (hate that guy):mad::mad:

I'm gonna shoot some fairies

ArmaniJeanss · 25-09-2009 12:05am

badinfleunce wrote: »

Why are they not fighting the campaign on actual fact that is stated in the treaty and selling the benefits of this.????

Because the Yes side have to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy refuting garbage like this.

badinfleunce wrote: »

No to Lisbon - No to conscription. - Don't sign a treaty that may end up sending you son or grandson to War!

Plotician · 25-09-2009 12:06am

At a rough guess 90% of the electorate won't read the treaty and will use televised (and radio) debates to help make up their mind.

People like to see the whites of peoples eyes and hear the sounds of their voices. For this reason TV and radio will remain more powerful than paper media, the internet, posters, and any other similar mechanism.

I'd say a lot of people would be taking into account what they heard today. Why wouldn't they?

imeddyhobbs · 25-09-2009 12:08am

Plotician wrote: »

At a rough guess 90% of the electorate won't read the treaty and will use televised (and radio) debates to help make up their mind.

People like to see the whites of peoples eyes and hear the sounds of their voices. For this reason TV and radio will remain more powerful than paper media, the internet, posters, and any other similar mechanism.

I'd say a lot of people would be taking into account what they heard today. Why wouldn't they?

Any idea what they might favour from what the heard today??

Run_to_da_hills · 25-09-2009 12:11am

Ganley knows the Lisbon Treaty inside out, he would hammer Gowen and any of his fellow polititions if he was let loose in the Oireachtas in the morning.

ottobock · 25-09-2009 12:12am

Don't get involved in politics normally but just checked out www.politics.ie and found some idiot called Tommy O'Brien who reckons we are all stupid and that most viewers would not know what the facts are in this debate other than her/himself. :mad:

badinfleunce · 25-09-2009 12:13am

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Because the Yes side have to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy refuting garbage like this.

Because the Yes vote have nothing else to fight the campaign on.

Article 28(c)(3) states ‘Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.’ The same article also states ‘member states shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’.

This in effect means that we have to help our European neighbours in times of war and offer them whatever military capabilities we have and whatever civilian capabilities we have. FACT! - meaning our population is at risk of being drafted!

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 25-09-2009 12:14am

Riddle101 wrote: »

Did anyone else notice how Micheal O Leary had to keep resorting to calling Ganley a failed politician and mock him about losing out at the European elections.

Yeah, that was fairly pathetic.
He seemed to have a three point plan of:
1. Call Ganley a failed politician.
2. Harp on about being an employer.
3. Hold up (and point to) his referendum commission report(?).

WaltKowalski · 25-09-2009 12:16am

I thought Ganley came off best after that debate.
O'Leary obviously had no respect for the event - he should have worn something smarter.
Ganley is quite suave!

Actually Miriam O'Callaghan wasn't very appropriately dressed either.

O'Leary v. Ganley - The Reckoning.

Comments