David Norris for President....would you vote for him?

apoeiguq3094y wrote: »

While she's very welcome for an auld visit every now and then, lest not get carried away. Its still a commonwealth with an unelected hereditary leader. I really don't see any benefits to it either, economically. We have enough of our own quangos without getting involved in an international one.

The office of the president should be above personal political agendas like this. I think our previous presidents (too young to remember the others) have fulfilled their duties very well in this regard. What we don't need is someone who wants to "do" something as president. Or go for sly stunts like Norris and say they will do it for free. A stunt like that cheapens the office and disrespects previous holders of the office.

It wouldn't make the Queen of the United Kingdom head of state in the Republic of Ireland which is what you seem to be implying.

flash1080 wrote: »

Sure why not vote for him, let's sweep child sex tourism under the rug while we're at it too.

HUH???? What's the connection? Is there a connection? Or is there something I'm missing in your post? Don't get it

dizzywizlw wrote: »

The 'quotes' scandal is perpetrated by the Christian right in this country who are vehemently anti-homosexual. Yes he has said so stupid things, well all have but that shouldn't be why you don't vote for him. Having an openly gay president may seem progressive but it is impractical for conducting foreign relations in a world that is still very much anti-gay. His sexuality will be a big issue in the election but the fact remains he's not the best choice anyway.

#1. Norris v. Anti-Homophobic Foreign States
- I think the idea of progression is two sided if Norris becomes President. It will be a watershed moment for gay human rights and the normative advancement of gay people into Irish Society. But the other side is the argument that it will tear our diplomatic relations apart because he is gay, and I believe this is absurd. In the past five years LGBT politicians have had a strong part in many countries governments. In Britain under the previous Labour Government you saw Peter Mandelson as Deputy-Prime Minister, being side-by-side with the Prime Minister at international talks around the world including some sub-Saharan African and middle-eastern countries; in America you saw Barney Frank as Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, one of the leading economic positions in America that has global implications; in Germany you could see Guido Westerwelle as Vice-Chancellor and Foreign Affairs Minister traveling around the world to many unfriendly nations representing his nation; in Iceland you see Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir as Prime Minister representing her country in Europe & the World in helping Iceland's financial situation. These are all openly gay politicians and at the point they were in some of the highest offices in the world and dealing with global problems. When doing their job no country ever stopped them, as far as I can find, because of their sexuality. The world has come a long way because they could not face down the countries of the world. Diplomacy is diplomacy and we shouldn't allow the fears of some countries having a bad reaction when this concept has been tried and tested and proven not to be rule with many countries around the world.

#2 A Brief Reflection on Irish History
- The two issues now arising are that of the 1916 Eater Rising and calling them 'terrorists' and the call to join the Commonwealth of Nations.

-If we look at the case of the 1916 Eater Rising and calling them terrorists. This is not outside the multitude of academic opinion, notably Kevin Myers articles on the issue come to mind. If we even take a look at W.B. Yeats's account of the issue in his poem 'Easter 1916' he put it aptly but also had foresight in the context of the Irish Civil War & the Northern Irish Troubles, that a "terrible beauty was born", and I think we need to be more educated on this idea. Looking at the 1916 Easter Rising these were seen as rebels by all the people on the street but also they were undermining the work of the Irish Parliamentary Party that would have achieved 'dominion status' and would have been able to disassociate itself with the Statute of Westminster in 1931; which was what we eventually done in the end, but suffered a bloody civil war and a destroying troubled period in Northern Ireland. We would condemn any country in the world for stopping peaceful action to achieving peace but we never stop to analyze our own history and how we look at our ancestors and founders actions.

-We became a republic in 1949 when Taoiseach John. A Costello, declared a republic on a diplomatic trip to Canada. This was not a planned idea; this was not a priority of that government. However Ireland became a republic, ironically, when Costello got drunk and had a spat with a Canadian/British Diplomat that had been rude about the Irish Presidency. So history will show that technically our country has a foundation linked to being drunk! :P
But besides the point we need to take a look at how we were born into context with a 'join the commonwealth' argument'. As far as I can tell we would be holding onto old pains to not look into something that would have cultural as well as economic gains. And to be honest I think that only in historical irony would an Irish presidential candidate suggest joining an organization which because of a dispute about the Irish Presidency had began the Irish Republic with which the President sits as Head of State.


#3 Norris as the Controversial Leader
- There is no doubt that Norris is controversial. But why do people look on controversy as bad? So far Norris, just as a candidate, has raised debate about Easter 1916; the Commonwealth; Gay Rights and Pedophilia. I've never seen so much of a debate on these issues to date. I think this is what the presidency should be, a stimulus for debating our issues and ideas. Ireland is submerged in history that has us psychologically frozen, we need to look at all these issues to assess where we want to be and what type of nation we want to become, and we cannot do that before we put these issues at rest. But I come back to the question, Is controversy bad? I really don't think it is, I cant understand how challenging ideas and criticizing some essential and important topics can be a bad thing. Controversy leads to interest; interest leads to debate; debate leads to challenging the status-quo; and in challenging the status-quo we mature our values; changing them where needed and re-enforcing what are our real values. This is well over-due and no leader has ever done such a good job of helping achieve this goal. If we want a leader who will help us, we need that leader to challenge us and Norris fits the Bill 110%.

Freeform musing?

Isn't musing freeform by definition?