David McWilliams: Unionists can share power with Sinn Féin - what's our problem?

I'm not a fan of McWilliams but he made one good point on the radio today.


McWilliams, as many know, is married to a Belfast woman but in between talking about "the North is such a different place, such a totally different country" and "most people in the south don't know who Peter Robinson is", he came up with something with which I agree:

"if the Northern unionists have got over Sinn Féin as a partner in government, which they have, I think it's about time that we said this is a political party, this guy is number 2 in that political party, he's going to go out and as George said in the next four weeks he's going to be scrutinised, and let him go and see what happens." (starts @ 29.00 here)

McWilliams wasn't saying he was supporting McGuinness (or any candidate), but he was making a valid point that there is now no moral objection to electing a Sinn Féin President when the unionist community's representatives are willing to share power with Sinn Féin.

I'm not voting for McGuinness for the reasons I gave here, but if the election comes down to something like the 1997 Presidential election where the right of Irish people in the north to be President of Ireland is challenged by Sunday Independent journalists and Fine Gael politicians like John Bruton, then I will shift my preferences. Ideally, though, I want a President who will be inclusive enough to speak Irish as well as English to Irish citizens, and that gives Michael D. the edge in my value system.

So, why are some people in the 26 counties feigning moral objections to McGuinness when the representatives of the very community who were his victims (as McGuinness's community were their victims, of course), can get over it and elect their representatives to share power with him? It sounds like a deeply feigned "moral outrage" on the part of these people in the Republic given the reality of the compromise which unionists have made. Last night I discussed this issue with somebody and after about a half an hour of talking about political violence (I made sure to mention how the British government used violence to fulfil political aims in Iraq and other countries) and morality his real reason for opposing McGuinness's candidacy was enunciated: Sinn Féin was, apparently, a "radical socialist party". I have to say, though, I respect that reason more than I respect these supposed "moral" objections to McGuinness.

Question: Is it hypocritical for some people in the Republic to have moral objections to McGuinness when unionists in the North can get over them and share power?