Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

LostinKildare · 10-10-2011 12:26PM

Check out Bruce Arnold's piece in today's Independent.

ECONOMY WITH FACTS WILL QUENCH THE DRAGON'S FIRE
Sean Gallagher's picture of himself and Fianna Fail is now being amended in the light of facts previously muddied. He says on his campaign website -- or did until this weekend -- that he was 'a sporadic' party member.
Sporadic means 'occurring only here and there, separate, scattered'. Yet his Fianna Fail career was full-on and privileged. It lasted much longer than he says; it was anything but sporadic.
He says he "got involved in the 1980s". This was with Ogra Fianna Fail, which he headed, in Cavan, "for a year". This would be difficult without becoming a party member. He does not tell us about that or when it happened. He gives the impression that he drifted away, coming back to help in the government's 'alcohol education programme' and to work with Rory O'Hanlon and Seamus Kirk.
He claims he left Fianna Fail "in terms of being a member of the party, or being active, back in 2009". And he gives the reason: "The party had moved away from its grassroots, the ordinary people who were struggling."
Yet in January 2011, he was still a member of its National Executive, which is not possible without being a party member. When he 'resigned', on January 5, 2011, by letter to the Fianna Fail Party Secretary Sean Dorgan, it was simply as "a constituency delegate" to the National Executive.
He concluded: "I want, however, to express my continued support to you and your colleagues in this challenging period for the party."
Fianna Fail was then in political freefall, facing an annihilation it richly deserved and got. Yet Gallagher remained a member, sympathetic to the senior leadership. He helped senior figures in the following general election.
His campaign team has so far been unable to establish whether he has resigned from the party, and if so, when. None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with the reasons he gave on October 3 for the parting of the ways in 2009. What he said about that did not in fact happen.
Moreover, he has rejected all political parties because their fight is "about who was going to be in power". Yet he went on being heavily involved for a further two years in Fianna Fail -- both as a National Executive member and still longer as a party member.
In July of this year, his presidential rating standing at 13pc, he told Pat Kenny yet another, quite different, story about his Fianna Fail membership.
He joined "to advance the introduction of important legislation". So there were now two completely different and distinct reasons, the first being the legislation, the second representing Louth.
"Let me explain about Fianna Fail," he told Kenny. He then gave yet another reason for his Fianna Fail membership: the need for youth services.
What he did not tell Kenny was the story of his close and continuing relationship with Fianna Fail throughout the whole period of his presidential challenge.
This was because the party held the key to his gaining the councils on which his nomination depended. In some of them, the Fianna Fail party whip was imposed in his favour. It failed in riotous circumstances in his home county of Cavan, but it succeeded elsewhere sufficiently to get him nominated.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that the recent jump in his opinion poll standing may have been influenced by Fianna Fail realising that it had a better candidate than it thought and expressing this by every means possible, including the answers given to pollsters.
If that is fanciful, then Gallagher's statement, in an interview with a journalist, is not.
Asked the question, "Why not run for a party?" Gallagher replied: "The president, once elected, is above politics. And I fundamentally disagree with the fact that the office of president is really the gift of the political parties.
"It shouldn't be about what political party you belong to. I think that's a fundamental flaw. I want to be above politics because as soon as you get elected you must represent people from all political parties and none."
Yet he did not want to be above Fianna Fail politics.
Gallagher represents Fianna Fail. He is their default candidate. He has made little of close ties with the party.
He cannot tell us, through his campaign team, when he left Fianna Fail, suggesting he has not left.
Fianna Fail is also being coy. Last Saturday night, the party said it would not comment on whether Gallagher was still a member of the party, saying it was up to him and his campaign team to deal with this issue.
The team is silent on this. It cannot find the relevant letter or the date. This is mystifying. One does, after all, remember that sort of thing, keep a copy of the letter, treat it as a reasonably important milestone.
Gallagher's distance from Fianna Fail has been a plank in his presidential campaign, but in the wrong ways. Links have been represented as slight, sporadic, arm's length, and terminated nearly three years ago when in fact they were not terminated at all.
Remaining questions should be directed at Fianna Fail. The party turned down the honest, straightforward and potentially good candidate, Brian Crowley, who would have been exactly what he said he was.
The party turned down Eamon O Cuiv's arguments in favour of running because of a cash shortage. Having bankrupted the country, Fianna Fail could not face the true challenge of a public campaign.
The party has taken the wrong course. Again. It is a position that does not stand up. And time is running out for its members to salvage any credibility.
Fianna Fail faces major challenges, notably over the Sinn Fein choice of Martin McGuinness. This affects Fianna Fail's future.
The party knows more about McGuinness than any other party except Sinn Fein, but is silent on this and other questions. All of this is characteristic of the present party leader, Micheal Martin.
Gallagher's campaign is without credibility.
Opening his mouth from now on will invite doubt, scepticism and disbelief.
He claims that his desire to be president was "accumulated over the last three years based on the profile of being on TV and RTE's Dragon's Den". He should resign the campaign, return to the 'Den' and revise his conflicting views and statements.
Then start all over again.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/bruce-arnold-economy-with-facts-will-quench-the-dragons-fire-2900804.html

LostinKildare · 10-10-2011 12:38PM

"Who Is Sean Gallagher?" coming up on Lunchtime on Newstalk.

expectationlost · 10-10-2011 01:55PM

CDfm wrote: »

I do not know the answer but I imagine his involvement was "celebrity" related.

I have never watched Dragons Den and didn't give him a thought as a candidate before this thread as I did not know who he was.

Hasn't George Hook with his Labour Party affiliations done FG gigs.

hook is FG

but he's not a celebrity to these fianna fail people he's Ogra Seanie.

CDfm wrote: »

I think election funding is now from the exchequer.

?

Bannasidhe · 10-10-2011 02:06PM

swampgas wrote: »

Sounds a bit like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" to me.

The interpretation that most people would make of him "no longer being active" in FF is that he was not involved in FF related activities, and this has been shown to be clearly not the case.

I would tend to agree with swampgas here.

A statement which claims an individual is 'no longer active' in a particular organisation I would take as implying a lack of 'active' involvement with that organisation. However, when evidence emerges that that individual continued to be involved and associated themselves publicly with that organisation beyond the date given for such involvement ceasing - I would question the validity of the claim they were no longer active.

This would then lead me to consider the truthfulness of that particular individual.

irishdude11 · 10-10-2011 02:19PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

We have the same conclusion out of the candidates then at this stage but I am not conviced against Gallagher as of yet. I have given both sides of the semantic argument over the supposed 'lie'. You need to consider both sides, IMO it is not as clear as you propose.

FFS, for the 100th time there is NO semantic argument. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Unfortunately for Gallagher he gave an extremely conclusive statement that he could get nailed down on. Bertie or Lenihan would never have made such an amatuer mistake.

Here is evidence of his lies -

1. Gallagher said - I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009.
2. Gallagher threw his weight behind several FF candidates to try and get them elected by officially launching their campaigns in February 2011. So that means he was active.

Those statements cant be reconciled. He is liar, there is no confusion over this. He was up and down the length of the country campaigning for at least 3 FF candidates at the last election.

Btw, Here's a tweet posted by the FF mayor Castleblaney from Feb 2011 during some FF election campaign -
Sean gallagher rallying the troops the atmosphere is electric
http://twitter.com/#!/dfuncheon/status/33263452738957312

Sir Oxman · 10-10-2011 02:20PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You are incorrect.
It is semantics over the word 'active'.
On one side is the opinion that attending the campaign launch of friends of his is being 'active'.
On the other side 'active' is taking an active role in the executive (his former role) and trying to effect national policy.
Thus it is clearly not definitive. You clearly are fixed on the first side which is fair but to try and ignore the other viewpoint is unfair on SG.

That is your opinion that the FF candidates were merely 'friends' of his.

An active member of any party would do as Gallagher did in the February election.

CDfm · 10-10-2011 02:22PM

expectationlost wrote: »

hook is FG

but he's not a celebrity to these fianna fail people he's Ogra Seanie.

You sure, I always put Hooks affiliation down as Labour and liberal. Never FG.

I never thought of it but maybe Seanie's mission is to engage young people in politics and that is Michael D's Achilles Heel.

?

Electoral Expenses Act and I hope I am not going to recieve a FF backers rant.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/national_elections/election_expenses.html

Bannasidhe · 10-10-2011 02:51PM

CDfm wrote: »

You sure, I always put Hooks affiliation down as Labour and liberal. Never FG.

I never thought of it but maybe Seanie's mission is to engage young people in politics and that is Michael D's Achilles Heel.

Electoral Expenses Act and I hope I am not going to recieve a FF backers rant.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/national_elections/election_expenses.html

A rhyme worthy of the man himself

CDfm - I'm getting the distinct impression you have a bee in your bonnet about Mickey D and the Labour Party - perhaps a separate thread to discuss that rather than go off topic here?

CDfm · 10-10-2011 03:08PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A rhyme worthy of the man himself

Ooooh the pain of it.

CDfm - I'm getting the distinct impression you have a bee in your bonnet about Mickey D and the Labour Party - perhaps a separate thread to discuss that rather than go off topic here?

It shows that much , not so much the Labour Party but its reincarnation, I was never a menber nor of any party but would have not been averse to giving them a vote before.

raymon · 10-10-2011 03:12PM

Now that he has been exposed as a dishonest , misrepresenter and liar.... I am sure this gombeenmanship and cute hooring will appeal to a certain section of our population.

I started this thread because I knew he has been lying since at least June in interviews

It is sad to see posters try to nitpick by trying to revise they meaning of simple words like "involved" and "active " to argue that Gallagher never lied

I hope this FF liar doesn't get anywhere near the office

LostinKildare · 10-10-2011 03:26PM

LostinKildare wrote: »

"Who Is Sean Gallagher?" coming up on Lunchtime on Newstalk.

This broadcast was brought to you by the campaign for Sean Gallagher!

Damian Kiberd, Shane Coleman and Mick Clifford spent loads of time talking about SG's judo accomplishments. Mentioned that he has a nice wife. Uncritically characterized SG as a "very successful businessman" --- hmm, that deserves closer examination: [EDIT: this is a subject for another thread, perhaps I'll start one]

The rest of the program, Kiberd etc. spent downplaying the significance of the Fianna Fail National Executive. Apparently it's just about putting up posters! No mention of the the issue we discuss here: that SG said he wasn't active in FF after 2009, but evidence shows that he's been active in FF up to Feb 2011. They kept to the message: don't pick on SG !

The obvious bias was an embarrassment. Disgraceful that Shane Coleman didn't let listeners know that he is brother-in-law to Dermot Ahern.

BLACKROCK-based businessman Sean Gallagher has recruited former minister Dermot Ahern's right-hand man to his presidential campaign to join a number of others who were also advisers to the Fianna Fail-Green government.
Richard Moore, who worked as a spin doctor for the former justice minister, is expected to join Mr. Gallagher's campaign in the coming weeks.
http://www.argus.ie/news/seaacuten-beefs-up-team-in-araacutes-bid-2851721.html

edanto · 10-10-2011 03:33PM

If Sean Gallagher and his supporters don't think that canvassing is active party membership, and they think it is an issue of 'semantics'- then frankly they don't understand the meaning of the word 'semantics'.

SG is known to have said ONE WEEK AGO "I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009"

Yet, we know from his clarifications that he was a member of the National Executive up until early this year, and indeed accepted a cushy FAS board position (the dog biscuits of the Irish polictical world) from Fianna Fail after 2009. We know he campaigned for Fianna Fail in February of this year.

It's classic Fianna Fail to deny misbehaviour even in the face of overwhelming evidence. We have seen this many times previously.

If Gallagher is the president after the election - who do you think he will be bringing on trade missions to China and the US? Do you think he might bring his business buddies that he met over the years in Fianna Fail? You're damn tooting he well.

But he'll spin it as 'a diverse group of Irish business people from every province' and anyone that points out the Fianna Fail connections of some of them will be scoffed at. Later, he might explain that he invited them because they were his friends, not because they gave him anything.

Semantics. The code word in Fianna Fail land for 'please stop asking me that awkward question, I don't want to answer it.'

jonniebgood1 · 10-10-2011 03:53PM

Its not a difficult one folks. Active party role (attending national executive, discussing policy) versus non-active supporting the party role (attending launches, etc).
I think some people may be mixing up the argument over whether there is a straightforward proven lie with the argument of whether he has strong FF connections (which he has admitted).

raymon · 10-10-2011 04:05PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Its not a difficult one folks. Active party role (attending national executive, discussing policy) versus non-active supporting the party role (attending launches, etc).
I think some people may be mixing up the argument over whether there is a straightforward proven lie with the argument of whether he has strong FF connections (which he has admitted).

You have just invented these 2 definitions of active and non active.......unbelievable !!!!!!!!!!!. Please don't make things up.
Or please provide a source

Zubeneschamali · 10-10-2011 04:08PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Its not a difficult one folks. Active party role

Like Louth constituency representative on the Fianna Fail Ard Comhairle?

edanto · 10-10-2011 04:14PM

Semantics people, semantics.

But seriously - I would like to say that I've no problem with his membership of Fianna Fail by the way, obviously a very many good people are members.

My problem is with his deception about it. There is just no other way to interpret what he said. It is very clear that he was trying to distance himself from the party and trying to give us the impression that he was only marginally involved for a short while.

The obvious question for him is:

When did you become a member of Fianna Fail? Has your membership ceased, and if so, when?

Are you still a member?

Do you feel any of your previous statements about this issue were misleading?

mickdw · 10-10-2011 04:17PM

Yes he is fianna fail but it might just help him. Many ex ff voters will vote for him

Bannasidhe · 10-10-2011 04:49PM

edanto wrote: »

Semantics people, semantics.

But seriously - I would like to say that I've no problem with his membership of Fianna Fail by the way, obviously a very many good people are members.

My problem is with his deception about it. There is just no other way to interpret what he said. It is very clear that he was trying to distance himself from the party and trying to give us the impression that he was only marginally involved for a short while.

The obvious question for him is:

When did you become a member of Fianna Fail? Has your membership ceased, and if so, when?

+ 1

My initial impression of Gallagher was that he was campaigning on a platform of being a 'new broom'. A man with 'new' ideas and a desire to move away from the gombeen politics that have plagued Ireland. Although his involvement with FF gave me pause (I have never voted for a FF candidate in my life as I have never liked the ethos of the party), I was prepared to accept his statement that he left FF due to disillusionment with the way the party was going - so, I was thinking long and hard about giving Gallagher a preference (not #1...maybe #3).

Now, it seems to me that far from being a 'new' broom, Gallagher is an embodiment of that very ethos I so dislike about FF.
We are here discussing 'semantics' - and what exactly does 'active' mean, or 'membership' or 'involvement'...? Is this not just the same-oh, same -oh crap we have had to put up with for so long? Optics, smoke, and mirrors rather than honesty, ethics, and genuine transparency.

He actively campaigned for FF candidates after the date he said he was no longer involved in the party. He appeared on public platforms endorsing FF candidates - and therefore by extension, FF policies after the date he said he was no longer involved in the party. No amount of semantics can change that simple fact.

I cannot help but see his statements such as "I left any involvement in Fianna Fáil in terms of being a member of the party or being active back in 2009" as anything less then a cynical exercise designed to create the illusion he had distanced himself from a political entity that had become a 'toxic' brand in the eyes of the electorate while in reality maintaining close ties to that same organisation.

I would have more regard for his ethical standards if he was openly a FF 'independent' rather than, as he increasingly appears to be, yet another Irish politician who chases the populist vote and, as the saying goes, runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds.

I will not be voting for Sean Gallagher.

jonniebgood1 · 10-10-2011 05:01PM

raymon wrote: »

You have just invented these 2 definitions of active and non active.......unbelievable !!!!!!!!!!!.

raymon wrote: »

Please don't make things up.
Or please provide a source

You have lost me here a bit Ray, I am the source as they are my examples of what the roles may entail. I don't see your point.
It is the same way that Zubeneschamali sees active as being:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Like Louth constituency representative on the Fianna Fail Ard Comhairle?

CDfm · 10-10-2011 05:46PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Like Louth constituency representative on the Fianna Fail Ard Comhairle?

I am with jonnieb on this and his scottish verdict of not proven, and, that is hardly the Parlimentary Party.

raymon · 10-10-2011 06:31PM

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You have lost me here a bit Ray, I am the source as they are my examples of what the roles may entail. I don't see your point.
It is the same way that Zubeneschamali sees active as being:

My point is that when you start inventing definitions other that the one in a dictionary then your discussion becomes invalid

jonniebgood1 · 10-10-2011 07:03PM

raymon wrote: »

My point is that when you start inventing definitions other that the one in a dictionary then your discussion becomes invalid

I disagree. A dictionary does not have context relevent to this situation. What I added was context and you mis-construed this as inventing a new definition.

In any case I said many pages ago that I did'nt want to argue over different interpretations of launguage. I then proceeded to do exactly that so I will agree to disagree for a while on this subject. I would'nt vote no. 01 for SG anyway at this stage in any case despite my arguments. There is only one candidate that has stood apart so far IMO.

CDfm · 10-10-2011 07:12PM

raymon wrote: »

My point is that when you start inventing definitions other that the one in a dictionary then your discussion becomes invalid

But I have shown here that none other than Eamonn Gilmore Leader of the Labour Party , of which Michael D Higgins is the official candidate, has not been forthright about his background and party membership's and affilliations. MDH is the Labour Party candidate and your chosen candidate.

So IMO you do not have the moral highground here, but, yet you insist on cherrypicking the standard and insisting others agree with you.

Bannasidhe · 10-10-2011 07:17PM

CDfm wrote: »

But I have shown here that none other than Eamonn Gilmore Leader of the Labour Party , of which Michael D Higgins is the official candidate, has not been forthright about his background and party membership's and affilliations. MDH is the Labour Party candidate and your chosen candidate.

So IMO you do not have the moral highground here, but, yet you insist on cherrypicking the standard and insisting others agree with you.

and I have countered that argument by saying as Gilmore (and his 'stickie' past) is not a candidate his political background has no baring on a discussion of Michael D's (and his non-stickie past) suitability. Any more than a discussion of Enda Kenny is pertinent when deliberating on the suitability of Gay Mitchell...;)

raymon · 10-10-2011 07:23PM

CDfm wrote: »

But I have shown here that none other than Eamonn Gilmore Leader of the Labour Party , of which Michael D Higgins is the official candidate, has not been forthright about his background and party membership's and affilliations. MDH is the Labour Party candidate and your chosen candidate.

So IMO you do not have the moral highground here, but, yet you insist on cherrypicking the standard and insisting others agree with you.

This thread is about Gallagher's lies.

Go ahead and open a thread about gilmore elsewhere , but it is irrelevant to this specific discussion

I don't even like the labour party so I don't really care

CDfm · 10-10-2011 07:33PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and I have countered that argument by saying as Gilmore (and his 'stickie' past) is not a candidate his political background has no baring on a discussion of Michael D's (and his non-stickie past) suitability. Any more than a discussion of Enda Kenny is pertinent when deliberating on the suitability of Gay Mitchell...;)

Kenny & Mitchell do not write poetry.

raymon wrote: »

This thread is about Gallagher's lies.

Go ahead and open a thread about gilmore elsewhere , but it is irrelevant to this specific discussion

I don't even like the labour party so I don't really care

The behavior of their respective party leaders is relevant as they are official candidates.

“Faith, here’s an equivocator that could swear in both the scales against either scale, who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven.”

raymon · 10-10-2011 07:59PM

CDfm wrote: »

The behavior of their respective party leaders is relevant as they are official candidates.

Go ahead and try to derail the discussion , but the thread is intended for people to argue that Gallagher lied and others to provide evidence that he didnt.

Your discussion about that gilmore guy is way off topic

CDfm · 10-10-2011 08:37PM

raymon wrote: »

Go ahead and try to derail the discussion , but the thread is intended for people to argue that Gallagher lied and others to provide evidence that he didnt.

I am not trying to derail your thread but you started with an assertion that SG is a liar ,and I and others , looked for you to back up that statement.

My motivation has nothing to do with derailing the thread but who I vote for and to whom I will give my transfers and who not.

This may be a presidential election where transfers are important.

So you have not convinced me here.

Your discussion about that gilmore guy is way off topic

The Gilmore guy is his party leader and close friend and supporter since the 1970's.

How can we know the dancer from the dance?

Ye literary types are getting a treat today

As I am asking , as are others, about what objective stanard you are using.

Bombast is not convincing me.

raymon · 10-10-2011 08:44PM

CDfm wrote: »

I am not trying to derail your thread but you started with an assertion that SG is a liar ,and I and others , looked for you to back up that statement.

My motivation has nothing to do with derailing the thread but who I vote for and to whom I will give my transfers and who not.

This may be a presidential election where transfers are important.

So you have not convinced me here.

The Gilmore guy is his party leader and close friend and supporter since the 1970's.

Ye literary types are getting a treat today

As I am asking , as are others, about what objective stanard you are using.

Bombast is not convincing me.

I do not wish to convince you of anything. Make up your own mind

K-9 · 10-10-2011 09:54PM

CDfm wrote: »

I am not trying to derail your thread but you started with an assertion that SG is a liar ,and I and others , looked for you to back up that statement.

My motivation has nothing to do with derailing the thread but who I vote for and to whom I will give my transfers and who not.

This may be a presidential election where transfers are important.

So you have not convinced me here.

The Gilmore guy is his party leader and close friend and supporter since the 1970's.

Ye literary types are getting a treat today

As I am asking , as are others, about what objective stanard you are using.

Bombast is not convincing me.

Gilmore joined the Workers Party in 1975. Could you actually spit out what your problem is rather than waffling on?

Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

Comments