Is Sean Gallagher telling lies

raymon wrote: »

Hardly sitting it out .

Indeed. The Parliamentary Party are sitting it out, but the grass roots that Gallagher was so careful not to condemn in the debate are out banging on doors.

I think Gallagher will post respectable numbers in this election, and will be a Fianna Fáil TD after the next General Election. Martin will never shake off his Ministerial and Government record, so how about Gallagher for FF leader in 5 years, Taoiseach in 10?

The spoofer. He says that he didn't get the opportunity during the debate to express these criticisms of FF in govt. Untrue. O'Callaghan asked him four times.

He also flubbed the question at the post-debate press conference. This video is from David Cochrane at politics.ie. Watch Gallagher from 9:30:



Anyway, his Micheal-approved, morning-after prepared statement prompts the question: If SG "abhorred" the "appalling" decisions of the FF government, their "mismanagement of our economy that has taken us to where we are," then why was he so keen to keep FF in government that he canvassed for and/or launched the campaigns of several FF candidates last winter?

I also question his attempt to minimize the significance of his role on the FF National Executive. Damian Kiberd facilitated that message in a shamefully biased Lunchtime program on Monday, and SG did it in the debate and the post-debate press conference when he brushed off his membership, saying "that's an organization committee . . . It deals with organization issues, not matters of policy."

Sure, as recently as last weekend that he was telling us that the only reason he attended the National Executive meetings was to lobby for legislation to ensure that subcontractors (like himself) get paid when developers go bust:

In a statement yesterday, Mr Gallagher's campaign team said: "Sean Gallagher joined the National Executive of Fianna Fail in 2009 in a bid to advance his proposal for legislation to protect sub-contractors when developers went bust. He attended two meetings of the executive, in July 2009 and December 2009. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fglab-target-gallagher-as-mitchell-cast-out-in-the-cold-2900584.html

So it looks like the National Executive does indeed deal with matters of policy. But while he "abhorred" the "appalling" policies of FF in govt, did he protest them using his access to the National Executive? Nah, he spent his political capital lobbying for policy to benefit himself financially.

LostinKildare wrote: »

Sure, as recently as last weekend that he was telling us that the only reason he attended the National Executive meetings was to lobby for legislation to ensure that subcontractors (like himself) get paid when developers go bust:


He "abhorred" the "appalling" policies of FF in govt, but did he protest them using his access to the National Executive? Nah, he spent his political capital lobbying for policy to benefit himself financially.

Do you think that Sub-contractor protective legislation is not necessary?
Are you aware of the legacy of builders going bust and ruining family run business's (sub-contractors) throughout Ireland. This is one of the saddest parts about the current Irish situation and you attack someone for trying to protect sub-contractors.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you think that Sub-contractor protective legislation is not necessary?
Are you aware of the legacy of builders going bust and ruining family run business's (sub-contractors) throughout Ireland. This is one of the saddest parts about the current Irish situation and you attack someone for trying to protect sub-contractors.

Is it sadder than the bank bailout? Is it sadder than Ireland becoming insolvent and all that's come with that -- not just for subcontractors in the property game, but for everyone else in the country and their children, too?

The only issue SG felt compelled to raise his voice about was a very very narrow one that affected his own bottom line.

But wait, jonniebgood1, how was he able to do this at all, in the forum that according to SG dealt only with organizational matters in the party?

He was in UCC last nite and disregarding politics for a moment IMO his wife is a good looking woman:D;);)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This just shows how much heat he got overnight for his refusal to condemn Fianna Fáil.

See how he still can't say "Fianna Fáil let the country down"!

Exactly & he never will. He is deep in the FF genetic pool & it is genetically impossible for him to condemn them. Assuming he doesn't get the Presidency (which I sincerely hope he won't) what's the betting he will be a FF candidate in the next General Election ... no problem!

Callan57 wrote: »

Sean Gallagher could not condemn FF because, like a lot of dyed in the wool FF's, he really does not believe they did anything wrong. As with his fellow FF's they see Bertie & Co as simply unlucky, unfortunate and the victims of events.

His behaviour is typical FF lie, lie and then deny, deny.

so when he saidin interview the ff goverment did ,you saying they didn't Independent Presidential candidate Seán Gallagher today said that he ‘abhorred’ the decisions made by the last Fianna Fáil Governments.
Speaking during an interview on the Neil Prenderville Show on Cork 96fm during a visit to the county, Mr. Gallagher said,
“I have never made any secret of the fact that I was in Fianna Fáil and I have always encouraged people to get involved in youth and community and indeed political parties.”
“I have huge respect for the grass roots of any organisations, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin and those who are out there trying to improve our communities.”
“But what is important to point out is that I have never been a politician, I have never stood for elected office, I have been a voluntary member of an organisation. But sadly many people in grass roots are being demonised for being a voluntary member of a political party.”
“I was asked last night on the Prime Time programme if I would condemn Fianna Fáil.”
“I couldn’t condemn the ordinary grass roots members of the party throughout the country, ordinary decent people, who were not in Government who were not in cabinet, who did not make decisions.”
“I did try to get the opportunity, but didn’t get back in to say that of course I abhor many of the decisions of the last Government and the mismanagement of our economy that has taken us to where we are and the last Government were responsible.”
“I have never used the word condemnation in my life. It is not in my vocabulary.”
“The last Government badly mismanaged the economy. It overheated. We are now left with the issues of businesses struggling and unemployment. I think that there were appalling decisions made.”
“Of course there was mismanagement at senior level and Michéal Martin has accepted that.”
“I was not at the cabinet table. I was a grassroots member working on a voluntary capacity. I do not feel like I need to be answerable, neither do any of the grassroots members need to be answerable for what was happening at cabinet.”
“We can’t change the past. I’m not responsible for what happened in Government. But I can be responsible for what I contribute to the country now. I want to move the debate on.”
“I don’t believe in negative campaigning.”
“I have never believed that I will grow an inch taller by knocking anyone down.”

Don't really care about Gallagher's personal life, FF membership or financial status etc etc

It's his lying and spoofing about things that's the issue (plus his misunderstanding of the role and duties of the presidency).

Wallflower wrote: »

Don't really care about Gallagher's personal life, FF membership or financial status etc etc

It's his lying and spoofing about things that's the issue (plus his misunderstanding of the role and duties of the presidency).

Is there any candidate in election not lying ?

Wallflower wrote: »

Was in yesterday's Independent. Confusing, disingenious, hilarious - I'm not sure which it is.:rolleyes:

Seems to me he got lucky on the back of the building boom (and state grants which he didn't want to pay back, and still hasn't fully).

Anyway, for such a "big entrepreneur" seems a bit strange to make a virtue out of eventually paying back 19K out of 20K to the people who helped start you up.

do you have link to details of the loan
do you have details to settlement.