Declan Ganley
Michael O'Leary
Which was the biggest lie?Originally Posted by SPN
Was it the one in which Declan Ganley said O’Leary was effectively bent over a barrel and has to do what the EU wants if he has any chance of taking over Aer Lingus?
We all know that is miles off the truth because Mick is such a good European and cares about workers rights, etc, etc.
Just wondering - is there anybody who is pro-Lisbon who thinks that Ganley won or anyone who is anti think that victory went to Micko?
As a No voter, I think O’Leary would have cleaned up if the debate had ended five minutes earlier. Allowing it to drag on showed his lack of in depth knowledge of the treaty. Also, being O’Leary, his good sense of humour quickly transitions into pure insulting and bullying behaviour.
#
You are in urgent need of the swine flu jab, your perception of reality is seriously distorted.
I watched the debate again on YouTube. Last night I was taking notes to stick up on P.ie so I didn't get much chance to evaluate overall presentation, body language and (any) underlying messages.
O'Leary
Content: This time round I was even more impressed with O'Leary. He had three key points on the Irish Commissioner, our taxation veto and the guarantees. As one should, he repeated each point at least three times for impact. Also he was entirely credible on these points as he regularly tangles with the Commission, pays taxes here and clearly understands about investment and corporation tax. He didn't waste time on foreign policy and defence as neither are his line of business.
Dress sense: casual and informal, belying his actual nature.
Demeanour: weary and a bit impatient. Confident. Entertaining.
Extras: he completely smacked down DG on one of Ganley's more egregious claims, i.e. that Lisbon is factually the end of democracy because the Noes were not being accepted. MOL's riposte was immediate and devastating - the one about DG not accepting No after the EP elections and being a failed politician. He started off on message and when he'd laid out his stall, played the man - and how!
Ganley
Content: I'm a Yes advocate, so I would naturally challenge the relevance if not veracity of many of DGs claims (unelected President, voting weight, own resources/taxation). Of course No advocates would mark these up as plus points, so this has to be accepted. Also he spent too much time slagging off EBNS - Everyone But the No Side, a very negative attitude. He was too technical, and his "issue for all Europe" and assault on the soul of Europe" sounded insincere and forced - particularly in light of his vision-free Libertas EP campaign.
Dress sense: snappy, but a bit like an accountant. Some tasteful informality might have been advisable. At least he didn't wear the Rupert the Bear jacket.
Demeanour: a bit too smart and condescending. Cool enough most of the time. But also tending to be shrill. He didn't have MOL's natural wit.
Extras: I think Ganley is a bit two-dimensional. He doesn't sound like he believes what he's saying. He sounds insincere, to me anyway. I can't think of anything he did that stuck out in a positive way.
Result
I'd give MOL 4 points on content, 1 for technique (repeating each important point 3 times), 1 for wit, and 1 for confidence. I make that 7.
I'd give DG 3 for the points he made that speak to his audience (but not to me), 1 for coolness. But that's being generous.
Final score: MOL 7 : 4 DG
And finally...
Miriam O'Callaghan was truly embarrassing. She goes on like she's the centre of attention. Her "Michael, you're being a bully" was totally unprofessional, petty and condescending (like she has the right - the bloody nerve!). As was her trite and sexist "two grown men with egos" snipe. Puhleeze! Save it for luncheon with the ladettes!!
very true, if it had ended a few minutes earlier he would have won, but his large ego caused him to self- distruct at the end ,Been called a bully by a female presenter destoyed him.
McDave, you ain't fooling anyone. O'Leary was so embarassing that one would almost feel sorry for him.
I'm back from the naughty corner, which did me some good, I feel.
I'm leaning to the Yes side at the moment.
But I'll tell you this: anyone who thinks Michael O'Leary won that debate needs their head examined. I have never seen a clearer victory in such an event. Ganley actually humiliated him in my opinion.
Get serious. When someone has to say :
"You want to be Dana" and
"You're a failed politician"
over and over again.... that surely says something.
Ganley I don't like, but as a debater on Euro matters he is simply in a different class to O'Leary.
I think a lot of it came down to practice. Ganley has had loads of it but I think this was O'Leary's first EU debate - and it showed.
The other two debates were toss-ups, most of the people who think Cox won just hate Sinn Fein. In fact the first two debates were as good as draws.
My wife, who is a strong yes, says she might think again after listening to Ganley. She's a 'non national' and couldn't believe the yes side put O'Leary up.
One cannot say "Here are our monsters", without immediately turning the monsters into pets.
Funny enough, the Mrs. said that to me - I said I'd have more pity for Gary Glitter if he caught his johnson in a paper shredder.
One cannot say "Here are our monsters", without immediately turning the monsters into pets.
I'm telling it as I see it. I don't especially like either man, but IMO MOL came out clearly on top. The better Alpha Male by a distance.
And there's something to him as well. Some substance. As opposed to DG, who just comes across like he's something to hide. I mean, all that "elitism" BS. From Ganley? How can anyone on the No side listen to DG on so-called Brussels elites with a straight face. DG personifies elitism. Who's he trying to fool?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks