Saturday, March 15, 2008
Caesar beware the Ides of March
Okay today is the Ides of March: the anniversary of the murder of Julius Caesar. I think that it is long enough ago to avoid whataboutery. My question for the assembled intellects of slugger is who is most likely to have their political career assassinated in the near future?
Update: I am clearly not thinking that straight today (I have the cold). With the Julian calender being different to the Gregorian; will we have to wait until 28th March?
Turgon @ 10:22 AM
You might like to comment on this assertion, fair_deal:
“But we will not run from the field of battle and we will resist the republican agenda.
We are committed to working to improve the devolved arrangements to allow us to deliver more effectively for the people of Northern Ireland. Unionists can work from a position of strength within the institutions to make things better rather than shout impotently from the sidelines.”
Wasn’t there some shouting from the sidelines in 1997/8? Hadn’t the DUP ‘run from the field of battle’ in the lead up to the 1998 Agreement?
El Blogador has some nice photos of the DUP man who paid his fine rather than serve time for another ‘battle’.
Perhaps there’s some merit in leaving policies for another day. He might be ‘forced’ into a flip-flop like the leadership of the UUP and, later, the DUP.
Posted by on Mar 15, 2008 @ 09:36 PMI keep hearing people say how they fear that if Barack Obama is elected he will be assassinated by some presumably right wing white fascist type, why do they believe that? In the history of US presidential assassinations the assassins have always been radicals from the left.
The great Republican president Lincoln was murdered by a radical secessionist of the sort that formed the backbone of the Democratic party for over a century.
President McKinley was assassinated by left wing anarchists.
President Kennedy, one of the most anti-Communist presidents of the post war period was assassinated by a Moscow trained Communist sniper (no I don’t believe the theories that it was the Mob, the Cubans, the Freemasons, the CIA or Opus Dei).
His brother Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a radical Jordanian.
Presidents Ford, Nixon and Reagan all survived assassination attempts by nutters none of whom could conceivably be described as “right wing”.
As far as I can see it’s McCain who needs to watch himself.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 02:33 AMFlash.
Please don’t say orthat some sluggerites won’t sleep tonight.Their depending on Barak’s assasination to save western civilization:)Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 04:47 AMNevin
No they didn’t run from the field in 97/98. They kept their electoral promise plus all of us having to wait for an entire decade for SF to deliver on the democratic basics that the DUP and UKUP wanted back then. Whether staying would have made a difference or not is virtual history.
I don’t fall for the Trimble bleating, that there leaving weakening Unionism’s hand. IMO this actually inflated the UUP’s importance in the process without them there was no deal.
Plus the new checks and balances in St Andrew’s make this form of devolution much more workable than the dog’s breakfast previously.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 10:52 AM“No they didn’t run from the field in 97/98. They kept their electoral promise”
Of course, they ran from the field, fair_deal. It’s the sort of gutless blustering approach that we’ve come to expect from the DUP leadership over the years. Paisley has already confessed that he was ‘forced’ into a deal; I take it he got more or less the same offer as Trimble if no deal was forthcoming. Unionists were left outside the tent in 1985 and IMO it’s wishful thinking to imagine it wouldn’t happen again.
I’ve already pointed out that when the DUP ministers were previously in power they played musical chairs rather than undoing the additions that Mowlam had made to the 1998 Agreement. You’ll find Gregory Campbell’s name on the “Shaping Our Future” document and Peter Robinson’s in its formulation.
The image of a dog’s breakfast is an apt metaphor for the alleged deals done by the Chuckle Brothers in advance of Executive meetings. And then there was the Foster-Dodds deal done apparently in breach of the ministerial code. Perhaps they were just carrying out the orders of the DUP high command and it was left to a minor SFer to do the bleating. Opposition to the deal seemingly came mainly from outside Stormont.
Stories emanating from the DUP family, past and present, don’t paint a picture of a democratic organisation. Those who’ve fallen foul of the leadership in the past have been unceremoniously bundled out; McAllister of Moyle District Council has been the exception yet he’s the one found guilty of fraud. I’m led to believe that things could get even worse under a new leadership.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 12:17 PMTurgon your such a joker!
“My question for the assembled intellects of slugger”
I take that it was a Joke?Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 05:28 PMMaybe when the media are at it they should have a closer look at Peter Robinson’s past, he appears to have an agressive and bad tempered history.
Is he fit to be First Minister?
How will he deal with ‘his deputy’ Martin who isn’t a benign TV interviewer?
Fisticuffs on the front lawn at Stormont?
I await to see it with interest!
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 05:39 PM>> Agree with you about Obama he is being groomed for a fall
Hope this is not just wishful thinking…
With IKP’s political and religious career(s) ending not with a bang but a whimper (heh) and with many of his former supporters thinking he is a Lundy, I wonder if he may still surprise us - converting to Catholicism on his deathbed, perhaps????
I enjoyed the sweet sarcasm of Gerry Adams’s comments on IKP.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 08:30 PMNevin
“It’s the sort of gutless blustering approach that we’ve come to expect from the DUP leadership over the years.”
The DUP and UKUP (and the UUP) said if SF was allowed into talks without decommissioning they would leave the talks. It was an attempt to try and keep the government to its commitments.
The rest of the post is somehwat all over the place jumping from one unrelated issue to another. You don’t like the DUP I get it.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2008 @ 10:36 PM
