:COURTEOUS BUT cagey, the councillors listen.
“I have spent a lifetime fighting for the underdog,” says David Norris. “Travellers, children, the elderly, carers, the disabled, the disenfranchised . . .” He lays out his record.
That’s how it should be for supplicants: showcasing what they have done in the past and outlining how they can use this experience in the future to prove their suitability for the highest office in the land.
But yesterday, in Wexford and Carlow and Waterford, the Senator was fighting for himself. Senator Norris – and you could sense he knows this – is the underdog.
David Norris wants to run for president. He has a considerable groundswell of support for this ambition. But unless he manages to get his name on the ballot paper, we will never know if he has what it takes to persuade the public to give him the job.
If four councils give him the nod he’s on the starting grid.
Perhaps in an effort to scatter some of the stardust of an American presidential campaign, he labelled yesterday’s whistle-stop tour of three council meetings “Super Monday”. It all sounded quite exciting. The reality was something different.
Senator Norris looked very presidential in a sharp suit, pristine shirt, polka dot tie and matching hankie in his breast pocket. His beard was manicured and snowy white.
Of course, he charmed with the small talk before he addressed the councils. Although, given some of the questions to come, he did well to maintain that upbeat demeanour.
At the end of an exhausting day, David and his election team were no wiser about his prospects than when it started.
Or perhaps they were. The councillors revelled in their inscrutability, giving nothing away. But the tone and pitch of many of their questions gave pause for thought.
Senator Norris is mired in controversy over a magazine interview he gave nine years ago in which he mused on sexual relations between older men and younger men and boys. As a result, his campaign to get a place on the presidential ballot paper is in serious jeopardy.
He soldiers on. But as councillors want to know if this controversy is over. Will there be more stories? Should he become president, might they reflect on his office? Sex abuse. Age of consent. Abortion. Cannabis. His view on “traditional values and morals”. This is not normal territory for presidential campaigns, where the battle is usually along the lines of “my vision is bigger than yours”.
Senator Norris brought his vision to Wexford first, acknowledging straight off that he was there “in the shadow of charges put against me”. Charges which he went to great pains to “utterly reject” while offering to clarify any confusion that had arisen.
“If we were to nominate you, will we be sure this is the end of the controversy? Is there more coming down the line, and if so, what’s the story?” asked Councillor Michael Sheehan.
The Senator assured him there would be no further issues. "That was then, this is now." He believes there is a campaign against him in certain sections of the media. "I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't know who is behind this, but I can tell you there are fires starting here, there and so on." He could be right. Over in Carlow, a photocopy of a page from the Mailnewspaper lay on one councillor's desk. "Sorry David, this is not about your sexuality, its about your stance on sex abuse," read the headline over a piece by John Waters.
We were told that the page was posted anonymously to a number of councillors in advance of the meeting, while others had received e-mails urging them not to endorse Senator Norris.
Councillor John Pender asked him about the article.
“Let me say again and again and eventually it will sink in: I have always condemned the abuse of children, whether it be physical, psychological or sexual,” he began. These allegations were “the most deeply wounding thing that could be said to any man, let alone a Senator, let alone a presidential candidate”. One could sense the councillors were uncomfortable with the subject matter.
But there was support, too, yesterday for Senator Norris. Many councillors condemned some of the media treatment of him. The word “witch-hunt” was used more than once.
In Carlow, Labour councillor Jim Townsend spoke of the “character assassination of a good, decent, honourable Irishman”. Referring to the infamous magazine interview, he felt Senator Norris “handled it wrongly” by handling the subject “in a intellectual way”.
But will they let him on the ticket? They pointed out that other people would be coming before them pleading their cases. So they have to wait and see.
“Let me reiterate, I am not asking you for your support as president, I am only asking for permission to be able to subject myself to the will of the Irish people,” he stressed.
He pressed the point that there were doubts, too, about the candidacies of Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese before him.
Which led one councillor to ask: “Do you think Ireland is ready to move that further step forward . . . in electing your good self?” What was that further step? He didn’t say, but we can surmise . . .
