Background: Dana Rosemary Scallon became a US citizen shortly before running for president of Ireland in 1997.

The red herrings: Dana’s sister claimed during court proceedings in 2008 that Dana had actively decided not to bring that fact to the attention of the electorate. Dana claims that dual citizenship is possible, and points to De Valera, who was a US citizen by birth.

The real issue: While US courts have recognized dual citizenship in certain situations for some time, the process of becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States involves an oath renouncing one’s other citizenships:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

There’s a legal question here: adopting US citizenship through naturalization is understood in US law, at least, to require the surrendering of other citizenships (whether or not the other countries recognize that act as taking place.

There’s also a moral question: this is a formal oath, sworn by someone who proclaims herself to be a devout Christian, which includes the phrase “without any mental reservation.” Either Dana perjured herself, or… actually, I’m not sure there’s an ‘or’ here.

Dana’s not going to be president (she’s currently 100/1 on Paddy Power) in large part because so much of what she claims to stand for – an insular and shallow version of Irishness, dog-whistling to Irish conservatives still smarting over equal pay for women and the decriminalization of homosexuality – is unpopular and increasingly a marginal perspective. However, she has wrapped this up inside a constitution-toting package, proclaiming the defense of the Irish constitution as her primary platform, and it turns out she’s already sworn to defend that of another country, and she claims not to even remember that oath? Really? Irish law – where citizenship is automatic for those, such as Dana, who are born abroad to parents born on the island of Ireland – may not recognize the renunciation of Irish citizenship, but surely Dana feels a shiver when she contemplates the oath she swore before god.

Now the Irish government is engaging in another form of treason. The government is signing off on an agreement with the IMF and others, in which they commit the state to changing the retirement age, introducing water charges, and to cut social welfare rates, among other things. These changes are to take place at set times – many of them after the next election will take place. As a parliamentary democracy (and in line with the Irish constitution) international agreements, particularly those which involve charges on the public purse, must be approved by the Oireachtas.

The government, however, is refusing to get parliamentary approval for the MOU – though it has deigned to publish (most of) the text of the agreement. The role of the government is govern, within the legislative bounds set by the legislature. In this case we have a government which is seeking to tie the hands of the legislature and future governments, and which is refusing to submit the agreement for parliamentary approval. Why is that? Joan Burton may have the answer, noting that:

Distinguished economist, Professor Barry Eichengreen, wrote in Germany’s financial daily, Handelsblatt, today that: “Ireland will be transferring nearly 10 per cent of its national income as reparations to the bondholders, year after painful year.”

Traitors. And perhaps a lower form of scum.

This week the Irish government got that wrong. They lied when asked if there were any discussions with the IMF or the EU – or at least finessed their answers to mislead (rather than merely obfuscate or avoid).These developments can be seen as sensitive – because they are. Any information provided might influence short-term economic developments, affecting the availability of funds for Irish businesses, or whether a business will decide to proceed with an investment in the country. However, providing false information also has an impact – and arguably a longer-term negative impact on the reputation of the government and the state.

At a time when statements/leaks were flowing freely from other governments, the EU, and elsewhere – and when the development (while gut-wrenching for those of us watching from afar) was not farfetched, I cannot understand what it was thought might be gained by having the news dragged out like this.

And now, of course, government ministers are claiming that the only two things that can’t happen are that corporation taxes should rise from their current level [1] and that the government cannot fall. An election, or a change in personnel within the government, would signal uncertainty, which would make this process more expensive (as markets treat uncertainty as risk) and damage whatever authority the government still retains in its negotiations.

[1] The issue of corporate tax levels is an important one, and more nuanced in Ireland than elsewhere. As an island nation (with accordingly higher distribution costs), which built much of its growth (before the property bubble) on inbound foreign investment, having a tax rate lower than the rest of Europe has been cited by multiple observers as one of the keys to the country’s economic success. Beyond the palaver about English-speaking, well-educated populations (both true, but of diminishing significance/value), corporate taxes (and, until recently, high levels of European structural investment) were key elements in the country’s economic growth. However, whether this is the one issue of government policy that should be retained, untouched, beyond the reach of the bureaucrats who are about to take over running the country, is less clear.

I was reminded of this today when I saw this tidbit from Inside Radio (the story itself is behind a pay-wall):

AG: Talk show not contribution.

Maryland Attorney General’s office says it doesn’t consider a radio talk show a campaign contribution. WBAL, Baltimore talk host and former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich has said he plans to remain on the air until he announces his bid in July to reclaim the governor’s office. Several Democratic groups protested his radio show, saying WBAL was giving Ehrlich an unfair advantage.

Radio stations are, during an election campaign, subject to the Equal Time rule, which requires (with certain exceptions) that stations provide time to all candidates under the same terms and conditions. The rule is codified in 47 USC 315. That rule, though, only covers ‘legally qualified candidates’ so there’s a loophole as:

Ehrlich has declared his intentions to run for governor and has started campaigning but has not yet officially filed his candidacy.

(In an added absurdity, Ehrlich actually has a campaign spokesperson, who is issuing statements about the issue that are clearly part of a campaign for office: “We were confident all along we were right in our position. And we hope now that everyone can focus on the issues that are important to Marylanders which are lower taxes and creating new jobs.”)

Those stations which hold non-commercial licenses (WBAL holds a commercial broadcast license) from the FCC are also banned, by FCC regulation, from selling airtime or airing ‘calls to action’, which largely prevents the airing of campaign ads. Further, many non-commercial stations are organized as 501 (c) 3 organizations, and so subject to IRS regulations that restrict political activities.

With this story, despite the advice from the office of the (Democratic) Attorney General that the show should not be considered a political donation to Ehrlich, we are reminded that state electoral financing rules might also affect what can, or cannot, be aired, and that the situation might differ state by state.

Incidentally, WBAL is covering the story heavily online and over the air today – together with another where Ehrlich’s non-candidacy status is actually hampering him somewhat, as supporters are being cited for zoning violations, for large (32-square foot) signs that don’t fall under the exception for election candidates. You can’t always have it both ways….

The technologies in use have changed through the years. When I started tallying, we collated the master tally on paper; within a few years, most parties were using Excel or similar. Sometimes someone would bring in a small portable television, and people of all parties would gather around it when there was a particularly momentous development relayed through RTÉ. In the last election or two there was an increasing amount of SMS messages and calls to friends in other count centres, as well as some activity on sites like politics.ie.

Fast-forward to this election, and how things have changed. Although I’m missing hanging out at the count, and the catching up with old friends that that entails, there’s been a constant stream of data online. I gather from disgruntled voices that RTÉ’s web presence has been far better than their (intermittent) broadcast coverage, so I’ve been able to keep up on the running totals of seats won by each party, and to drill down to individual councils if and when I desired.

Even better has been the coverage at IrishElection.com, where they’ve been collating a mix of twitter-style feeds and original content. Moderated, so none of the to-and-fro sniping and off-topic rambling you get on the more traditional web forums, but still with a bit of character to it. As Simon McGarr, in common with several others has noted, “it has outperformed any other source of information and original reporting in the entire country.” Pointers outward to various analyses of progress in different areas, or other bits and pieces. Also – and this brings us back to the technology issue – the feed includes pointers to Alexia Golez’s live video snippets from the Dublin count centre. Using Qik’s phone-to-web tool, she’s able to provide real-time streams of the results, which are then archived online. I leave the window open, and whenever she starts to ‘broadcast’ it starts up in my browser.

Between all of this, I’ve been able to keep a steady stream – or at least a steady drip – of information coming my way, and to have a mix of solid reports and the rumours and analysis that are such an integral part of the process. However, there’s only so much that the internet can do, which was why I was grateful to the friend who thought to call me late last night, after coming home from the Galway count (which finished around 3:30am), to give me an update from there, and share the free-ranging discussion and speculation that I was missing.

Some other thoughts:

• Some political junkies have complained about the lack of live coverage on RTÉ television, in particular, but also on the other broadcast outlets. I think there’s a role for more regular reports, but the play-by-play is mainly of interest to insiders and junkies, and will be of limited importance, compared to the final results, or the overall trends, once those results are finalized in a day or two. It seems reasonable to taper off the constant live coverage as the results from the counts turn to a trickle, while continuing to provide data on the web, or by SMS/twitter, as RTÉ, at least, has done.
• One shortcoming with the generally useful and comprehensive RTÉ data: they’re only reporting first count totals and candidate status (elected/eliminated) on the web, and then collating total party numbers by council and nationally. I don’t see why they couldn’t be including individual count totals (for the second and subsequent rounds) in their database, particularly since their reporters need to be listening to those numbers when they’re announced, in order to then report on who was elected or eliminated. It would allow those of us who want to drill down into the numbers to use the data for more sophisticated analysis, and build a pool of data that RTÉ could have available for future election coverage. The front end is fine, but I find myself wondering “why was that candidate eliminated?” and “how did those transfers scatter?” RTÉ, with their comprehensive coverage, are in a position to provide that information in a timely fashion.
• I should note that ElectionsIreland are now providing count-by-count updates for the European results. I’m guessing reporting the locals in real time was a bit beyond their reach yesterday. Another indication of what the organizations with paid staff can do, which the volunter-run spaces can’t….
• If RTÉ are the people who should be providing the comprehensive numbers, the web seems to be a better space for the analysis and speculation to thrive. It’s the junkies who want the ongoing coverage, and they are also often best placed to provide the speculation. Better that than constantly-revolving talking heads on TV (though the . A fair division of labour, it would seem to me….
• Counts have always been spaces where there’s been some interaction between the various political camps, as acquaintances (or even friends) who fall on different sides of the party line will often overcome those differences to swap updates and discuss campaigning experiences. That’s also the case in the online space, where activists are discussing updates in a shared space.

Of course, there’s also the substantive matter of the elections themselves. This looks to be a poor election for the left across Europe. We’ve seen a drop in support for PES parties over the past while, and that continues in this election.

Ireland looks to be an exception. Even though Ireland drops from 15 to 12 MEPs, we’re going to go from 1 Labour/PES representative (de Rossa in Dublin) to at least two (Childers in Ireland East), and possibly a third (my old Labour Youth colleague, Alan Kelly, in Ireland South). That last result depends on whether Alan can stay ahead of Toireasa Ferris of Sinn Féin – he was 500 behind her after the first count but is already 300 ahead after the second (thanks ElectionsIreland!). Given that they’re both on around 66,000 votes, and the quota’s over 124,000, there’s still a long slog to go, but I’m optimistic.

Joe Higgins, Socialist Party candidate, looks likely to take a seat in Dublin, and unseat Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald. Four seats out of twelve for the Left/centre-Left is good for Ireland. Fianna Fáil have had a bad election, dropping from 300 local council seats to something around 200 (196 at time of writing, with 67 still to be declared). The seat gains have been split fairly evenly between Fine Gael and Labour, though Labour is still sitting in third place, at 125 as I write. Fianna Fáil will also likely end up with 3 MEPs, tied with Labour and behind Fine Gael.

Declan Ganley, US defense contractor, and founder of the Libertas rag-tag band of reactionary candidates, is polling better than one might hope in Ireland North-West, but still looks out of the running for a seat. Looks like that will stay with the same 1FF/1FG/1IND split, though with a personnel change in Fianna Fáil that will necessitate a by-election sometime soon, if there isn’t a general election in the interim.

Speculation in some quarters that the Greens might pull the plug on the government, after a disastrous showing – they’re sitting at 3 council seats, down from 18 after the 2004 election. I don’t see that happening. They’re so tied into the government’s fortunes that they would be annihilated in a general election. More sensible from their perspective was Ó Brolcháin’s call for FG and Labour to make a proposal to the Greens for them to pull out of government, and create an alternative coalition without having to go for an election, though I’m not sure I see that happening either. It’s worth remembering that we’re heading into the summer months, and once we reach the Autumn, any parliamentary developments will require fresh events to provide impetus for the Greens to pull out of government, or whatever other changes we see.

I think of that elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day, a money order for three dollars and one cent, along with a verse of scripture tucked inside the envelope. So don’t tell me change isn’t possible. That woman knows that change is possible. 

Rachel Sklar calls it “an inspiring image” – which is undoubtedly true – and recognizes that it is a clever, well constructed, piece of oratory, drawing on so many sympathetic themes.When I heard it – and again when I heard it a second, and then a third, time – I thought “what book of the Bible has a relevant Chapter 3, Verse 1″? Mentioning that a verse was tucked in with the money order was the kicker, but $3.01 is unusual enough that I suspect symbolism in the very amount. Two questions arise – was Obama aware of the symbolism (and did he intend to telegraph it ‘to those who have ears to hear’); and what exactly is the symbolism.So today I went through an online Bible, looking for verses that might fit. And wow, were there verses. The problem is that so much of the rhetoric could be made to fit, even if in cases it would strain. There are a few verses, however, that stand out: 

•  Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good (Titus)
• Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. (1 Timothy)
• Woe to the city of blood,full of lies,full of plunder,never without victims! (Nahum)
  
• Woe to the city of oppressors,rebellious and defiled! (Zephaniah)
• There is a time for everything,and a season for every activity under heaven: (Ecclesiastes)
• My son, do not forget my teaching,but keep my commands in your heart, (Proverbs)

And this, of course, is but a small selection – I’ve omitted the ends of days references, or oblique references to marriage and offerings. Any of these could well be the verse included – the first two as commendations on the decision to run, the middle two as comments on changes needed in DC, and the last as an admonition to follow a righteous path. If I had to choose, I’d guess it’s probably Ecclesiastes (quoting from ‘to everything there is a season’ asa  complement to Obama’s call for ‘change’ and claim that ‘Yes We Can’) or Timothy (commending Obama for seeking leadership). Of course, if it’s Timothy, one would expect other candidates to get similar donations as, in seeking office, each are doing the same as Obama, and it would be easy to puncture Obama’s rhetoric by showing that to be the case.Thus, I’m going to guess it’s the verse from Ecclesiastes. Just guesswork, of course, and I welcome alternative theories. Also – has anyone seen any other commentary on the bible verse? It is, of course, a minor aspect of the speech, and but a footnote in the race, but I was surprised not to see any commentary myself that even nodded in the direction of the $3.01 being a coded reference.  

As is noted in the accompanying article, Kucinich is the one with a worth closest to the ‘average’ American, though $200k still puts him well above the median – in 2004 US households had a net worth of just over $100k. I’m not one to attack candidates purely on account of their wealth – as we pointed on during the show, it’s the policies that matter, and criticisms of, for example, Edwards for raising issues of poverty, are cynical and ill-founded. It’s significant, though to note the correlation between wealth and being perceived as a ‘viable’ candidate. Note too that the 2004 CNN figures I reference above show just 6.4m US households with net worth over $1m (excluding primary residence) and around 500k households with net worth over $5m. There are around 100m households in the US (the census’s 2004 estimate was around 107m) which puts Obama firmly in the top 6% of households by wealth (assuming his reported wealth is his household wealth – if not, he’s even more firmly up there). All of the other remaining candidates (now that Kucinich is out) with the exception of Huckabee are firmly in the top half-percent of households by wealth.

Bob also referenced a San Francisco Chronicle article criticizing the court decision allowing the exclusion of Kucinich from the Nevada debate.

With no other candidate yet confirmed, and over a quarter of the PLP already behind him (7/26), Gilmore may be unassailable. Tommy Broughan has yet to confirm his intentions, and Labour Youth has issued a statement calling on him to run, but the longer the delay the more time for Gilmore’s anointment inevitable. Over on politics.ie, David Cochrane has suggested that a contest could benefit the party, which does have a ring of truth to it.

I have heard good things about Gilmore in recent times – reports of his talk at the Tom Johnson summer school have been glowing – but personally I’ll be holding off on a decision until I see all the candidates available.

In a strange twist of fate, the Labour Party had a second candidate by the name of Brendan Ryan seeking a Seanad seat – this time in one of the vocational panels – and since he got in there will still be a Labour senator called Brendan Ryan in the new Seanad.