David Quinn: Why is Norris now credible when his view on pederasty is unchanged?
When David Norris withdrew from the presidential race in early August, 'The Irish Times' announced that he had "no other credible option" but to do so.
My question is this; what material fact has changed since then that suddenly makes him a credible candidate again? The answer is nothing has changed.
So why is he now a candidate in the election and why didn't 'The Irish Times', among others, loudly oppose his re-entry into the campaign given their earlier position?