Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats had been hoping for an election in which issues were submerged in a tide of pub chat about polls: this would give them a head start even before the campaign began, writes Dick Walsh
Bobby Molloy's resignation following Mr Justice Philip O'Sullivan's disclosure of approaches made to him on Molloy's behalf in a case of gross sexual abuse, for which a Connemara man is now serving 11 years in jail, put an end to that hope.
Not only has the Coalition lost an experienced Minister and the Progressive Democrats a strong candidate for re-election, the public has had a vivid reminder of the Government's poor record on political standards.
Here is another resignation to follow those of Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, Denis Foley and Ned O'Keeffe. Another reminder, too, of the Sheedy affair and of criticism - in a report written by Brian Harvey and sponsored by the Rowntree Trust - of the closeness between the judiciary and politics.
And, as John O'Donoghue attempts to explain his exchanges with Molloy, questions remain to be answered about the judgments of Bertie Ahern, Mary Harney and Michael McDowell as to whether this was a resigning matter. The case, everyone agreed, was an appalling example of incest, buggery and rape inflicted on a terrified girl during her childhood and teenage years.
On Tuesday, Mr Justice O'Sullivan said he had refused a telephone call from an official in Molloy's department who asked if he had received a communication from the Connemara man's sister.
The judge rebuked the Minister: it was quite improper that any such approach should be made and surprising that anyone of ministerial status should have made it. (Observers believed it was a rebuke without precedent).
And at a special sitting on Wednesday he added that he had earlier refused a call from the Department of Justice asking, on Molloy's behalf, for his home telephone number. By then, Molloy had resigned, with profuse apologies to the judge and to the woman who had been abused by her father for over 10 years - until he threatened to murder her and she reported to the gardaí.
Now she says she doesn't understand why Molloy intervened; she is both confused and hurt by the intervention.
But Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney had said on Tuesday evening that this was not a resigning matter for Molloy and several commentators had chimed in: in that case, they said, he didn't have to go. Some 14 hours later he had gone.
Curiously, Michael McDowell was among those who agreed that Molloy's resignation was, as he put it, "entirely proper". Why, then, had the Attorney General failed to inform the Taoiseach and Tánaiste of his opinion as they wrestled with the problem for hours on Tuesday?
If they'd heard his advice - and it would be extraordinary if they hadn't - why did they so adamantly refuse to take it?
On Wednesday, Ahern explained to TV3 that, had he asked Molloy to resign: "I would be as bad as the Opposition leaders. I don't believe in blood or heads."
This is straight from The Gurrier's Guide to Politics - a collection that Ahern has been compiling while on the run from questions raised by the failure of his appointees to live up to the most undemanding standards of public life.
His irritation at the performances of Michael Noonan and Ruairí Quinn is pathetic. Coalition supporters and some commentators complain that Fine Gael and Labour are "electioneering". As if the issue were not serious enough to command attention; as if discussion should be muted because an election was imminent.
On RTÉ yesterday Sam Smith, of the Irish Independent, said that in the Dáil next week the Opposition would be "looking for a victim". This case already has a victim. Noonan, Quinn and their colleagues are duty-bound to raise the issue in the Dáil. Among the questions which remain to be answered are some raised by the correspondence published yesterday between Molloy and John O'Donoghue.
In one letter to Molloy, O'Donoghue pointed out that the man in the case had been convicted but was not serving a sentence: he was in custody "pending future court appearances". The Minister for Justice continued: "I am therefore unable to consider the possibility of temporary release." Molloy had already said he didn't seek the man's release. Who did?
Then, in a statement explaining gaps in the correspondence, O'Donoghue said he did not believe it would be correct to publish material containing personal information about private individuals or comments regarding the merits of the case which had been subject to adjudication by courts.
This admission that the merits of the case were discussed, apparently in correspondence between ministers, is another feature of the affair which calls for explanation.
In his report on the Sheedy case, the former Chief Justice Liam Hamilton said he didn't share Hugh O'Flaherty's belief that an intervention by a member of the Supreme Court would be received by a court official "as if it had come from a private individual".
Presumably the same applies to an indication of interest by a member of the Government, although clientism is common and interventions by judges are few and far between. (Aren't they?)
The FF-PD Coalition has been propped up for five years by the four pillars of clientism - the Independents, two of whom, Tom Gildea and Jackie Healy-Rae, have made no bones about their tactics: hardly ever speaking in the Dáil but paying well-timed visits to Ministers who usually delivered the goods.
Whether we want another five years of it is a question the electorate will have to answer in a month's time.