So we will be off to the hustings again. Drapier is not surprised, but no more than most in here, he is less than enthusiastic about the prospects of an October presidential election.
He knows the coffers of all parties are depleted and the prospects - both of raising and spending funds and all the hassle of canvassing - does not fill him with gruntlement. But then elections are the stuff of democracy and, when they come, let them be embraced with at least a semblance of enthusiasm.
What all that means is that there is no prospect of an agreed presidential candidate. Would there were, say some of Drapier's colleagues; but none of the conventionally mentioned names appear to be available.
John Hume and Seamus Mallon are tied up in the Northern process, and while either would be a splendid choice, the reality is that neither is available. Seamus Heaney would make a wonderful, warm and stylish President and could still spend some part of his time at his verse, but he seems uninterested.
None of the other names routinely trotted out - senior judges, university presidents, worthy academics, captains of industry, not to mention some of the feisty feminists - muster sufficient support to be an obvious choice and, in any event, sections of the media would hammer us all were we to agree behind closed doors on some such person. Not that, in Drapier's view, the end result would make all that much difference, but try telling the punters that.
Before looking at the potential candidates, Drapier would like to express a few points about the realities of our presidency, not least because he feels we are all in danger of losing the run of ourselves on the subject.
For example, it has become an accepted truth of Irish public discourse that the presidency will never be the same again after Mary Robinson, that she has given it a new definition, deepened it and altered it out of all recognition. Anybody who follows will inherit a very different institution to what existed previously. Or so we are told.
Drapier will only say yes and no. Yes. Mary Robinson was a good President. Very good, in fact. She was high profile, hardworking, respected, much given to making important political statements through symbolism as much as through words, and undoubtedly did much for the international image of Ireland. Drapier happily accepts all these points and more.
But how much different now is the presidency to what we had in Paddy Hillery's time? And Drapier remains an admirer of Paddy Hillery. Very little difference, in Drapier's view. The simple fact is that the Constitution deliberately gives no real power of any sort to the President.
This was not an accident. De Valera had a simple view that you cannot have two competing centres of power. The government should govern and the President should preside. The last thing you want is one getting in the way of the other. That's the business of the Dail, the Seanad, the media, and all the other active parts of our political process.
So all this talk of Mary Robinson having pushed out the frontiers, carved out a new role and so forth is largely froth. The presidency is no more powerful today than it was in Douglas Hyde's time, nor is it going to be.
As a person who knows and respects the Constitution, Mary Robinson was fully aware of that reality and, in fairness, all her actions were founded on that inescapable fact. So Drapier hopes in the coming election we will be spared all the contrived talk we had to endure in 1990 of a new, more powerful, more involved presidency.
No incumbent can give more power to the President. Only a constitutional change can do that, and that's not going to happen.
Hold on a minute, you may say. The President has no real power but surely the influence of the office is huge.
Drapier will concede a certain amount here. Mary Robinson had a powerful symbolic presidency, a symbol of a new, more open, more tolerant Ireland, a young and diverse Ireland. Just as Eamon de Valera in his day symbolised an older and more certain Ireland, an Ireland rooted in continuity rather than in change. Each in its own way was right for its own time.
What Drapier is saying is that the President can be an important symbol of how we see ourselves. It is the highest office in the land. And it is also one of the least powerful.
It has no executive function whatsoever and it would help the forthcoming debate greatly if we accept that we are electing a largely symbolic figure - and you don't have to go past Northern Ireland to realise the importance of symbols - and not smother ourselves in selfserving nonsense about "deepening" or "extending" an office that is clearly bound by enormous constitutional limitations.
Drapier will have more to say on the subject in the coming weeks, but meanwhile to the potential runners.
The one man who clearly wants the job is Albert Reynolds. And what Albert wants he usually gets. Already a powerful US group is lobbying hard for him. The pressure in Longford for an Albert draft is mounting and he himself is champing at the bit, especially since the much vaunted peace envoy role never materialised and is unlikely to.
The problem for Albert is that the party hierarchy don't want him as its candidate. And that's putting it mildly. Albert, they say, is out of tune with the times, would put "old" Fianna Fail back under the spotlight, is a turn-off in Dublin, carries too much baggage; and what about The Sunday Times appeal which is still pending?
Drapier is expressing mildly what some of the colleagues are saying. But Albert has a thick skin and he will not make it easy for those who find his candidacy unwelcome.
His biggest plus is the absence of alternatives. Maire Geoghegan-Quinn is, Drapier hears, the preferred choice. But how would the parliamentary party view her candidacy as opposed to Albert's? Michael O'Kennedy would open the possibility of a subsequent by-election reverse in North Tipperary. For the moment, Albert has a clear run.
On the Fine Gael side, Mary Banotti grabbed an early initiative and has not looked back. Alan Dukes has been promoted by sections of the party and in Drapier's view would be a good candidate, but apparently he has no interest.
Nor has Alan Shatter, while Avril Doyle is busy fighting for Seanad survival.
Gemma Hussey has strong support, or so Drapier is told, but there is little evidence of that among Fine Gael people Drapier talks to.
All of which seems to leave Mary Banotti with a clear run. Unless, that is, Pat Cooney decides to let his name go forward.
On the Labour side Michael D. Higgins is the only name to seriously emerge. He certainly would be a fun President and give us a lively campaign and Drapier hears that Labour is fairly certain to run its own candidate.