[Porsche-O-Phile]

Not to sound like I'm playing semantics here, but the questions, "So how should a politician be?" and "Which is the Best Way to Lead Our Country?" are completely different and yield completely different answers.

The best way to lead our country is (IMHO) through straight democracy without representative influence - or at least to greatly limit/reduce the role of career politicians/bureaucrats and greatly increase the role of the populace-at-large. Certainly technological innovations can be used to help facilitate this on a scale heretofore inconceivable. Not saying it would be perfect and SOME representative government might still be a good thing, but as a general rule I think throwing issues directly to the voters is better. Fewer politicians (glorified lawyers) would almost certainly be better. Fewer career politicians would unquestionably be better.

The other question ("so how should a politician be") is a thought-provoking one. I've wondered this myself and found it HILARIOUS how quick certain people (on this board and others) to bash (for example) Bill Clinton for allegedly cow-towing to public opinion on every issue, yet simultaneously bash GWB for his bull-headed obstinance and the way he snubs his nose at public opinion. It opens the door to the deeper question, "what's the difference between following one's convictions and being bull-headed, inflexible and failing as a 'representative' of the constituency one supposedly represents?" A very probing question indeed, and unfortunately not one with a simple answer. . .