How to Do Politics
 

So how should a politician be?

Constituents or Populous, same thing on a national level?

What they think is best, trouble is they won't get elected, or re-elected.

all the politicians I have ever known have several major things in common- a very large ego that needs feeding; a hunger for power similar to a cocaine addiction; a need for affirmation as an important person; a need to get re-elected to maintain their power and their spot in the public pension system; a genuine lack of respect for the people that elect them-they bond with those that get them elected! this goes back to the very first politicians, nothing new here. Oh, and don't turn your back on them, they come up with a new way to tax whatever it is you have left. there is no real difference in them, republican, democrat, liberal or conservative. it is the same basic personality type, especially once they take the state level or national stage. they spin the difference in philosophy to suck you in. power, power, power. I get much more satisfaction from reading the Pelican catalog and enjoying my Carrera! Happy Motoring! Glenn

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. . .

Can you add Voice of God to the list?

want to keep it accurate.

Nancy Reagan is not in the WH anymore, so its not an option.

How you be bro... wassup?

I am not voting in protest of not having "purple" as an option.

Couldn't agree more!:D

The job description of the current crop of politicians is to redistribute money, consolidate power and get reelected.
Until you change the description, how they should govern is a pointless discussion.
Term limits
Contribution transparency
Media responsibility (get the good of the nation in the minds of journalists)
And lastly figure out some way to get the brightest people interested in public service.
Liberals are so interested in slamming Bush that they've tied their wagon to the lamest of the lame. Pelosi (no brain) & Kennedy (wet brain) are the best we can do? Pleaseeeeeeeee.

Don't get me wrong, the conservatives aren't exactly a brain trust either. That's my point!!!!!!!!!

I say we let the dogs and cats run the nation for four years and see how things turn out.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1174769481.jpg

I think there's an old Abe Lincoln quote that goes something like, "Any man can overcome adversity. If you want to test a man's character, give him power."

I'm not sure a politician should follow whatever his/her constituents want. We live in a republic, not a democracy. We elect folks for a term to represent us. If we wanted real democracy, the Internet makes that almost possible nowadays. I'd rather have someone I agree with on most issues who votes their conscience when in Congress or wherever than someone who votes however the wind blows.

How many of us can really keep on top of every single issue like farm subsidies, trade negotiations, military procurement, Medicare spending, VA hospitals, bio-tech ethics, missile defense tech, etc.? That stuff is complicated even if you really follow politics and that's why we have people take care of that stuff for us. If there were a national poll that asked if we want the gubmint to take care everyone without health insurance, I bet the majority would vote yes. But then look at what it would cost, which is what our elected officials have to figure out and I bet most people would then say no. Look at Bush's popularity ratings over the years. He used to be at over 60% in the honesty rating. Now he's under 40%. Does that mean he just started lying in the meantime or that people's perception of him and his policies has changed over the years due to the Bush-hating media? So I would not want the general public running day to day stuff. I'm not saying our current crop of pols excites me either. We just need very strict term limits and a flat tax to revamp our entire political culture. But then, that's something that's popular with most people and not with our politicians. Go figure.

How about instituting a draft. kind of like jury duty.

"You are hereby required to show up in Washington D C on January 1st and represent your state as Senator for one term. Then you will return to your previous job, and abide fully by all laws you passed as Senator."

Problem is that jury duty tends to select the dumbest people around.

Qualification for jury duty:

Too stupid to figure a way out of serving.

The OJ jury in Washington?

How about we go back to the original system that the founding fathers had... all politicians are volunteers that work for free. :D

Maybe, but let me ax you dis, 'how should a quarterback play' or 'what makes a great quarterback'?

No dif - same. a Politicians work is a vocation.

How about the pool of candidates for congress is to be made up of people that got out of jury duty?

I suppose I should have added a smiley face or something to show that the draft idea was tounge-in-cheek.

It's TOE the line.
If you really want to understand how our political system is supposed to work, ask the man who designed it. James Madison.
He explains it all in the Federalist Papers.
He's the father of the consitution, he's the father of the bill of rights, he was the leader in the first congresses and wrote most of the early laws and the first 10 amendments to the consitution. No single man had more to do with designing the United states of America than James Madison. He did a lot more for this country than George Washington and Abraham Lincoln combined but doesn't get the recognition he deserves.
BTW, He and Thomas Jefferson also started the republican party.

True, he designed it and did tons - aknowleded. But to govern and set forth the direction of the country and to encapulate the vision of our country - how is one supposed to best do it?