Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Blatham,

I wouldn't argue with any of the specifics you cited. The human comedy provides more or less as much entertainment in one quarter as another. I too find Ann Coulter shrill and rather insubstantial. Rush Limbaugh is merely a talented and articulate spokesman for a point of view that had been rather thoroughly submerged in the public discourse 15 or so years ago when he started. That he might become in some ways corrupted by his material success is hardly noteworthy. Compare that to (say) Jesse Jackson's success in shaking down large corporations and getting Budweiser distributorships for his sons, or Teddy Kennedy's empty life and fulsome, bombastic rhetoric.

The difference is in the merit of the ideas advocated by these flawed members of our rather curious tribe, the historical record of the results of their prior applications and the results they achieved.

What you demonstrate in your comment, Georgebob, is that politicians as a species are flawed, disgusting little rodents. I couldn't agree more!

hobitbob,

I don't agree that all politicians are disgusting, et. al., though some certainly are,

Politics is an art that involves dealing with the wants and appetites of people as they are, and doing so with as much consistency with governing principles as the situation permits. This almost always involves some degree of prevarication or selective emphasis on different aspects of the truth, as it is known. It also involves the inescapable need to emphasize that part of the truth that the individual politician regards as most significant to the interests of the people. These can easily be mixed up and confused by an opposition bent on winning points at any cost.

Good politicians don't lie merely to protect their personal interests. They also limit their other prevarications to important issues and only to what is truly necessary.

I guess I have always seen politics as the science of separating people from their money,and of acquiring power.

Without the money, they got no power. Makes sense.

-- Paul Begala (my MANNN! )

PDid, That about answers the philosophical question of the current administration.

I must commend George Obl's trenchant comment about politicians in which he said:

"Good Politicians dont lie solely to protect their personal interests. They also limit their other prevarications to important issues and only to what is really necessary"

I most certainly agree.

I wonder if GeorgeOb1 knows that his insight has been replicated( in a slightly different form) by one of the leading jurists in our nation-namely, Judge Richard A. Posner?

Posner, in his wonderful book- "An Affair of State" said:

"It is the number, publicness, transparency, solemnity, and gratuitousness of President Clinton' lies, both under oath(whether or not technically perjurous-some were, some weren't) and not under oath, that SETS HIM APART FROM OTHER PRESIDENTS. If anything, the essential triviality of his OBJECTIVE IN LYING--SAVING HIS OWN SKIN--aggravates the offense. IT IS ONE THING FOR A LINCOLN OR A ROOSEVELT TO LIE, OR EVEN TO VIOLATE THE LAW, under conditions of civil and world war respectively, and another for a lesser figure in calmer and easier times TO LIE FOR PURELY PRIVATE GAIN>"

End of quote.

I find a great concurrence between GeorgeOB 1's statement and Judge Posner's analysis.

May I say, congratulations- George Ob 1?

I think that Hobibob is correct. Politicians are in business in order to separate people from their money.

Some people call that "Redistribution of Income"!!!

Is it Posner's utter disrespect for Clinton that makes him a "leading jurist" or does he have other values? Hard to say from the quote, Italgato. It's OK for some presidents to violate the law but not others? Interesting, especially coming from a judge!

Read the book _D"Artagnan. An Affair of State.

I think you might like it.

Judge Posner is the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and teaches at the University of Chicago's law school.

Judge Posner says:
"No one supposes that Lincoln or Roosevelt should have resigned to atone for their violations of law or morality; many people think that Clinton should have"

Since I am always eager to learn, D"Artagnan, you may be able to convince me that people wanted Lincoln or Roosevelt(SPECIFICALLY) to resign to atone for their violations of law or morality.

You may also be able to convince me that no one thought that Clinton should have resigned for his violations of law and morality.

I am always eager to learn-D'Artagnan.
Cheers.

Italgato

Do you think, the website of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to be wrong? They tell there (and this [re-]quoted on numerous other sites as well) that the Hon. Joel M. Flaum is chief of this court ... since more than three years now.

I agree with george in what he says above. It all comes down to interpretation. And politicians are no different from human beings in general. It's not possible to live a responsible life and live always by the very letter of the law. It's possible to break the spirit of the law while staying within it's limits. In any case, if any of us tried to live by the exact letter of the law at all times, we would be abandoning our rights and responsibilities as thinking, feeling beings.

So the question always comes down to evaluating motivations and methods. But some practices seem to be more universally wrong, unfair, or (this one's for Timber) a failure to live up to expectations (however they are judged.) So let's take george's criteria above which I think is "what is in the best interests for the people." Can anyone think of an instance in which it is in the best interest of the voters for a politician to hide his/her agenda from the people in order to get elected, only to turn around, once in office, and carry out the agenda legally but without the consent of the voters?

In this administration we have two such agendas which come to my mind. 1. the policy of aggression against other nations as an answer to threat as opposed to diplomacy and 2. religious agenda, i.e. making laws, and judicial decisions which serve a particular religious constituency and not others. I'm sure there are many others. It strikes me as an instance in which the voters are treated as ignorant, dependent children. In a democracy, the voters should be in charge. And how can the voters honestly vote for what they want if the very leaders they vote for are hiding their agendas?

In 2000, Posner left the position of Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit. He legitimately is considered among the formost of theoricians in American Law, and is given to a sort of "don't rock the boat" cost v. benefit pragmatism of the sort certain to infuriate the far left and dismay the far right. He's a prolific author, an academic of global standing, and probably the most cited and quoted living American jurist. I find him credible and thought provoking.

Strangely enough, Timber, your reccomendation gore a long way.

I don't know that we ought to allow politicians some special dispensation, on the basis that they are likely human, which we wouldn't countenance in a doctor or an engineer. They ought to be honest, they ought to be educated for the task, they ought to be putting in the hours on the job, they ought to be effective, they ought to do what is asked of them or do what they've promised.

Well two very prominent examples come quickly to mind. Italgato cited both.
(1) Franklin Roosevelt campaigned for his third term in 1939 in a hotly contested election with Wendell Wilkie as the opposing candidate. One of the key planks of the Roosevelt/Democrat platform was a clear and unambiguous promise to keep America out of the European and Pacific wars that were then looming on the horizon. We now know from the contemporaneous correspondence between Roosevelt and Churchill (and other documents as well) that, even as he repeated that promise, Roosevelt was actively conspiring with Churchill to get America involved and to create the conditions that would persuade the public to support it - namely an attack on our territory or forces.
(2) The Republican party platform on which Abraham Lincoln was elected called for the prohibition of slavery in all new states or territories and its eventual elimination throughout the country. The record of Lincoln's speeches during the campaign and earlier Lincoln - Douglas debates make it clear beyond doubt that Lincoln favored the prompt abolition of slavery and would promptly act on that position given the power to do so. Despite this, after his election, as the movement towards secession spread throughout the South, Lincoln changed his stance, proclaiming that his only intent and priority was the preservation of the Union, and that if necessary he was prepared to accommodate the Slave-holding states. Indeed he maintained this stance throughout the first three years of the war, mostly as a device to appeal to the border states and to Northern opponents of aggressive war against the South. He believed he could achieve better unity by making preservation of the Union the central issue, rather than slavery - at least in the public discourse.

In both cases the judgement of history is that these leaders did well under difficult circumstances.


In a similar vein I am bemused by the Democrat critics of the Administration who shout loudly at the supposed absurdity of going after Saddam Hussein when North Korea, in their words is the real urgent danger. Not only is this hypocritical coming from the party that humiliated itself in a failed attempt to bribe that bombastic and bullying regime, but it also (knowingly, I believe) ignores a very well-known (and elementary) principle of strategy. The Chinese have a colorful name for it (though I can't recall it now) and its application by Sun Tsu (following an agreement with the Emperor that he could teach his courtesans to perform military drill) is the opening scene in most modern renditions of his teachings on war. The key truth is the beneficial effect (on the mind and calculations of a bullying foe) of a successful example of decisive action on the part of the leader - even if it is directed at another, more convenient, foe.

George Dubya must be quite disappointed today in his search to become recognised as a god.

Only three more sacrifices in Iraq today.

No. Posner is considered a leading jurist because he has made pioneering contributions to the philosophy of law. His reputation among other legal scholars is every bit as impressive as Italgato describes. It's safe to say that if there was a Nobel Prize in law, Posner would have won it.

I haven't read "Affair of the state" myself, so all I know about it is from quotes in his next book -- the one he wrote about the presidential elections in 2000. Judging by these quotes, it appears that his opinion of the Republican players and their efforts to impeach Clinton is even lower than his opinion of Clinton himself. It also helps to know that Posner's language always emphasizes clarity over diplomacy, meaning that his sound bites seem harsher than they are.

Assuming that Posner's quoting of his own books is more representative than Italgato's, I suspect Italgato has engaged in a bit of selective quoting in order to emphasize the shortcomings of Clinton and de-emphasize the shorcomings of Kenneth Starr et. al.

george,

I think Bush has failed to live up to the expectations of the voters who elected him and he should be removed from office, not by a recall or by an impeachment, but by an election which as we all know is coming up. When a politician lies about or hides his agendas, and the voters recognize this, they can, if given a reasonable choice, elect another leader. And that's exactly what I think should and hopefully will happen.