Reply
Wed 12 Mar, 2003 11:18 am
For many years I have tuned in to see the British Prime Minister do verbal battles with the British elected officials, Parliament. Wouldn't it be great if our President had to talk to Congress and defend his position on issues of national concern directly to the representational body. The president, any president, would have to know his platform and defend his position on issues extemporaneously.
We the people would have a record of how individual presidents handled the issues that concern us be it domestic or international. We would not be able to play the blame game between parties. We would know who said what, when, and why.
What is you take on this open debate between Parliament and the Prime Minister and do you think such debates between the US president and Congress would help or hinder our ability to govern in the US?
I've also watched Prime Minister's Question Time on CSPAN and wondered the same thing. But their system is different from ours. Their leaders have to rise through the parliamentary ranks, and debate skills are important. Being articulate--whether you went to Oxford or are a trade union leader--you have to be able to think on your feet and state your opinion forcefully.
In this benighted country, we look with suspicion at any politician who speaks well. Too darn slick, if you ask most folks...
We sure do look askew at an intelligent leader yet we also always cry out how much we want a leader.
New and wonderful avatar D'art - have you ever been to the Amon Carter here in Fort Worth?
Re my avatar: Haven't had the pleasure of going to the Amon Carter. Are there many Catlins there? There's been a terrific show at the Smithsonian; I missed that, too!
Joanne - all kinds of definitions of democracy in action, aren'there?
D'artagnan - I've often thought it made for a more seasoned and knowledgeable leader when he/she rises up from the lower ranks. It doesn't always work like that, but it's surely preferable to having someone whose only work experience is going back to the family to get him/her a job. My shivers started when he gave that address to the graduating class at Yale, and assured them that they, too, could be C - D students and rise to the presidency.
To explain one's position to one's party is, quite often, to define it to the country and oneself as well. And to be able to have open debate about it seems more honorable than to have rubber stamp congresses. Either we've lost the ability to be able to debate as adults, or we have yet to grow into it. Poor Tony Blair. He's staked a career on what seems to be at least partial conviction, but there doesn't appear to be any of the vaunted Bush loyalty when it comes to the crunch. Of course, that loyalty has always been one-way, directed towards Bush.
Mamajuana, re Tony Blair: The odd thing is that he's got to be at least twice as smart as his American colleague, yet, somehow, Blair is being out-maneuvered by Bush. Hard to figure how this happened, yet there it is...
I too tuned in for some of the spirited goings-on in the weekly Parliament question and answer, and my thoughts were similar. I immediately wondered how brother bush would do in that kind of situation (one of the Fox News anchors also wondered about that aloud), but acknowledged that our system and customs are very different.
Yes, Brother Bush no doubt avoided any of Yale's debate activities. Too much heavy lifting, no doubt.
Dubya on his time at Yale:
(Pointing to William Buckley)
There's Bill Buckley. He went to Yale too. He wrote a book while he was there. I read one.
I suspect GWB may have been exaggerating his achievements at Yale, Frank, but I guess we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt...
D'artagnan - did you intend the irony - saying Bush might have "exaggerated" when he only admits to reading one book?
I'm sure he did, Snood.
And he is right.
But I'm willing to give Dubya the benefit of the doubt.
He may have read a full book.
Hell, he may even have colored all the pictures, too.
Joanne-thanks so much for putting this out there, I was unaware I could catch Blair on CSpan, and now I will definately tune in.
D'artagnan - somehow, I don't think it's Bush. I think Rove is the puppetmaster, along with all the others up there who've been planning and hoping for this for years.
My feeling is that Blair is smarter, but maybe a tad more decent; certainly ambitious.
What book did you have in mind? His wife the librarian called off the poetry symposium when she was afraid they would make political comments - and that's about all I've ever read about any literary aspirations.
Thanks Quinn, actually there are a lot of good programs on CSPAN other than politics. The reason I like to watch it for political events is there are not talking heads, i.e., commentators to tell you what to think. And the meeting with the British Prime Minister and Parliament are a real hoot.
Yes, indeed, my friends, my comment on Bush reading a book at Yale was ironic.