Bliar is a Jesus botherer

[Kralizec]

What I find most annoying is that he believes that history and God will judge him. This is a belief not uncommon in the less stable of world leaders and not a trait I like to see in the leader of my nation. He doesn't work for history or for God, he works for the nation and its people, and they shall judge him first.

Undemocratic as it may sound...
It's not a statesman's job to do the popular thing after you're elected into your position. You do what you think is right. And you'll face your judgement after a couple of years when the voters will turn again you. Apparently Blair didn't do badly enough, since he's still in office...

Making every decision dependent on the whim of the people will just hamstring the government and make effective governance impossible.

[InsaneApache]

Apparently Blair didn't do badly enough, since he's still in office....

We didn't have much of a choice. It was either lying Blair and his motley crew of lying liars, a short, fat, ginger Scottish drunkard or an exiled Transylvanian with a hemoglobin fetish.

[Tachikaze]

Undemocratic as it may sound...
It's not a statesman's job to do the popular thing after you're elected into your position. You do what you think is right. And you'll face your judgement after a couple of years when the voters will turn again you. Apparently Blair didn't do badly enough, since he's still in office...

Making every decision dependent on the whim of the people will just hamstring the government and make effective governance impossible.

It depends on whether you see your politicians as leaders or representatives.

I have seen times when the politicans were acting for the wrong reasons, like to satisfy the shareholders of a small number of powerful oil and construction companies. In that case, I wish they had followed public opinion instead.

Other times, the politician is better educated and wiser than the public and should do what knowledge, experience, humantity, environmental concerns, and morality decide is best.

Generally, a politician is better able to make important political decisions. But the wild card is their ethics or morality. On occasion, they are simply unintelligent.

What little I know of Blair, he seems bright. But his choice to support the Bush Regime was due to moral or ethical problems. In that case, I wish he had been a representative.

[econ21]

It depends on whether you see your politicians as leaders or representatives.
....
What little I know of Blair, he seems bright. But his choice to support the Bush Regime was due to moral or ethical problems. In that case, I wish he had been a representative.

Well, I might share your regret at this particular instance but more generally wars are probably the kinds of decision where politicians should be "leaders" (i.e. do what they think right) rather than "representatives".

If we were talking about what to kinds of public services to provide etc. then I can see a case for giving the people what they want (don't give them opera if they want football stadiums etc). But when talking about moral and especially life and death issues, I would rather they went with their conscience.

Gladstone was one UK politician who famously tried to keep out of foreign wars despite a jingoistic popular mood. The despicable rulers are those who start wars to try to bolster their domestic support (e.g. the Argentine junta in 1982).

Another example of an issue best left to conscience is capital punishment. For some time, Britain's avoided legislating it because MPs have voted by conscience regardless of popular opinion. The idea that US governors decide whether to reprieve people on death row with one eye on re-election is rather repellant, IMO.

[BigTex]

Originally posted by Simon Appleton
Well, I might share your regret at this particular instance but more generally wars are probably the kinds of decision where politicians should be "leaders" (i.e. do what they think right) rather than "representatives".

If we were talking about what to kinds of public services to provide etc. then I can see a case for giving the people what they want (don't give them opera if they want football stadiums etc). But when talking about moral and especially life and death issues, I would rather they went with their conscience.

Gladstone was one UK politician who famously tried to keep out of foreign wars despite a jingoistic popular mood. The despicable rulers are those who start wars to try to bolster their domestic support (e.g. the Argentine junta in 1982).

Another example of an issue best left to conscience is capital punishment. For some time, Britain's avoided legislating it because MPs have voted by conscience regardless of popular opinion. The idea that US governors decide whether to reprieve people on death row with one eye on re-election is rather repellant, IMO.

Seems these days in the U.S.A. almost all of the leaders we ellect are looking towards the next ellection when voting. It would be nice if we had some true leaders in congress right now. They might actually get something done. I mean just look at what their doing in there now, trying to slip the port deal into the militarys budget . IMO its about time we instituted term limits to congressmen. Though considering the law would have to get the law through the same congressmen that would be losing their jobs.