There is a controversy in the democratic party right now. Should the candidate change his message based on the polls? I don't feel right about supporting a canidate who tip-toes around public opinion. There are very few people in politics who have this kind of courage. This is the reason I choose to support Howard Dean, not because I think he's going to win but because when was the governor of Vermont he supported an unpopular civil unions bill. He said if he didn't support it his political career would mean nothing. That's courage. Trying to scare people with Bin-Laden ads is extreme cowardice. A lot of American's have been silent too long about a lot of issues. I personally would like an election about Marijuana, Gay marriage, corporate welfare and the war on terrorism. That's productive. Maybe I'm an angry democrat like Dean but its time we talked about issues without fear over disagreement. That's the only way things are going to get solved here. My question is: Is extreme belief in your own ideas good for politicians or is it a liability? Is it good have positions on issues or follow the polls? Can any person or movement have enough courage to acutally say what they mean in politics?

Sounds like you SHOULD be voting for Nader.

I've said an internal monologue on this subject ever since the first time I voted. To find the answer that was right for me I reformulated the question into one that allows for more personal insight. I asked myself, "do I measure my vote based on how close it is to my beliefs, or how much of an impact it has in the final tally?" I found that quite simply my vote only means something if it reflects what I believe. From there it was obvious, individually a vote for the loser counts just as much as a vote for a winner. Flipping that around, whether or not the politician in question wins or loses, his contribution to democracy can be measured by how truthful he or she is to themselves.

It is for this simple reason that Ralph Nader (and in a similar way Pat Buchanon I suppose) are true democrats; and terrible politicians.

I like those kinds of candidates, provided I agree with them on the issues that are important to me. I know I can count on them to stand up for those issues, unlike conventional politicians. Of course, when I don't agree with them, I can count them to fight against what I believe in, and then I'd be better off with somebody else, anybody else.

Barry Goldwater was that kind of politician, and I'd love to vote for someone like him. Howard Dean may be that kind too, but if so I'll have to vote against him.

Recently I have been working with this intellectually, in the aspect of the US as a Republic which it was intended to be, or a Democracy in which the mob(acracy) rules. I have had some difficulty differentiating between the two. I think this thread brings up something in reference to that.

In a Republic, citizens elect representatives in order to make policy and serve the citizens, by law, remaining a small entity, exclusively for the protection of the United States and it citizenry. NOT to bow down to swaying public opinion, or pressure of popular opinion. The mob is easily manipulated, and can vote themselves tax cuts, benefits, and after that swallow anything else dished out as long as they are being payed off. Government officials therefore must/should govern by LAW, international and domestic, without mind to personal gain nor adherance to popular opinion but by concience for the greater good of the nation.
This is nearly impossible in todays society in the US, in that the 'mob' has realized that they can vote those that will give them the most financial benefit , and politicians have realized that empty promises or financial reimbursement to the public will guarantee their future election and further career. Therefore Democracy has gone the way that the founding fathers predicted, into the dumpster.

As long as politicians are watching the polls, we have nothing but 'mob rule'. IMO Congress, without good judgement, voted both; giving complete and total war powers to the Excecutive after 911, contrary to every reason why the F.F. set up that Congress would have ultimate war powers, because the Executive is always the first to corrupt, but also passed the first and subsequent Patriot Acts without even reading them. It lost them seats and is the reason why the Democrats have absolutely nothing to stand on today. Its shameful to say the least, and its all about bad judgement based on mobacracy, or 'percieved' possible public opinion.

Someone has to have a backbone, before or our civil liberties are lost, and excessive wars, fiscal ruin, and corruption take the US down the drain. Although the masses cannot be pleased at every turn, representatives should be responsible to the people in the greater sense, however in turn the people must be educated and informed.

Too much to ask for really, in the state of apathy we are in, and politicians taking polls from the terribly uninformed is a recipe for disaster, so I simply give you this:

The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power." - Daniel Webster

"The government turns every contingency into an excuse for enhancing power in itself." - John Adams

The Rothschild Brothers: (who quote approvingly Mr. John Sherman, their protégé, regarding the passage of the National Banking Act.) "The few who can understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages [that] capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." - From a letter to Ikleheimer, Morton and Vandergould, New York bankers, 1863, emphasis added.

IMO, Dean is a snake who changes opinions/positions like the wind, as he feels it will gain him popularity and continually weasels his way out of corners, a good politico, but not good enough to convince an ever increasing greedy mob that he can provide them $300 or more in payoffs each year in the form of tax rebates for their vote. Now thats what you call confidence in whats best for...uh, the nation?

I think the less taxation the better. The more decisions (especially fiscally) you give hard working people the better. The less government involved in our lives the better. Taking a poll to make a decision...a disaster waiting to happen. I do not see how you can lead by mob rule...much less rule by the fringe groups that are so whacked and radical to be laughable. IMHO the Democrats are in serious trouble. The Republicans, while pandering to large businesses, and not nearly influenced by small groups that are whacked outa their heads. One only has to look at the makeup of each party and see the way they flip-flop on issues to see who is pulling the strings. While I watch the Republican party carefully, I usually always know what to expect, the Dems on the other hand, I have NO idea what they stand for (if anything) because the message is not getting through all the internal noise. I think Zell Miller is a candidate for political courage.

cusbilla

I prefer candidates who state their core beliefs and then stick to them.

Let the voters decide whether or not a candidate's particular view is right for the country (or the city, or the state, or whatever).

Office holders should not drift in the political wind. Policies often takes years to come to fruition.

This country's model is a republic, where the politicians are elected to lead the country, not blindly follow the latest polls.

State your beliefs, let us vote on those beliefs, and then : STICK TO THEM.

That is political courage and I applaud it.

Hmm.... so Bush made numerous campaign statements that we needed a "more humble foreign policy" and that we needed to stop with the nation building. Hello? And I'll bet you still applaud him anyway (in fact, reading your other postings, I know it's a sucker bet).

My point isn't to point out your inconsistency, but to point out that the position isn't one that's logical.

Another example is Bush I's stupid statement: "Read my lips: no new taxes!" And then he raised them to help bring down the deficit that was spiraling out of control. He did the right thing -- he has even said it hurt him politically, but was the right thing to do -- but he didn't explain why he changed his position, so he got trashed on it.

Politicians make campaign statements all the time. The best you can hope for is that they can explain clearly why their positions are the better ones... and to explain just as clearly why they changed their minds when they do.

No one's perfect; no one needs to be so rigid as to not adjust themselves to new situations that call for doing something that is contrary to what they said earlier.

I was not referring to campaign promises. Campaign promises to me equate to trying to buy some group's vote.

What I AM talking about is a statement of principles.

Yes, Bush has gone astray from some of his platform principles. Fiscal responsibility being the biggest one (in my mind).

Of course, a politician needs to adapt to changing times. 9/11 put us in a virtual state of war (and rightfully so). When Bush campaigned, we were at relative peace.

Is any politician going to live up to my ideal (of stating his philosophy and then sticking to it)? Probably not. Situations change, but philosophies should not (at least for elected officials).

Good for the country, bad for the politician. Taking a real stand on any issue is a sure way for a politician to trash their career, primarily due to the party system.
It would be far better if politicians would hold to their beliefs. Elections are where the public gets to speak, polls are easily manipulated.
Certainly. It's not going to happen within the two major parties.