shape
carat
color
clarity

Freedom Fries Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

movie zombie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
11,879
being a politician i think should be about keeping in tune with one''s constituency. as the constituency opinion changes, so should the vote of the politician. in fact, it almost has to change or said politican won''t get re-elected. imo, there is nothing wrong with a politician changing position as i see nothing wrong with me changing position as i get new information.

polls are merely polls and can be manipulated and misinterpreted, i''m the first to admit that. but they can also be a ''test'' of the public will. if you are a politician, to ignore them entirely is to do so at your own risk; more importantly, to ignore the will of your constituency is true folly.

the true test is not the opinion polls but the calls, letters, and e-mails the politician is receiving from his/her own constituency.

another interesting link re changing public opinion:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050613/ap_on_re_us/iraq_opinion_1



peace, movie zombie
 
to be clear, Representative Walter Jones (R-NC), stated,

"When I look at the number of men and women who have been killed -- it''s almost 1,700 now, in addition to close to 12,000 have been severely wounded -- and I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that''s all been proven that it was never there."

again, this is a republican who entirely supported a pre-emptive strike against iraq. i would not dismiss him as merely responding to the polls.

Rep. Jones clearly states the reasons for going in [the reasons we were all given, not the reasons given now] and then he says that those reasons were never there. it appears that it matters to Rep. Jones that the reasons we are there now were not the reasons originally given.

Rep. Jones'' language is politically astute. it will be interesting to see what happens next.

peace, movie zombie
 
Do you want your politician to be a leader or a follower?

I choose to elect and then expect the elected to make decisions based on the stuff he said he was made of. I don''t want him putting his finger in the air. The people can be fickle (and not too bright).

I rather like leaders who make unpopular decisions.
 
i want both. it would appear that Rep. Jones has an open mind and takes in new info with which he makes ongoing decisions.

in business, the leader has to stay open to new information regarding markets, the competition, costs of supplies, etc. if the business leader only works in the modality that was known 2 years ago, s/he may miss out on a market downturn, upturn, opportunity to make a profit, cut costs, opportunity to expand, enter a new market, etc. staying locked into one business plan without updating that plan as new information becomes available does not make for a healthy business or a successful business leader.

ditto re the political leader and politics.

peace, movie zombie
 
Date: 6/13/2005 5:25:07 PM
Author: movie zombie

as the constituency opinion changes, so should the vote of the politician.

"Taking in new info" and the above quote are two entirely different things.
 
Date: 6/13/2005 8:23:15 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

Date: 6/13/2005 5:25:07 PM
Author: movie zombie

as the constituency opinion changes, so should the vote of the politician.

''Taking in new info'' and the above quote are two entirely different things.

here are a couple of scenarios:

1- the constituency takes in/learns new information that changes their opinion. they contact Rep. Jones and inform him of their new opinion: thus he has rec''d new information from his constituency who he was elected to represent and who request that he take action based on their new opinion. should he stick to his old opinion based on what his constituency wanted 2 years ago or update his opinion and reflect the will of his constituency?


2-Rep. Jones and his staff do some research on their own and/or are presented with commission reports. he may
a-share this information with his constituency thus providing them either with confirmation regarding their opinions and thereby substantiating that he does indeed reflect his constituency or
b-the opportunity to take in new information and formulate a new opinion which they convey to him.
should he reject new information, not share it with his constituency, and miss the opportunity make sure that he is representing his constituency in the manner in which they desire if they had all the facts?
RA, i realize after writing this and re-reading your post that we have two very different points of view regarding elected government officials. or at least i think we do.

personally, and for myself only, i want my elected members of congress to be flexible enough in their thinking to accept new information. i do not want my elected officials to run on a platform and stick to that platform no matter how the circumstances may change over the course of their elected term. based on my perspective, i see no disconnect in my prior statement as i see them both as a part of a process.

i''m interested in hearing more regarding your thoughts on role of the constituency and the role of the elected official.

peace, movie zombie



 
Date: 6/13/2005 3:49:41 PM
Author: Feydakin
Walter Jones is a shining example of leadership by polling data.. If you follow him back even further you can see him do similar things for his entire political carreer.. Like many polititians..


That said, I agree, it''s time to lay in the process for leaving Iraq, I just don''t happen to think we should leave tomorrow..

I gotta go with Steve on this one. Despite what has transpired, it is time for the US to get out. Despite what may have been said about WMDs, the US goal was always regime change. That has occurred. Now we should leave. The longer we stay, the more we play into the paranoid conspiracyy theories about how the goal was always about controlling oil. And the more we play into the hands of the whackos like Osama bin laden.
 
wow! three in agreement that we should leave iraq! steve, richard, and me the movie zombie. but i bet we could really get into it if we talked about the when and the how. personally, i think i''ll just contact my elected members of Congress and let them know my thoughts on those particulars.

my purpose in posting this thread was to point out that even members of the republican party are changing their mind regarding how we got in there and whether we should stay there. imo, that attitude in and of itself is a new development worth noting.

peace, movie zombie
 

Author: Richard Hughes


Author: Feydakin

it''s time to lay in the process for leaving Iraq, I just don''t happen to think we should leave tomorrow..
it is time for the US to get out. Now we should leave.
Any ideas of what would happen in Iraq if we left now?

widget
 
Date: 6/13/2005 9:19:59 PM
Author: movie zombie



Date: 6/13/2005 8:23:15 PM
Author: Rank Amateur


Date: 6/13/2005 5:25:07 PM
Author: movie zombie

as the constituency opinion changes, so should the vote of the politician.

''Taking in new info'' and the above quote are two entirely different things.


here are a couple of scenarios:

1- the constituency takes in/learns new information that changes their opinion. they contact Rep. Jones and inform him of their new opinion: thus he has rec''d new information from his constituency who he was elected to represent and who request that he take action based on their new opinion. should he stick to his old opinion based on what his constituency wanted 2 years ago or update his opinion and reflect the will of his constituency?



2-Rep. Jones and his staff do some research on their own and/or are presented with commission reports. he may
a-share this information with his constituency thus providing them either with confirmation regarding their opinions and thereby substantiating that he does indeed reflect his constituency or
b-the opportunity to take in new information and formulate a new opinion which they convey to him.
should he reject new information, not share it with his constituency, and miss the opportunity make sure that he is representing his constituency in the manner in which they desire if they had all the facts?

RA, i realize after writing this and re-reading your post that we have two very different points of view regarding elected government officials. or at least i think we do.

personally, and for myself only, i want my elected members of congress to be flexible enough in their thinking to accept new information. i do not want my elected officials to run on a platform and stick to that platform no matter how the circumstances may change over the course of their elected term. based on my perspective, i see no disconnect in my prior statement as i see them both as a part of a process.

i''m interested in hearing more regarding your thoughts on role of the constituency and the role of the elected official.

peace, movie zombie




I (attempt to) vote based on the character and core of the person. I know it sounds trite. I am not as interested in the specifics of a "platform" as I am in what makes up the man. Very often your elected official will face decisions that were not part of his "platform". Now what? Take a poll? What did Gore''s platform have in it for "what I''ll do when some crazy shitbags bring their terrorist act to Manhattan"?

I don''t disagree that it is emcumbent on the elected to be sensitive to the constituents, but they elected him as a representative, not as a conduit for a direct democracy.

I know that with the nature of the political world my views are somewhat naive. C''est la vie!
 
Date: 6/14/2005 12:42:53 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

Date: 6/13/2005 9:19:59 PM
Author: movie zombie




Date: 6/13/2005 8:23:15 PM
Author: Rank Amateur



Date: 6/13/2005 5:25:07 PM
Author: movie zombie

as the constituency opinion changes, so should the vote of the politician.

''Taking in new info'' and the above quote are two entirely different things.



here are a couple of scenarios:


1- the constituency takes in/learns new information that changes their opinion. they contact Rep. Jones and inform him of their new opinion: thus he has rec''d new information from his constituency who he was elected to represent and who request that he take action based on their new opinion. should he stick to his old opinion based on what his constituency wanted 2 years ago or update his opinion and reflect the will of his constituency?




2-Rep. Jones and his staff do some research on their own and/or are presented with commission reports. he may
a-share this information with his constituency thus providing them either with confirmation regarding their opinions and thereby substantiating that he does indeed reflect his constituency or
b-the opportunity to take in new information and formulate a new opinion which they convey to him.
should he reject new information, not share it with his constituency, and miss the opportunity make sure that he is representing his constituency in the manner in which they desire if they had all the facts?


RA, i realize after writing this and re-reading your post that we have two very different points of view regarding elected government officials. or at least i think we do.

personally, and for myself only, i want my elected members of congress to be flexible enough in their thinking to accept new information. i do not want my elected officials to run on a platform and stick to that platform no matter how the circumstances may change over the course of their elected term. based on my perspective, i see no disconnect in my prior statement as i see them both as a part of a process.

i''m interested in hearing more regarding your thoughts on role of the constituency and the role of the elected official.

peace, movie zombie




I (attempt to) vote based on the character and core of the person. I know it sounds trite. I am not as interested in the specifics of a ''platform'' as I am in what makes up the man. Very often your elected official will face decisions that were not part of his ''platform''. Now what? Take a poll? What did Gore''s platform have in it for ''what I''ll do when some crazy shitbags bring their terrorist act to Manhattan''?

I don''t disagree that it is emcumbent on the elected to be sensitive to the constituents, but they elected him as a representative, not as a conduit for a direct democracy.

I know that with the nature of the political world my views are somewhat naive. C''est la vie!
if your view is naive, then mine could be described as ''idealistic''
9.gif
!!

peace, movie zombie
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top