The number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has fallen to a new low. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in April found that just 31.0%
And Rasmussen polls usually lean right...
If I were I Republican, I'd be too embarrassed to admit it.
In a Republic, where people expect their representatives to actually represent them, there's something to be said to paying attention to polls.
If I were a politician, I would definitely not live or die by polls, but I would heed them and consider what people are indicating what they're wanting.
And it would be one thing if people just generally didn't like the job he's doing (in Bush's case). But his numbers are so low primarily due to his getting us involved in a questionably legal and wise war, which is pretty serious stuff.
I'm never one to denigrate the Will of the People.
Dan, what if a politician had taken an anti-segregation stance in the 1920's? Imagine what his poll numbers would have been. Would you denigrate the will of the people then? I hope you would. Dan, we need leaders, thats L E A D E R S. Leaders have something called courage. We don't need poll watchers. Bush will be out of office in less than two years. Then the people will have their chance to speak.
I hate to go this route with you all, but I feel the need to remind you. The USA is a republic, not a democracy.
Did you like the way Clinton led Dan. Did you like the way he watched poll numbers and sometimes moved to the right because of them?
If you'll read what I wrote, Glen, you'll see that,
1. I clearly pointed out that we are a Republic,
2. I don't advocate living or dying by the polls
3. But in a Representative Gov't, the leaders SHOULD be aware of the Will of the People.
In other words, I'm calling for a balance. Yes, I would have been glad to see a pro-civil rights candidate defying the will of the people to lead in a better direction. BUT at the same time, I would NOT be glad to see a leader go in a wrong direction in defiance of the Will of the People.
If I had to choose, I'd normally suggest that the leader listen to the People rather than be a Rogue, doing what he thought was right regardless of what the people wanted. Wouldn't you?
I mean, if I were elected to office, I'd be elected as a pacifist. But I'd also recognize that pacifism is not the Will of the People and would be loathe to write pacifism into law or policy.
"If I had to choose, I'd normally suggest that the leader listen to the People rather than be a Rogue, doing what he thought was right regardless of what the people wanted. Wouldn't you?"
The people are allowed to speak on election day. I wouldn't call that type of person a rogue, but a principled leader.
You mention the term "wrong direction". Who determines what is right and what is wrong?
Dan, I am surprised. You being a pacifist, I would hope that you most definitely would write pacifism into law, in spite of low poll numbers. I hope that you wouldn't wage war, and go against your principles, because the polls told you to.
That would be something I would have to consider before running for office. Knowing that the majority of the US does not belief in pacifism, I'd be loathe to write it into law (not that I could do so by myself).
At the same time, I'd have a hard time seeing myself voting in favor of any war.
"The people are allowed to speak on election day. I wouldn't call that type of person a rogue, but a principled leader."
So, pretend that Bush has decided to show leadership and invade Iran and N. Korea - visiting shock and awe upon them as part of his already-authorized "war on terror" (authorized in his mind, anyway).
Ought the people of the US be glad that Bush was following his principles and showing strong leadership or ought they be outraged and drag his sorry butt out of office and ship him off to prison?
If he is not breaking any law, the people should be angry at themselves, because it was they who elected him.
Yeah, we disagree on this one...
What, the election was disputed in 2004?
Commenting by HaloScan
