The oinly part about Carter's energy program I liked was the new emphasis on coal--however, Obama reversed that decision. That one reversal alone put Carter ahead of Obama in my books.
__________________
"My life is my own."
Mac Pro 5,1 3.2 GHZ Quad Core; MacBook Pro 1,1; iPhone 4
There's two things a politician needs to do: 1) Govern and 2) Get elected. You can't do #1 without #2. And it's far worse if you can do #2 without being able to do #1.
The most effective politicians are able to do both.
There's two things a politician needs to do: 1) Govern and 2) Get elected. You can't do #1 without #2. And it's far worse if you can do #2 without being able to do #1.
The most effective politicians are able to do both.
yes that's true.
Though it's safe to say there are many different opinions on what passes as governing.
Though it's safe to say there are many different opinions on what passes as governing.
Also very true.
As a personal preference, I like politicians from whom I can sense having a larger vision for what kind of a place they want their country to be, not ones who seek solely to tear down bits and pieces as being 'wrong' but with no overall view of what they believe is 'right'.
As such--I tend to make my choices based on the overall vision. The details for how this is implement will almost always change. But hopefully the overall view is preserved.
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 20,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonal
There's two things a politician needs to do: 1) Govern and 2) Get elected. You can't do #1 without #2. And it's far worse if you can do #2 without being able to do #1.
The most effective politicians are able to do both.
Well not entirely, if you you can be an "effective" (i.e. influence government policy) opposition... it is a noble dream, but not one that I have seen much evidence for in reality.
certainly not in the current parliament, the government is a bit of a train wreck right now, and the opposition isn't as effective as I'd like. Though to be fair, they are both leaderless really atm.
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 20,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonal
Also very true.
As a personal preference, I like politicians from whom I can sense having a larger vision for what kind of a place they want their country to be, not ones who seek solely to tear down bits and pieces as being 'wrong' but with no overall view of what they believe is 'right'.
As such--I tend to make my choices based on the overall vision. The details for how this is implement will almost always change. But hopefully the overall view is preserved.
Sorry to say Sonal I think your view of politicians and how they fundamentally operate within a party system is for lack of a better word rather naive... there are a few that would adhere to your preference but they are by far and large in the minority in my experience.
All one has to do for evidence of this is to look at the current leadership race in the NDP.
That being said why should "ideals"/view/vision not vary as circumstances vary and times change? Why should an "overall view" that may have been appropriate (even given a certain philosophical bent) that was appropriate 30, 40 or 50 years ago be appropriate and be fundamentally adhered to today?
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 20,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by groovetube
certainly not in the current parliament, the government is a bit of a train wreck right now, and the opposition isn't as effective as I'd like. Though to be fair, they are both leaderless really atm.
The point I was making exactly, as it has been the case as long as I can remember.... just saying that as an opposition member of a given legislature one can (theoretically) be effective but it is very hard indeed.
Sorry to say Sonal I think your view of politicians and how they fundamentally operate within a party system is for lack of a better word rather naive... there are a few that would adhere to your preference but they are by far and large in the minority in my experience.
All one has to do for evidence of this is to look at the current leadership race in the NDP.
That being said why should "ideals"/view/vision not vary as circumstances vary and times change? Why should an "overall view" that may have been appropriate (even given a certain philosophical bent) that was appropriate 30, 40 or 50 years ago be appropriate and be fundamentally adhered to today?
The fact that politicians of my preference are in the minority is not at all surprising to me.
I'm not sure I understand the latter half of what you are saying, but perhaps we have a slight miscommunication between us. Certainly, my views will likely change over a 30, 40 or 50 year horizon. But I would hope that a particular politician's overall view or vision of the country/province/state/city/what-have-you would not change dramatically during their term--even though some of the promises they made during their campaign may change or not come to fruition.
Linear Mode
