Favorite National Level Politician

[Gokul43201]

Name your favorite politicians at the national level, and tell us why you like them - this thread is relevant to members from all countries.

IMPORTANT: There are some rules to this thread, in addition to the usual forum and sub-forum guidelines.

1. Any statement about a political position, well-known or not, requires a source. Statements about personal preferences and tastes obviously require no sources.

2. This thread is meant primarily for listening - it gives us an opportunity to learn a little bit about someone we might not know much about. Nevertheless, very limited response to a post about someone's favorite politician is permitted.

Specifically, I ask that any poster not use more than one post in discussing (any specific) someone else's choice. The original chooser gets exactly one post to respond to as many responses to their choices as he/she feels like, and it ends there. If a response by a new poster appears after the original chooser chose to compose their response to responses, he/she does not get an extra chance to respond to the new response.

That's written up a little sloppily, but I hope it's clear. Will clarify if needed.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'll start. I really like Scott Brown, US Senator from Massachusetts. When the special election was going on to replace Ted Kennedy, I was too busy with work to pay much attention. All I knew at the time was that I didn't like Martha Coakley (Brown's opponent) very much, and I hadn't heard very much about Brown that I disapproved of.

Since then, I've been quite happy with a number of Brown's legislative positions and choices. He's not been a party-line voter, and seems to demonstrate a well-reasoned and consistent approach.

Some of the most recent ones that have been in the news:

Brown to back stand-alone repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

Senator Scott Brown said this morning that he would support a stand-alone repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, providing a crucial vote in the effort to allow gays to serve openly.

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/12/brown_to_back_s.html?rss_id=Top+Stories

Sen. Scott Brown calls on Obama to veto spending bill

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown today urged President Obama to veto a $1.1 trillion spending bill that includes a number of multimillion-dollar earmarks targeted for Massachusetts projects.

Source: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20101216sen_scott_brown_calls_on_obama_to_veto_spending_bill/

Brown votes in favor of moving forward debate on new START treaty

US Senator Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican, was among nine GOP senators to vote in favor of moving forward to debate on the ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, one of President Obama’s top priorities for the remainder of the lame-duck session of Congress.

“Senator Brown believes there are still flaws in the treaty, such as the modernization of our own existing weapons, verification and missile defense, and is hopeful these issues will be worked out in a full, fair, and open debate and amendment process,” Brown’s office said in a statement after the vote.

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/12/brown_votes_in.html

Sen. Scott Brown defies Tea Party to support tax-cut deal
...
The GOP senator, who was helped to victory in Massachusetts by Tea Party supporters, said today he'll vote for the controversial tax-cut deal worked out by President Obama and congressional Republicans.

"It will help get our economy back on track by allowing people to keep more of the money they earn," Brown said in a statement today.

Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest groups in the anti-tax, small government movement, has been calling on lawmakers to oppose the $858 billion deal because it would increase the deficit.

Source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/12/scott-brown-tea-party-tax-cuts-/1

More info:
1. Brown, on the issues: http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Scott_Brown.htm
2. Biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Brown

If he can keep this up after more years in the Senate, I think he'd make a very good President. In the meantime, I know he's got a huge target painted on his back for the 2012 election. I would love to see him re-elected.

 

[mugaliens]

Congressman Doug Lamborn.

I like http://lamborn.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=13&sectiontree=13" on many fronts, the fact that he's willing to speak and vote on what he believes to be right and best for the American people, long-term, in particular the fact that he's unwilling to achieve short-term gains, even re-election, at the expense of long-term problems such as those stemming from increasing the national defiict for any reason.

I also enjoy his balanced approach. He's not hard over for a "strong military" at the expense of everything else, but supports one provided we can balance it with other needs, including fossil fuel alternatives. In short, he supports a balanced approach of most of the major initiatives, just not with the same "all or nothing" fanaticism as some politicians seem to.

Finally, he's a staunch advocate of civil rights, decries the "squeaky wheel" approach, and favors the "what works best" approach.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't fully understand the instructions, but I'll post anyways.

I like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_DeFazio" . He's a member of the House of Representatives from my state. He's on the radio a lot, and he's never disappointed me with his comments. Like many of our distinguished Senators and Representatives from the past and present, he seems less a politician than a statesman*. He seems genuinely concerned about problems, and has promoted concrete solutions to them, vs. the somewhat political "We need less taxes" kind of zero brain rhetoric that comes out of 90% of politicians these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_transaction_tax"
A financial transaction tax is a tax placed on a specific type (or types) of financial transaction for a specific purpose (or purposes).

In essence, a sales tax on Wall Street. I find it a simple and elegant solution to several problems.

I also like the fact the hundreds of thousands of dollars came in from out of state to have him defeated in the last election, and yet he still won.

In a roundabout way, it was Defazio that got me interested in the group http://www.facebook.com/#!/TaxFairnessOregon?sk=info". No one likes taxes, but saying they should just go away is not a solution.

Anyone who can get me interested in, and take an active roll politics, is doing something right.

Defazio for President!




*James Freeman Clarke – "A politician thinks about the next elections — the statesman thinks about the next generations."

 

[nismaratwork]

Dead: Eisenhower
Living: Kissinger
Dead: Golda Meir
Living: Jim Webb (Virginia)
Dead: RFK
Dead: Douglas MacArthur
Dead: Anwar Al Sadat

Just off the top of my head... favorites lists always turn into epics for me.

 

[Char. Limit]

This is just a personal preference, but I liked Marco Rubio ever since I heard of him. Also, if we allow fictional politicians, the absolute best one is President Jack Ryan.

 

[Gokul43201]

Living: Kissinger

Why do you like Kissinger?

I personally find him revolting.

For example, in the case of Bangladesh (aka East Pakistan), Kissinger (via Nixon) virtually helped bankroll the genocide of the Bengalis through arms transfers to West Pakistan. Today's equivalent would be supplying arms to Gaddafi, and praising him for his actions, while he's engaging in his massacre ... only the death tolls in Bangladesh were about two orders of magnitude higher than what they are in Libya today.

By 1971, the word "genocide" was all too easily understood. It surfaced in a cable of protest from the United States consulate in what was then East Pakistan - the Bengali "wing" of the Muslim state of Pakistan, known to its restive nationalist inhabitants by the name Bangladesh. The cable was written on 6 April 1971 and its senior signatory, the Consul General in Dacca was named Archer Blood. But it might have become known as the Blood Telegram in any case. Also sent directly to Washington, it differed from Morgenthau's document in one respect. It was not so much reporting on genocide as denouncing the complicity of the United States government in genocide.
...
This was signed by twenty members of the United States diplomatic team in Bangladesh and, on its arrival at the State Department, by a further nine senior officers in the South Asia division. It was the most public and the most strongly worded demarche from State Department servants to the State Department that has ever been recorded.

The circumstances fully warranted the protest. In December 1970, the Pakistani military elite had permitted the first open elections for a decade. The vote was easily won by Sheik Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Bengali-based Awami League, who gained a large overall majority in the proposed National Assembly. (In the East alone, it won 167 out of 169 seats.) This, among other things, meant a challenge to the political and military and economic hegemony of the Western "wing." The National Assembly had been scheduled to meet on 3 March 1971. On 1 March, General Yahya Khan, head of the supposedly outgoing military regime, postponed its convening. This resulted in mass protests and nonviolent civil disobedience in the East.

On 25 March, the Pakistani army struck at the Bengali capital of Dacca. Having arrested and kidnapped Rahman, and taken him to West Pakistan, it set about massacring his supporters. ... Having readied the ambush, Pakistani regular soldiers set fire to the women's dormitory at the university, and then mowed the occupants down with machine guns as they sought to escape. (The guns, along with all the other weaponry, had been furnished under United States military assistance programs.)

... Rape, murder, dismemberment and the state murder of children were employed as deliberate methods of repression and intimidation. At least ten thousand civilians were butchered in the first three days. The eventual civilian death toll has never been placed at less than half a million and has been put as high as three million. ... Within a short time, Ambassador Kenneth Keating, the ranking United States diplomat in New Delhi, had added his voice to those of the dissenters. It was a time, he told Washington, when a principled stand against the authors of this aggression and atrocity would also make the best pragmatic sense. Keating, a former senator from New York, used a very suggestive phrase in his cable of 29 March 1971, calling on the administration to "promptly, publicly, and prominently deplore this brutality." It was "most important these actions be taken now," he warned "prior to inevitable and imminent emergence of horrible truths."

Nixon and Kissinger acted quickly. That is to say, Archer Blood was immediately recalled from his post, and Ambassador Keating was described by the President to Kissinger, with some contempt, as having been "taken over by the Indians." In late April 1971, at the very height of the mass murder, Kissinger sent a message to General Yahya Khan, thanking him for his "delicacy and tact."

Some reading:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#USA_and_USSR
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram
3. Christopher Hitchens “The Trials of Henry Kissinger”, Verso (2001). ISBN 1-85984-631-9 - excerpts here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Bangladesh_TOHK.html

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't fully understand the instructions, but I'll post anyways.

With my response to nismar's post about Kissinger, I have used up my quota to discuss nismar's selection of Kissinger and may not make another post on that choice. If nismar responds to my above post, I may not respond to his response.

Furthermore, if nismar responds to my post, he will then have used up his quota for that choice. If you (or someone else) later has something to say about nismar's choice of Kissinger, nismar may no longer respond. So it may be better for him to wait a while, and then address all (assuming there's more than one) complaints or praises of that particular selection.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is just a personal preference, but I liked Marco Rubio ever since I heard of him.

I've heard good things about Rubio too. But bad things as well. However, most of what I heard was during the campaign season, which is the worst time to expect any accurate reporting. Also, it was all before he was elected. Do you have any info on his actions since taking office?

Also, if we allow fictional politicians, the absolute best one is President Jack Ryan.

I think Clancy could himself make a good (real) President. One of the best written one-paragraph summaries of the interventionist movement during the Cold War, IMO, is a passage from one of Clancy's non-fiction books ('Carrier', most likely).

 

[rootX]

Vladimir Putin

There is something just amazing about him and his personality. He is not the type who would sit and wait.

One particular example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2565585.stm

His decisive, even ruthless handling of the siege and his refusal to negotiate with the hostage-takers further shored up his reputation as a man of action.

Almost all 50 or so of the Chechen gunmen and women were killed - whether from the effects of the anaesthetic gas or from special forces' bullets - few Russians care.

Silvio Berlusconi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3041288.stm

"The best political leader in Europe and in the world."

He is a successful businessman and has excellent sense of humor. He has his own way of standing out from others wherever he goes.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why do you like Kissinger?

I personally find him revolting.

Oh, he's a horrific human being.

For example, in the case of Bangladesh (aka East Pakistan), Kissinger (via Nixon) virtually helped bankroll the genocide of the Bengalis through arms transfers to West Pakistan. Today's equivalent would be supplying arms to Gaddafi, and praising him for his actions, while he's engaging in his massacre ... only the death tolls in Bangladesh were about two orders of magnitude higher than what they are in Libya today.

Too true, he was a monster in many ways, but his overall political philosophy, when divorced from the man himself is not a little valuable. You think I admire the death toll of the generals I mentioned? I also admire Hailee Selassie, although I'm about as Rastafarian as a duck, and I recognize his Afrocentrism and cult of personality. Still, his philosophy was something worth noting, and when you contrast such men as that with Kissinger, you start to build a more accurate view of how the world can be approached on its own terms.

Some reading:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#USA_and_USSR
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram
3. Christopher Hitchens “The Trials of Henry Kissinger”, Verso (2001). ISBN 1-85984-631-9 - excerpts here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Bangladesh_TOHK.html

I'm familiar with all of this, intimately... again, he's a monster.

I'd agree with rootX about Vladimir Putin too... I don't hold these people in high regard as PEOPLE... I examine their political philosophy. Realpolitik has a place; that fact that it was a justification for atrocities that decimated an innocent people doesn't change that.

I'm sure as hell not justifying it either!

Another example: Attaturk... he did some great things, at a terrible cost. Kissinger did little great that I know of, but his thoughts outpaced the base nature of his actions.

With my response to nismar's post about Kissinger, I have used up my quota to discuss nismar's selection of Kissinger and may not make another post on that choice. If nismar responds to my above post, I may not respond to his response.

Furthermore, if nismar responds to my post, he will then have used up his quota for that choice. If you (or someone else) later has something to say about nismar's choice of Kissinger, nismar may no longer respond. So it may be better for him to wait a while, and then address all (assuming there's more than one) complaints or praises of that particular selection.

If you like, you can comment more without an expectation of a further response from me, or PM me. I'll respect your rules, but you're more than welcome to comment further, or if you prefer, not.

 

[DanP]

Vladimir Putin is the politician I admire most today. No shadow of doubt. Very resolute character. Also an ex-competitive Judoka.

[PLAIN]http://arkahar.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/putin.jpg

 

[OmCheeto]

With my response to nismar's post about Kissinger, I have used up my quota to discuss nismar's selection of Kissinger and may not make another post on that choice. If nismar responds to my above post, I may not respond to his response.

Furthermore, if nismar responds to my post, he will then have used up his quota for that choice. If you (or someone else) later has something to say about nismar's choice of Kissinger, nismar may no longer respond. So it may be better for him to wait a while, and then address all (assuming there's more than one) complaints or praises of that particular selection.

Ah ha! That would explain why this thread is a bit slow. I think people just love to argue politics, and the thought of not being able to ramble on for days about something, or someone, might make them crazy(er). (<----- I'm being self referential here.)

 

[nismaratwork]

Ah ha! That would explain why this thread is a bit slow. I think people just love to argue politics, and the thought of not being able to ramble on for days about something, or someone, might make them crazy(er). (<----- I'm being self referential here.)

Structed, but Sterile, eh? You may be right, but it's worth playing this out at least.

 

[OmCheeto]

Structed, but Sterile, eh? You may be right, but it's worth playing this out at least.

I wouldn't say sterile. I think the format forces people to think through their choices, pick the best one, and be complete in why they like someone. And your one and only response leaves you open to all manner of merry pranksters if you play that card too soon.

You know that your choice promotes father raping* don't you. I guess you must like father raping too. You are disgusting. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

Zip! muffle muffle muffle. :grumpy:

*You can get anything you want, at http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml" .

 

[nismaratwork]

I wouldn't say sterile. I think the format forces people to think through their choices, pick the best one, and be complete in why they like someone. And your one and only response leaves you open to all manner of merry pranksters if you play that card too soon.





*You can get anything you want, at http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml" .

Hmmm... good point... this could be fun!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My favorite [living] national politician? Easy, Barack Obama. I could probably cite dozens of reason for this, but instead I will cite the quote that first got my attention.

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

 

[Gokul43201]

Congressman Doug Lamborn.

I'd like to see BobG's reaction to this. I'm not terribly familiar with Lamborn - only came across him during the 2006 midterms, and don't recall having heard anything since he was elected. But, back in '06, what I was reading was almost entirely negative. All I remember now is that he was a shoe-in to win the seat he was contesting, given the demographics of his district.

 

[nismaratwork]

My favorite [living] national politician? Easy, Barack Obama. I could probably cite dozens of reason for this, but instead I will cite the quote that first got my attention.


- October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Ok, I'm playing my card...

You've cited Senator Obama... what is it about President Obama that makes him your favorite?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ok, I'm playing my card...

You've cited Senator Obama... what is it about President Obama that makes him your favorite?

For starters, I probably agree with 80-90% of his policies. To name a few, I see the auto bailouts as a necessary component of the economic recovery. While in principle I oppose bailing out failing companies, there seemed to be no option given the greatest economic crisis since the Depression. We have crunched the numbers here before and I'm convinced the http://www.cars.gov/ program was an inspired win-win. His emphasis on public works programs for stimulative effects were forward-looking, but also reflective of FDRs approach in the 30s, which helped to lay the foundation for the success of the country in the years that followed. In much the same manner, The Recovery and Reinvestement act also targeted http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education , which again sugggests that he keeps his eye on the horizon. In general I apporoved of most of his http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy and save it from further damage.

I thought his selection of Hillary for Sec of State was brilliant - even many of her opponents respect her. There was no radical retreat from Iraq as some had feared - he has been smart and steady as always. And he honored every soldier who has ever fought or died for this country by banning the use of torture.

I don't have the time to list and source even the high points of his administration. I may admire him most because of his cool, pragmatic approach to problem solving. He understands and puts into practice the belief that politics is the art of the possible. And in that fashion, one of his greatest accomplishments is probably the health care bill. After 100 years of false starts, just as he promised, he did what was possible when it was possible and got the job done! In my view, this puts him in the running as one of our greatest Presidents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=334IO43A__k

 

[Al68]

For starters, I probably agree with 80-90% of his policies. To name a few, I see the auto bailouts as a necessary component of the economic recovery. While in principle I oppose bailing out failing companies, there seemed to be no option given the greatest economic crisis since the Depression. We have crunched the numbers here before and I'm convinced the http://www.cars.gov/ program was an inspired win-win. His emphasis on public works programs for stimulative effects were forward-looking, but also reflective of FDRs approach in the 30s, which helped to lay the foundation for the success of the country in the years that followed. In much the same manner, The Recovery and Reinvestement act also targeted http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education , which again sugggests that he keeps his eye on the horizon. In general I apporoved of most of his http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy and save it from further damage.

I thought his selection of Hillary for Sec of State was brilliant - even many of her opponents respect her. There was no radical retreat from Iraq as some had feared - he has been smart and steady as always. And he honored every soldier who has ever fought or died for this country by banning the use of torture.

I don't have the time to list and source even the high points of his administration. I may admire him most because of his cool, pragmatic approach to problem solving. He understands and puts into practice the belief that politics is the art of the possible. And in that fashion, one of his greatest accomplishments is probably the health care bill. After 100 years of false starts, just as he promised, he did what was possible when it was possible and got the job done! In my view, this puts him in the running as one of our greatest Presidents.

:yuck: OK, Ivan, here's your mug:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

:yuck: OK, Ivan, here's your mug:

What, you think I don't already have one??!

 

[BobG]

Congressman Doug Lamborn.

I like http://lamborn.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=13&sectiontree=13" on many fronts, the fact that he's willing to speak and vote on what he believes to be right and best for the American people, long-term, in particular the fact that he's unwilling to achieve short-term gains, even re-election, at the expense of long-term problems such as those stemming from increasing the national defiict for any reason.

I also enjoy his balanced approach. He's not hard over for a "strong military" at the expense of everything else, but supports one provided we can balance it with other needs, including fossil fuel alternatives. In short, he supports a balanced approach of most of the major initiatives, just not with the same "all or nothing" fanaticism as some politicians seem to.

Finally, he's a staunch advocate of civil rights, decries the "squeaky wheel" approach, and favors the "what works best" approach.

One thing you can say for Doug Lamborn is that at least he's creative.

Thanks to the GOP's Pledge to America, Congressmen cite the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified. Most Congressmen cite Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. For example, on Mar 15, there were 34 bills introduced and 28 of them cited A 1, S8, C3.

Doug Lamborn cited Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 in the bill he introduced that day (the NPR defunding bill). It's hard to be sure he meant it, though. It could have just been a typo. Like most of the other bills citing a clause in the Constitution, there was no explanation how his bill was related to the clause cited.

How Republicans are explaining the constitutionality of every bill they introduce