To answer your question, no, this is precisely my point when it comes to making decisions based on polls and public opinion. Citizens change things in our system of government by electing people to positions of power that agree with their point of view (or as close to as possible). Right now, the hated George Bush is the driver of our foreign policy and was elected to do so. He, along with “a-hole” Cheney are in the positions they are in because the majority of the electorate voted them in. I know that is a royal pain in the you-know-what for Democrats, but until Jan of ‘09 that’s who is running the country.

Nice that you didn’t address the main point of my comment, that just because something is being accepted by the masses (ie: Slavery, lack of women’s right to vote, lack of civil rights, gay marriage) doesn’t mean that the leaders of our country have to go along with it. Abraham Lincoln was HATED, Lyndon Johnson was issued death threats, but we can all agree that both Lincoln and Johnson were right to struggle through that hatred and misinformation to fight for what THEY thought was right. You probably won’t agree, but we are at that point in history where this war and everything that goes along with it, echo’s that same struggle.

As for the war, and the opposition to it; the length of time public opinion is out there, or veracity of that opinion, isn’t necessarily a reason to change course of action. People that were elected to be the leaders of this country have decided that our presence in Iraq, and the Middle East as a whole, is the right thing to do for the security of our country. From the tone of my comments, you obviously know I agree with that policy. I disagree with Jill, as a whole, that this war is just about money….it is not. Politicians from both sides of the aisle pander for special interest money use their position to further their career or line their pockets, and to put that tag only on George Bush and his administration is not only wrong, but disingenuous.

I think part of the point of Dan’s post is that Cheney’s response, both in content and in tone, indicates scorn for a majority of his countrymen. He could have just as easily slipped into his canned talking points about the war, instead he chose to express disdain for all the “idiots” he represents.

While I agree that government shouldn’t be run on polls alone, it should be possible to make cogent arguments on behalf of one’s argument. Done properly, this can serve your cause.

And while we’re discussing what our politicians should be beholden to, I think it’s interesting that directly representing the individuals that make up one’s constituency is a problem. Yet the fact that any large interest, so long as they have bags of campaign cash to offer, doesn’t seem to be for this administration (and yes, for lots of politicians on both sides).

But I have to say this about the Bush administration, and I have been saying since 2000: if there is any way for Corporate America to benefit from policy decisions made by this president, he will back it. Amnesty, anyone? Privatizing Social Security (let’s not go on a tangent about the value of SS please, I’m just saying there was A LOT of money to be made by Wall Street there). Halliburton + war = $$$? Medicare prescription coverage?

And if JP Morgan Chase, GE, and Lockheed all got together and decided they would make a lot of money if the gays could get married, I’ll bet it would suddenly be palatable to the Bush administration, even if it wasn’t to the mainstream of the party. Because that’s exactly what seems to be happening with illegal immigration. There’s money, a lot of it, hanging in the balance, so that’s where their scales tip.

So your quarter of the public who agree with you, and who apparently are vastly more informed and non-schizophrenic that the rest of us, are the ones who should decide foreign policy?

One other thing: Opposition to this war isn’t and hasn’t been a “wind of public opinion crossing their desk”. It’s been a constant and deliberate gale for years. 66% of the American “schizophrenic” public didn’t just come to the realization that this war isn’t worth the costs yesterday, they’ve been of that opinion for years now.

If administrations, and other elected officials are expected to vote based off of a “timely reaction to the will of public opinion….as the foundation for our representative form of government” slavery would have been accepted much longer than it was, women’s suffrage would have been an issue long after the 1920’s, and for the liberals reading this….gay marriage would never even come up for a vote (state or federal). Politicians should not and cannot flip flop because the wind of public opinion crosses their desk. People may not agree with everything an elected politician votes/stands for (and they shouldn’t), that’s why we have elections. To, once they’re in office, expect them to read the Gallup polls right before they go into session (or their office) and vote based on that information…..well, let’s just say I’d have LESS respect for politicians and their general lack of conviction - and that’s saying A LOT!!!

Yes, I’m talking about the “headline voters”. Those that get all their “knowledge” of the world events from sound bites and reading headlines. You know the type, they usually can’t even name the V.P. or wouldn’t know a republican from a democrat.

I’m glad that just because “public opinion” is against something, that those in the know, really don’t give a rip.

fluctuate
1. to shift back and forth uncertainly
2. to ebb and flow in waves

Cheney’s answer implies a wishy-washy American public that can’t make up its mind on the war. While the DEGREE of support may, in fact, have varied over the course of the last five years, I think it’s clear that the majority of Americans used to support the Iraq War but have now reconsidered. That’s not perpetual indecision, as Cheney implies. That’s a realization that maybe the wrong decision was made - a realization which those who support this thing will refuse to honestly acknowledge. I’m talkin’ to you, Hillary - you’re not foolin’ anybody.

Actually, sadly, you are.