NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448682

This thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448682) got a little off topic, and brought me to thinking about the Right Honourable Jean Chretien, and the strange way I feel about him.
This thing of it is, I didn't agree with him about much. Hardly anything, really. But I like him, a lot. I admire him, respect him and miss him. I have thought about it quite a bit and come to the conclusion that I would rather elect a leader I disagree with than one I dislike. I like Chretien because it was obvious that he cared very much about Canada and Canadians.
Even if I agreed with Paul Martin's policies (which I don't), I really don't like him. He evaded taxes while he was Finance Ministre, for God's sake! He strikes me as self-serving and untrustworthy. If Martin and Chretien ran against each other and Martin said that he was all for the environment, minority rights, raising minimum wage, etc (things I agree with), and Chretien had policies more like those of Bush, I'd still vote for Chretien. When it come down to it, I'll vote for the one whom I trust not to sell my country down the river.
So what do y'all think? What's more important: agreeing with, or liking a politician?

I know just what you mean. I am not a Liberal, but I had a greater affinity for Chretien and his policies that I disagreed with than I do for Paul Martin, for whom I feel mild contempt while agreeing with several key strategy points.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Actually, I think it was due to Chretien having been Trudeau's right-hand man all those years... he was an echo of the Trudeau era, and he knowingly exploited that to the hilt, but - it wasn't so bad, after all. He made us collectively calm down after getting increasingly frayed around the edges for back-to-back Tory majorities (both mandates dragged out to the fullest length possible before elections were called, I'll add - out of keeping with common practice, just FYI from the wayback machine, here)and practically told us all to chill with a not-quite-legal-but-it's-in-the-works-guys-honestly spliff. And major props to him for not playing lapdog to Bush's Massah.

With that attitude, it is your responsibility not to vote. You should be confident enough in your ability to analyse their policies that you can see that something you disagree with will 'sell your country out' more than someone who may not be likeable.

I guess that's not as bad as some people I know who will vote for a candidate because he "sounds more experienced when he speaks".

Well you know, I vote for parties - not individuals.

Cobra Commander and Optimus Prime for '08

For me, the most important thing is agreeing with their policies. That's partly because actual, likeable politicians are pretty rare, and it's always hard to tell how much is spin.

The most relevent example to me is the leaders of the main parties here in New Zealand: Don Brash and Helen Clark. What Brash has in his favour is that he is a terrible politician and comes across as really naive, which earns him more trust than Clark, who is a skilled and pretty amoral politician. The only reason I don't like Brash is because of his policies, but that was enough to make me really hope he didn't win. It's hard not to see opposing political views as personality faults when you don't have much else to base your views on, and to me Brash's policies just seemed racist.

With that attitude, it is your responsibility not to vote. You should be confident enough in your ability to analyse their policies that you can see that something you disagree with will 'sell your country out' more than someone who may not be likeable.

I guess that's not as bad as some people I know who will vote for a candidate because he "sounds more experienced when he speaks".On the contrary, I think that it is my responsibility to vote. I think that it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to vote. I am insulted that you would suggest otherwise.
I would never vote for the next Hitler, no matter how likeable he was. I do, however, think that personality, integrity and morality are things that are not always made apparent by a candidate's election platform. They are also important things to consider when voting.

I'd vote for whomever I agreed with, and trusted that s/he'd keep those views.

I vote for the person with whom I agree.

although I have never agreed fully with any candidate ever, I usually try to pick out what is most important to me and find the candidate that is closest to my veiws on those things, although if they are really far off on something that isn't in my really important issues list I may not vote for them because extremism annoys me.

It will be soo much easier when my husband runs for public office, because at least in that election I know that who I will be voting for will not lie, cheat, steal or otherwise do anything to make me ashamed of who I voted for..... :)

Had I wanted to vote for the candidate I like, I would've voted for Fischer.
Had I voted for the cadidate I agree with, I would've voted Schröder.

But I voted Merkel, because I'm enough of a realist to see that she's the only way to get stuff done.

I have my own goals, and cynically perhaps, I look at each candidate and judge them on their likelihood to get me to that goal - call me a swing-voter if you will.

I dont vote, but only because i'm a minor. I would vote with the person I agree with.

I try to vote for the most intelligent. It matters not if I totally agree with him or like him. I feel that most political jobs require thinking fast when the unexpected happens. By definition, I can't agree or disagree with an unknown, unexpected event. And LIKE....I like my cat, wouldn't want her to run the country. I don't care if I hate his internal organs....I want some one smart enough to do the job. I'm tired of people "acting" the job because people "like" them.

Ummm... has anyone else wondered yet why they can't/shouldn't be the same person?

I assume all candidates are evil. So the only difference is how good they'll look on tv.

I vote for the candidate who seems to be capable of doing the least damage. As such I am a maximin-er.

"Do you vote for who you agree with, or for who you like?"

Kinda difficult to separate the two, I think. If I like a candidate's platform, but don't feel I can trust him/her to implement it after getting elected, I probably won't vote for her/him.

Conversely, if I really like a candidate because he/she is well-spoken, personable, and seems to be trustworthy, but don't like her/his platform, I probably won't vote for him/her either. :)

the candidate i agree with the policy's/philosophy of. of course, i have to trust the person to actually impliment the policy's, so there's grey area there...

The most relevent example to me is the leaders of the main parties here in New Zealand: Don Brash and Helen Clark.
Not cappin' on the Kiwis or anything, but I could never vote for someone named "Brash!" I mean, just imagine it: "The Brash Policy!" :eek:

I try to vote for the most intelligent. It matters not if I totally agree with him or like him. I feel that most political jobs require thinking fast when the unexpected happens.
intelligence =/= ability to react with alactrity

I tend not to like those I disagree with on major issues.

If I vote, I vote for whoever I think will make the least amount of new laws and expand government expenditures least. I don't agree with, like or trust any politicians with a chance to reach parliament.