The Mt. Rushmore of the past 50 years in politics...

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, Jan 2, 2010.

  1. I have come up with 3 politicians, looking for a fourth for a new Mt. Rushmore of principled politicians.

    You don't have to agree with their politics, you just have to admit they have been consistent and uncompromising in their principles...

    1. Ralph Nader.
    Would anyone question that Nader has not been consistent since the 60's in his principles?

    2. Dennis Kucinich

    3. Ron Paul

    4. Don't have a fourth yet. Maybe David Duke for his consistency in the face of adversity.

    What is most striking to me about this list, is that those politicians who are the most principled and consistent in their political positions are also the least likely to get elected to higher office...
     
  2. I voted for Nader. Great man.
     
  3. You left Obama off the list because he is black. You racist.
     
  4. I thought about Jim Brown because of his consistent positions, but he is already on the NFL Mt. Rushmore...

    Come on, I am sure you can think of one right winger who is/was consistent in their beliefs...unwilling to compromise no matter what the political cost.

     
  5. Well from an economic stand point Ron Paul is pretty far right.
     
  6. It doesn't matter what the position is, right or left, for this Mt. Rushmore what counts is consistency of position no matter what the political fallout.

    I put Paul on the list because he deserves it.

    Does that mean I think he is correct on the issues?

    No.

     
  7. What is most striking to me about this list, is that those politicians who are the most principled and consistent in their political positions are also the least likely to get elected to higher office...

    ----------------------

    Also, Imo, if people believe that someone will do what they say they will do (a man of his word, for instance), they'll never get elected.
     
  8. jem

    jem

    I respect integrity even if they disagree. I sometimes agree with Nader. But what the hell was he doing running for President. He handed the election to - who was it Bush? I wonder if he was just a big egotistical dope or if he had a vendetta against Kerry - like Perrot had against Bush Sr.
     
  9. Nader ran on principle, not ego.

    Dems begged him not to run in 2000 and 2004.

    Nader's response? Paraphrased below:

    "You dems should be beating Bush by 40%. The small percentage of demonstration votes I draw should not be the reason you can't beat Bush. Don't blame me if you can't beat Bush...blame yourselves."

    Nader is not a fan of dems or republicans, because they are both corrupt and owned by the corporations.

    Nader has pointed out the undue influence of corporations on politicians and government for nearly 50 years...

     
  10. I think 4 profiles of President George W. Bush would do it.
     
    #10     Jan 2, 2010