Ex-President {USA} Jimmy Carter.
A true statesman.
2007-09-19 21:46:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sadly, they are few and far between.
(I suppose this is partly because they must first get elected!)
One who comes to mind is Daniel Webster, who said, "I'd rather be right than President.". He stuck to his principles, spoke his mind, and never became President. Another 19-th century member of Congress is Daniel Boone; after a constituent objected to the fact that he joined a unanimous vote (donating Federal money to victims of a fire), he re-thought the issue, realized that the man was right, and never did it again.
"No man's life or property is safe while the legislature is in session" is an oft-repeated quote (which was also repeated in a court decision: Tucker 248 (N. Y. Surr. 1866)) As Mark Twain said, "Congress is America's only indigenous criminal class."
Once elected to the House, most politicians use "honorable" as a title and they call themselves "Congressmen" -- even tho the Constitution which defines their powers uses no no such term!
Members of the House are actually "Representatives" but they always avoid that term, probably because they rarely "represent"
their constituents. (Instead, they cater to the party bosses, in order to get re-elected for term after term!)
You can disagree with a politician and still call him "honorable" -- provided that he is guided by firm principles (and by what the Constitution actually says and allows); sadly, most politicians today are guided only by whatever "maximizes the incumbancy".
In the current Congress, there are very, very few who stick to principles, and the only one I know who does so consistently is a physician from Texas named Ron Paul. He bucks the bosses of his own party, refuses to take extra benefits and raises, and always votes against anything that is not authorized by the Constitution. (That's why they often call him "Dr. No".)
I cannot recall a single member of the U.S. Senate, during the past 50 years, whom I'd say is completely "honorable."
(Orrin Hatch comes close, but even he has caved now and then.)
That's one good reason why we should never make Senators into Presidents. (The last time this happened was during the 1960s, and they were all lousy chief executives!) I hope we don't get a Senator, this time around; they have no experience running things (except campaigns and committees), and I don't think there has been a completely "honorable" Senator since way before Warren Harding.
It's hard for an American to judge foreign politicians, but I think it is probably even worse in most other democratic countries, where the political bosses control the ballot even more so than here. Of course, over 2/3 of the countries in the U.N. are one-party states (or no-party dictatorships) run by tyrants, kings, strongmen, juntas, etc. and their politics never promotes or even tolerates anyone who can be said to be "honorable".
2007-09-19 15:24:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by bam 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Jim Callaghan
2007-09-20 12:11:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by lukee 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Rudolf Giuliani and Fred Thompson
2007-09-19 17:01:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by IHATETHEEUSKI 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Mo Mowlam
2007-09-19 17:21:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think David Davis the shadow home secretary seems a good sort of chap.
2007-09-19 15:24:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by trish 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Charlie (bags of money) Haughey and Bertie (can't remember) Ahern and of course Francie (caught with his pants down) Molloy
2007-09-20 13:56:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Goat Whacker 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tony Benn is the only one i can think off
2007-09-19 16:40:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jezabel 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Guy Fawkes
The only man to go into Parliament with good intentions.
2007-09-19 19:00:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Angela Browning, she will go out of her way to help her constituents, one of the very few by all accounts.
2007-09-19 16:50:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by flint 7
·
0⤊
0⤋