On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:40:10 -0800, Scott Schultz <scott at cjhunter.com> wrote: >> I've heard that the difference between an honest politician and a >> dishonest one is that the dishonest one stays bought. > > Actually, you've got that reversed. An "honest" politician is one who > "stays > bought". In other words, all politicians are for sale. It's just a > question > of whether they honor their commitments to the special interests that > purchase them or if they shift allegiance with the wind. That's what I first heard, but I like to modify this. While all politicians have to give up some integrity, it's not quite black and white. Virtually *all* politicians can be persuaded to change their minds for issues important enough to them. They do what they think is right. But this hurts the value of "bought" politicians. Some politicians are more likely to "do the right thing" than others. GW successfully* campaigned that he was of the "stay the course" type president, and his opponent was "wishy washy". The Democrats responded that GW didn't know when to change his mind, while JK was willing to change his mind with further information. We buy politicians with votes as well as with money. An honest politician can be persuaded to change his mind. A bought politician has to answer to his owners first. *Actually, I'm of the opinion that this election wasn't decided by such issues. GW got rural counties in all states, and JK got urban counties in all states. Rural people think fast-talking city folk are as trustworthy as used car salesmen, and Urban people think slow talking country folk are stupid. When a country boy visits his city wife's family, they wonder why he was so rude as to not talk, while he's wondering why they were so rude as to not let him have a word in edgewise. People voted for the politician with the style they were comfortable with. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/