...about how closely elected officials should hew to poll results vs. using their own judgment when making decisions.

I, for example, am an EXTREMELY LOW LEVEL elected official (a school board member) -- and have often told people who pressure me one way or the other that *I* was elected to use *MY* best judgment, not to stick my finger into the wind at all times and simply vote with whoever is perceived to represent a majority.

I don't argue for a minute that McCain is right to continue his support for current Iraq policy -- in fact, I believe he's about as wrong as any human could be. He should know better (unlike our totally clueless President, who probably DOESN'T know better).

But how about a little debate here in War Room about this issue -- exactly how much should our elected officials use their own judgment, and how much should they follow shifting public opinion?

...in this case, i don't think mccain is using his own judgement. he's simply toeing the party line as ordered.

...exactly how much should our elected officials use their own judgment, and how much should they follow shifting public opinion?

My opinion is that the voters are the boss and should be treated as such. That doesn't mean the voters micro-manage - precisely the opposite, in fact.

I also think you're hiding something in your black-and-white presentation of the issue. It's not just voters versus judgment, its voters versus financial contributers, with judgment frankly tacked on at the tail end. So when people argue that politicians should ignore the "shifting public opinion" in favor of sound judgment, they're making a false case: what these representatives are actually doing is ignoring public wisdom in favor of narrow, greedy special interests who want to make money at the voters' expense.

Between using your own judgement and ignoring reality. McCain: Ignoring reality. Ignoring commanders. Misrepresenting facts. With the intent not to do the business of the American people, but with the intent of securing an election.

Let's acknowledge the difference there. When you're left only with the option of distorting the facts to support your "judgement" you're not using sound judgement. I'd be perfectly willing for a politician to use their own judgement, barring that it's sound. If it's not, why should I trust that they know better than I?

It is sad to me to hear McCain saying something so arrogant, so obvious, and so lacking in respect or thought. He is certainly entitled to believe in the "surge" if he does but it would seem only politic to acknowledge that he is disagreeing with a large number of Americans. He could have cited more information, better understanding, experience - anything to make his statement sound less unilaterally all-knowing.

I believe on issues for which our elected officials are asking for our lives or our money, they have a responsibility to hold town meetings, request input and ideas, and reflect the choices offered them. If that runs in direct opposition to their personal beliefs and values then say so and proceed knowing you might lose your seat next election.

I have never liked McCain's politics but admired his integrity and thoughtfulness. The positions he has taken and the statements he has made recently have eliminated the possibility of seeing him as a "differently motivated" republican.

Clearly now he is re-tooling himself in the image of GW. Too bad for the repubs. And a great loss for McCain.

More precisely, he needs Big Oil money. I donated $100 to him when I thought he really was his own man. He got the message, however, the same as Hilary, no withdrawal from Iraq.

"I know what's good for you."

Fuck You, McCain.

You're a pathetic old man and your head looks like a ziploc bag filled with raw hamburger meat.

Shut the fuck up and go take your lipitor, you old fucktard.

You blew it.

So, if "voters are boss", how is that voice of the voters determined? By public opinion polling? By counting the number of phone calls or e-mails or personal comments received at an official's office? I'm quite serious in asking, by the way.

No argument that there was a message from the November elections against Bush and his Iraq policy. But are you really proposing that all issues should essentially be held up for public vote? Literally a direct democracy?

If not, and you say only SOME issues should follow public opinion, who decides which issues?

A few details on this truly radical shift from our current representative democracy are definitely needed. How about it?

It's fair enough for elected officials to claim that they were elected to exercise their best judgment in performing their duties, and that voters have regular opportunities to replace them if the voters disagree with their decisions.

However, McCain's position here is, basically, "trust me." The problem with that is that it basically stifles public debate over the policy in question. Nobody but McCain is privy to the reasons he makes his decisions - and there's no way of evaluating how he's exercising his judgment.

McCain may be right about the surge, or any number of other things. But he owes it to the people who elected him Senator and may elect him President to show how he comes to that conclusion - to demonstrate how he actually exercises his judgment. Because, finally, that's what's important about all our elected officials - how do they make decisions? Particularly on an issue as serious as the conduct of the war in Iraq, it's reasonable to expect a serious candidate for President to be able to explain his thinking. If he's unable or unwilling to do that, it demonstrates mainly his unsuitability for the job.

McCain's comment, facially arrogant and sadly disconnected from reality, is also striking for the way it misapprehends the authority of our elected officials.

It's true that this is a republic, not a democracy, and that (pure democratic mechanisms like referenda aside) citizens don't make choices on issues. Rather, citizens choose the elected officials they trust to make those choices in their stead. In that sense, McCain is entitled as an elected official to exercise his own judgment.

Unfortunately for McCain and those others with a continuing bizarre fetish for the Iraq misadventure, in 2006 a majority of the people chosen by citizens were officials whom they knew would support withdrawal from Iraq, tomorrow or next month or next year but ***soon***.

McCain is about to learn that, regardless of whether he does, in fact, "know better" (and he does NOT), his entitlement to act on his own judgment is limited by our republic to the time frame within which citizens have to endure his "judgment."

Judgment as bad as McCain's (and all the neocon nitwits for whose war he now shills) has exacted an awful price, on Iraq, on our servicepersons and their families, and on the nation. But the best thing about McCain's halucinatory statements on Iraq is that he is probably rendering himself an historical footnote to the Election of 2008.

Good on 'im.