Actually, stands on campaign issues are pretty much infinitely malleable and in any event can be discarded once in office. I generally evaluate candidates based on an assessment of their character, which in turn is based on their conduct in their prior office or job. I don't know what problems the country will have in the next four years, but I do want to know that the person who is confronting them has the ability to handle them and make good choices. That person's instincts and abilities are more important to me than what they say is their stand on this issue or that.

exactly.

That's the one, sorry!

Actually, we call it Question Period in Canada. The questions are aimed at the Cabinet rather than just the PM.

Will, the last few days have made me start to wonder about you.

I have in no way suggested that we want politicians to be entertainers. I said that we do not want politicians to give us bad news or tell us that we are not and will not live in the best of all possible worlds. A politician, as much as people may pay lip service to the concept, could never "tell it like it is" - and actually do so - or admit that the solutions to a problem mean great sacrifices by the people. To do so is to lose an election.

Remember what happened to Walter Mondale in the 1984 election?

Ask Mr. Mondale how honesty in campaigning turned out for him.

Stop being so melodramatic.
What descriptive term would you call a figure who only tells people what they want to hear? The people you describe want these politicians to give them pleasure and entertainment. Entertainer seems to fit just fine.

BTW, I don't know anyone who's okay with politicians lying to them. You'd be the first.

I'm not convinced that was what killed him. It was actually a mark in his favor, as far as I can recall it (I was 10 at the time--though interested, in a fairly un-nuanced way).

Problem was, the novelty of his being an honest politician just wasn't enough to overcome his having the television presence of a manatee.

Entertainers are paid to entertain us. Politicians are paid to lead. Huge difference. By your definition, there's no difference between George Clooney and George Bush (either of them). By mine, there quite a gap, and one that either one would agree with me.

And JJ - Mondale was one of the ones I was thinking of when I wrote my first post in this thread.

If I may reword this slightly:
Some entertainers lead their audiences and some politicians entertain their constituents. It's in that crossing that the similarities become more clear. It's in that crossing that your distinction isn't so huge.

I also think you're sending mixed messages by saying politicians are paid to lead, but people don't want them to be truthful. Putting those two together means that people want to be led by leaders they don't trust. I can see that to a point, but it's not quite that black and white.

I believe that people want their leaders to tell the truth to a point and omit the parts that we don't want to hear.

We expect that fiscal things will increase and change over time. We don't want to be told it upfront. We want to be able to deny that it's coming, and want to complain about it when it does come. But the fact of life it is a truth that things will cost more in the future and funds need to be raised in order to pay for such things.

What kind of election season would it be without the annual promise to "close all the loopholes?"

Why, Obama promised to do that just a day or two ago, and everyone knows he's honest.