Kirk's response

"Does government continue to function as it should, when the elected officials don't do their jobs???? Why would the American public allow this to continue? The second part of the question has to do with the current chapter...What are the characteristics of a good President? A leader? Do they quit before the game is over??"

I believe that the government continues to function even when not 100% of the elected officials are participating 100% of the time. In fact it seems quite rare that you hear of bills being passed with the full house and senate voting on them, except in extreme cases. If the government continues to function without perfect attendance or records it's fairly clear that it will also function when some of its members are corrupt, or suffer some other loss of integrity. Bills continue to be churned out, and work is still done on capitol hill, regardless of small petty corruption and other problems. The government as a whole maintains its integrity and its ability to function. Not only that, but most of the news that is shed at all about corruption or dirty politicians is of the scandalous nature and much less is of the "This senator was taking massive bribes to block this bill that is clearly good for the country" (Exaggeration). For instance you always hear of public officials having naughty encounters in unnamed restrooms, or a certain attractive secretary. And it's depressing that this is what drives the American public to its decisions. But that's what the media does. It's quite clear that most of the workings of the government are not only hidden from the eyes of the public, but that even if the public were to hear of these inner workings they would do little in response. Even in a year such as this when election turn-outs are high, the proportion of the public that acts attentively is quite small. In this way, "small" and monetary corruption can easily slip by the radar, while even the most dedicated and passionate of senators can be ruined by a public scandal. Because of this diversion of interests, and what really sparks reactions in the American public, officials that are otherwise corrupt may continue in their corrupted ways without the American public giving an outcry. It seems that more often corruption is brought to attention and dealt with by other members of Congress, not the public. And even though they do continue, it is quite clear that the government continues to act effectively and intelligently. But if these people are corrupt, how did they get elected in the first place? A good president is an intelligent president. One who knows how to politically maneuver himself to a position of power, and how to maintain that position so that he can act swiftly and with purpose. A good president also has strong ethics and makes his stance on these ethics clear well before the election and then holds onto them throughout his time in office. A good president is insightful, calm and collected, intelligent, and probably the biggest key in this age is to be charismatic, on T.V. on the radio, on the internet and in public. A president with good charisma can win the support for bills that may otherwise fail, and can also keep the public and government in check in times of national need. As evidenced by Hitler, a charismatic president can do great (As in momentous, not good) things for his country, and with his power. A leader must stay the course and finish the jobs he has started unless to back out would be more beneficial. Though I disagree with the war in Iraq, to start that war and then have left the country in absolute ruin would be far worse than what is happening now. A true leader will not back down until his time has passed and he is called to step down from his position. Hopefully, with his endearing and beneficial qualities, he/she will have helped forward his/her country in the national standing of the world.