Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania and chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said: “The public wants this war over with. Many Democrats were elected because they said this war ought to end.”

Do you think that 'the people' (general public) should decide the outcome of the war or the elected officials? This isn't a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious.

Do you think since the Gallup polls show lack of support for the current administration and the war; that means we should just 'end it'? Or do you think the people elect officials to make those decisions and decide how/when to do such things?

I'm speaking in basic terms of Democracy here...and sometimes I wonder which way we should go. I don't think John from down the street should be able to make policy decisions, but sometimes politicians just take to darn long (in some peoples' eyes). Democratic support is down because they haven't been quick or resolute enough to force us out of Iraq...

...let me know your thoughts please!

Hey Vis,

That's a tough question. As far as I can see it, there are three ways you can govern as a representative of the people.

1. You are elected by the people based on your political stance, abilities and the hope that you will make the right decisions when the time comes. The basic assumption is that you have access to information that the general public does not and that you will help guide your constituents based on this information. It's like plug and play.

2. You are elected based on your abilities much that same as with number 1, but you continue to lead based on polls and on the changing opinions of your constituents.

3. The last one is more realistic. It is a combination of the first two.

Murtha is basically saying that the Democrats won the last election because the public wants the troops to come home (1). When his public is polled, a large number want the troops to come home (2). When you combine those, you end up with what he is trying to do. I don't like the guy, but it definitely looks like he is representing his constituents correctly.

Where I think he went wrong was with his inability to support the war and help muster support from his constituents for the war. Before half of the country went on the anti-war stance, he should have led his voters and the country and pushed for success. Instead he and many other Democrats took their dislike for Bush and carried it over to the war in Iraq. That was harmful for the country.

Now that things are going well in Iraq though, they run the risk of getting egg on their faces. It will be interesting to see how things will turn out if the war in Iraq continues to improve.

In the mean time we can watch them try to impeach Vice President Cheney rather than deal with important issues like security, the budget, and immigration.