None. Havel and Sarkozy are the only ones posted so far I can take seriously, but really not even them.
He’s very like Wedgie Benn. An apparently utterly raving loony lefty but actually a man of principle (for a politiian, that is). It’s that character thing. I don’t agree with him on a good few things but I have great respect for him.
Who?
That’s why. A necessary corrective, to drag our established political center-of-gravity to the left.
Nevertheless, they did elect him, didn’t they?
Nicolas Sarkozy.
ETA:
Let me expand on that just a tad. I like the idea of having someone who has been through the grand socialist experiment and has come out the other end fully aware of and familiar with its broken promises and shortcomings.
That’s a fallacy. We didn’t elect Bush. ETA: “Many Londoners” could also describe 25% of the city’s voting population and still be lots and lots and lots of people.
Nevertheless, he’s a hardass law-'n’order type. Why would a libertarian want him?
I listened to Sarkozy address the U.S. congress. It was a remarkable speech. Other than his compelling speech, I didn’t know much about his politics. After a little digging, I discovered the gifted public speaker is a global free market, fundamental capitalist convert. There goes Europe. sigh
Wait. Does this hypothetical question allow for dead vice presidents? Because Peter Jennings died a couple of years ago.
But my answer would be Tony Blair, despite his support of the war. At the very least, he’s a much better speaker than GW Bush.
Well, he can’t be much worse than Cheney, can he?
A true lefty and IMO a great man. You may have seen him interviewed in Sicko.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37wkX2gklzo <– Sicko interview
Actually here’s the extended Sicko interview.
Well, that’s not how I would describe him. Nevertheless, a libertarian certainly would not oppose law and order per se, so long as the laws were ethical and the order was achieved without coercion.
Yes, it’s a rare and precious thing to find someone with a mind open to rational persuasion when their ideology is discussed. That is plainly the chief attraction of Sarkozy to the member.
Commonly you’ll find people welded to their philosophy, no matter how odd.
It’s interesting to see what Americans think of foreign politicians.
My European viewpoint (of the ones I know something about):
- Putin is exKGB and wants to return to a dictatorship
- Ken Livingstone won elections for London Mayor despite fervent opposition from both major political parties. He’s certainly passionate about London, but hasn’t shown national ability
- Richard Branson has great publicity skill, but his company has been involved in ‘dirty tricks’ allegations
- Kasparov is talented (He was a Wall Street columnist as well as World Chess Champion) but has little political experience (and won’t get any more if Putin keeps arresting him on trumped-up charges :rolleyes: )
- Benn is honest and thoughtful (but far too left-wing for the US!)
- Blair is still dodging questions on the Iraq war, because he can’t admit he was wrong. He also got involved in dodgy financial deals, both personal and for his party.
Don Cherry. He’d be body-checking other heads of state that he disagreed with. Plus his speeches would be entertaining if only to see what he’s wearing.
Benjamin Netanyahu
Could you imagine…?
matt_mcl.
Not a joke. He’s a competent politician who could win an election, and his ideas and opinions on a variety of subjects he’d deal with as President range from ones I support strongly to ones I could live with but don’t necesssarily espouse myself.
Wants to? He’s not there already?
Sure. He would negotiate a peace treaty with Iran and then fail to implement its terms. 