Germany's next president

One cannot expect a country to produce great leaders every year.
However I have yet to see Germany produce a JFK, FDR or even an Obama or a Thatcher. The UK had Thatcher just a couple of decades ago so I don't expect the UK to produce great leaders all the time.
Mediocre seems to be the norm. That is not bad and way better than producing genocidal luantics.
Also being a musician, artist, writer etc is not a guarantee that they will make a great leader.
However I agree that Germany could have done better than Gauck, surely this big country of over 80 million has people of a greater moral stature than someone who supports Sarrazin's book. No matter how well meaning, it encourages xenophobia and fuels resentment against an ethnic group within the country.

Firstly, it is not producing a leader "every year" - The Presidency lasts for five years, with the exception of the last two who have been anomalies. Often their tenure might last for as long as a decade. So more like a great leader "every decade" in a population of 80 million (of course, one could argue "great" could mean being silent, impartial and above politics - given the role of the Presidency).

Secondly, given their experiences, we should be thankful we are not seeing Germany produce self-serving megalomaniacs like drugged-up JFK (who bangs everyone except his own wife), FDR (who made the size of the US government so large we are living with its excesses today), Obama (who is all talk but no action), or Thatcher (well, depends on your views on Maggie). It is a non-executive Presidency, after all. The figure must be dignified and worthy independent of their political capital. Likewise, one might say the fact it has relatively moderate, center Chancellor's is a good thing - compared to the basket-cases that is the UK or the US. But we should be seeing Germany put out candidates like comparable countries have: Adolf Schärf, Rudolf Kirchschlager, Kurt Waldheim, Thomas Klestil (Austria), Jorge Fernando Branco de Sampaio (Portugal), Martti Ahtisaari (Finland), Pratibha Patil, Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam (an extremely popular Indian President), Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga (Latvia) and so on. By contrast, very single German President has been a former career politician. Hence, my main point: surely, Germany - given its cultural capital - can do better than just more politicians' (a point we agree on).

Thirdly, being a "[a] musician, artist, writer etc is not a guarantee that they will make a great leader" might be true - but presumably, to be elected they should have some capacity to speak well, to inspire some moral authority in people, talk about their life story and passions. This is done through a 'filtering' process (be it direct election or a Convention like they have in Germany). In fact, Iceland's most popular President, who scored 94.6% of the popular vote, was an artistic director - she is one of the most respected and popular women in Iceland.

Finally, you let the cat out of the bag when you concede "many could have done better than Gauck, surely this big country of over 80 million has people of a greater moral stature than someone who supports Sarrazin's book". We agree. Of course, that comes back to my point: you need to democratize the process. Politicians' will pick other politicians' because they only know other politicians'!

So, I return to my proposal: a directly-elected, non-executive Presidency where the states and people nominate the candidate (akin to Austria, Iceland, Singapore or Finland), but with the caveat the officers cannot be a former politician (at least not within a certain large window of time).

Sorry, but as German living in Austria for 15 years I am glad Germany does not have people like Waldheim and Klestil, but guys like Herzog und v. Weizäcker. :-)
Re Sarrazin's book: When it was published it happened I was visiting Berlin for one week. During this time the most interesting observation for me was that even on the left political spectrum and within Turkish groups there was much agrement with him, you only had to read local newspaper and hear radio. Therefore, I understand Gauck's position who never was a follower of the stupid PC mainstrean. :-)

The point being, however, is that with Austria they aren't all career politicians' (or when sometimes they are - as with Heinz Fischer - they are often a Professor or Doctor) and the people at least get to choose who the Head of State is. Waldheim and Klestil were creations of their historical context; it does not mean you have to vote for them.

That said, I rather a Waldheim and Klestil over a corrupt Christian Wulff; or a Horst Köhler who failed to show any sense of duty or service by fulfilling out his term (do you see Queen Elizabeth II doing the same thing, abdicating our of no where?); or a Johannes Rau or a drafter of the Fourth Reich like Herzog. And I'd prefer Weizäcker's brother, personally.

Indeed, ideally, my personal preference is the Swiss system (collective, rotating Head of State chosen from multiple political parties).

Of Great Germans since WW2 I would add Pope Benedict XVI, Hans Kelsen, Gustaw Radbruch Carl Schmitt.

Of course, most career politicians are mediocre anywhere - they do a job and aren't born statesmen. However, Germany has had a fair share of outstanding statesmen over the past decades.

Willy Brandt (nobel laureate), Helmut Schmidt, Hans Dietrich Genscher, Richard v. Weizsaecker and of course Helmut Kohl.

Gauck has exceptional format and a remarkable life story, as well. There aren't many presidents of his caliber around.

The problem with some of the people you listed is they are political, i.e. they carry political baggage - so if you do not like what they did in office you will find them hardly credible in an apolitical role. For example, I do not hold Helmut Kohl in too high regard: he helped form the Fourth Reich (aka. the EU). The Head of State position should be free from political excesses as much as possible - hence, my emphasis on people other than politicians' given to date all German Presidents' have been former career politicians'.

What made Herzog "a drafter of the Fourth Reich" (whatever that may be), precisely? The only president of a German-speaking country with a nazi past was Kurt Waldheim, to my knowledge, and he was Austrian... .

Whether or not Wulff was corrupt remains to be seen, for the moment, the investigation into the case has only just begun. That Wulff resigned the very moment the prosecutor opened the investigation shows that the system and the respect for the rule of law is intact.

If that's your condition for "greatness", you should LOVE Gauck: he's never been member of a party, comes from a family that has suffered greatly under the communist regime for three generations, was an early and leading member of the GDR resistance movement, and led the first ever public institution of any former Warsaw Pact member state charged with examining the role of the secret services in exemplary manner. Especially in Eastern Europe, he's greatly respected.

Herzog supports the EU, helped draft on EU Convention as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (I'm a bill of rights skeptic).

The Wulff incident goes to a key point, namely, do you see Queen Elizabeth II resigning for corruption allegations? This comes back to my political baggage point - hence, why the person 'elected' should show leadership above politics.

he's never been member of a party

Well, he's an "independent", but he has been a Member of the Bundestag; and a Member of the People's Chamber.

The other experiences could be regarded as divisive; should be regarded as titillating both Eastern and Western Germany; and the mere fact he was "oppressed" does not make one "great" under my criteria.

And don't get me wrong, I think Gauck is an improvement compared to the others, but still a long, long way of putting up academics over career politicians' (by academics I mean Professors of Law/political science, scientists, Nobel Prize Winners or the sort of people I listed that Austria, Finland (early on), Iceland, India (more recently) or Latvia have had).

No, Gauck was never member of the Bundestag; he was a member of East Germany's first and last free parliament, and he should be proud of it. If Gauck is not inspirational, I don't know who could be... . (Don't say Fischer... .)

Since in traditional Austrian fashion you are so enamoured with titles, rest assured that of Germany's last four presidents, two were professor doctors (Herzog, Koehler). As anybody can see, academic titles are no ticket to greatness. At least not outside Austria;-)... .

No, being opressed does not make anybody "great". Being opressed and resisting for decades and against all odds does.

And that is what Gauck did.

Gauck was never member of the Bundestag

Yes, he was. Gauck served as a member of the Bundestag from 3 October to 4 October 1990 (the 1990 People's Chamber was granted the right to nominate a certain number of MPs as part of the reunification process). He stepped down following his appointment as Special Representative of the Federal Government. Admittedly, however, he was the shortest serving Member of Parliament ever! Furthermore, he was indeed a member off the East German Parliament i.e. a career politician.

In relation to titles, some of these were attained after the Presidency - and of course, as I already argued, academic titles per se are not tickets to greatness (I agree), but that is why I proposed direct-election of the President to 'weed out' or 'filter out' those who are not - how shall we say - inspiring with their work or mellifluous when they speak (given it is an apolitical office).

I already gave you a list of who I might regard as inspiration. But to repeat:

Martti Ahtisaari (Finland), Pratibha Patil, Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam (an extremely popular Indian President), Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga (Latvia)

Curiously, the nerdy academic Presidents' tend to be the most popular e.g. Kristján Eldjárn.

And I'm more of a fan of the Austrian/Finnish/Icelandic Presidency than I am of the German, but favourite of course is the Swiss.

We have different definitions of 'greatness' - of course, none of this would probably ever have happened if after WW1 the Germans adopted the Swiss and Lichtenstein system of government (direct democracy) where the cult of personality does not reign supreme.

If Kurt Waldheim is your idea of a person of moral stature worthy of respect than say no more. You are in no position to judge the moral stature of anybody if Waldheim is what you hold up as figure to be emulated.
There were many who lived through the same "historical context" as Waldheim and chose a very different path, so your excuses carry no weight.
However as Wikkileaks revealed Austria today is selfish self absorbed country that pursues an export at any cost without any moral boundaries, exporting the most dangerous weapons to tyrants in the name of greed. Selfishness and Greed are the primary motives of Austria's foreign policy. Austria is also probably the most anti-semitic country in western Europe today. Morals and Austria have never gone together.
However your rants about JFK, FDR and Obama only show envy, jealousy and anti-Americanism prehaps prompted by the fact that those *American* leaders are more admired world the over than any of the European leaders you mentioned.
Heck Obama is more admired than any European leader in Europe itself.
Hard to stomach but true. Yes the truth hurts doesn't it?

Firstly, no, not really. I'm not Austrian for starters. Or European. Nor do I live in any of these countries you listed. But if Austria is "self-absorbed" and "greedy" - good on them. The primary function of a nation state is to provide for its citizens and to secure peace, prosperity and harmony for them. Perhaps if the US worried more about its boarders than that of the boarders of Afghanistan it would understand that. Three cheers to Austria for its "greed", pragmatism and selfishness - and resulting its high GDP per capita!

[But for the record, the Austrian Federal President - a directly elected non-executive Head of State nominated by the people or the state which is what I am arguing for - has constantly condemned and spoken against anti-semitism:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/austria-cancels-award-to-far-right-l...

http://www.onejerusalem.org/2012/01/you-dont-have-to-be-a-victim-t.php

http://www.bundespraesident.at/en/dr-heinz-fischer/understanding-of-the-... ]

Secondly, Kurt (generally) did a very good job as Secretary-General of the UN and as you seem to concede who you want as your Head of State is a matter of individual preference. Personally, my first-order preference is for a directly-elected diplomat (hence, why I cited Martti Ahtisaari) followed by a scientist to take a ceremonial role (as in India) followed by a constitutional monarch. The role should be 'above politics'.

Thirdly, therefore, OF COURSE all those leaders you listed are going to be known over the world - they are POLITICAL. Their actions impact lives, sometimes for better otherwise for worse - in the case of military involvement they have blood on their hands). A non-executive President is not suppose to be a "cult of personality" figure - the fact Hitler and other leaders were well known hardly means that is somehow self-evidently a "good" thing. Nor have you denied the sensationalist issues surrounding JFK privately (or the fact he helped escalate Vietnam War, or as he puts it "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty" - INDEED!); or FDR (who increased the size of the Federal Government even before WW2; and his successor nuked and fried several Japanese); or Obama (with high rates of unemployment and a population generally uncomfortable with his policies, although they like him "personally"). I suppose there is "famous" and there is "infamous" - it is a matter of personal opinion how you class them. Not sure why I would show my "jealously" or "envy" if I class the people you cited in the latter category (i.e. as "infamous"), which I do.

Finally, I am happy to put "JFK, FDR and Obama" and match them against the Swiss system, where most people do not know the name of the current President of Switzerland [without googling it] and have a monopoly on legislative power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTQYSO0102E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4d-_ZMhvyA

I personally don't like big cult-ish, political figures - like in the US or Britain (with the PM, or possibly the Queen who embodies a degree of deference). I do like a mild, well-spoken, non-executive Head of State - who have a robust intellect behind them with the assent of the people - like Finland, Iceland, Austria, Ireland, India or Singapore. The charity worker, the scientist, the human rights activist, the physicists, not the "adverse selection" candidates you so applaud(*). So the truth doesn't hurt, because with the facts I reach different conclusions to you.

Those vices you cited are actually sources of strength.

----

(*) James Buchanan describes the phenomenon thusly (thank you Stephen Morris):

[S]uppose that a monopoly right is to be auctioned; whom will we predict to be the highest bidder? Surely we can presume that the person who intends to exploit the monopoly power most fully, the one for whom the expected profit is highest, will be among the highest bidders for the franchise. In the same way, positions of political power will tend to attract those persons who place higher values on the possession of such power. These persons will tend to be the highest bidders in the allocation of political offices. . . . Is there any presumption that political rent seeking will ultimately allocate offices to the 'best' persons? Is there not the overwhelming presumption that offices will be secured by those who value power most highly and who seek to use such power of discretion in the furtherance of their personal projects, be these moral or otherwise? Genuine public-interest motivations may exist and may even be widespread, but are these motivations sufficiently passionate to stimulate people to fight for political office, to compete with those whose passions include the desire to wield power over others?

So we get several wars, a centralized tax system, corruption, dullards...etc

You really have a problem with anti-Americanism as most of the intellectual elites do.

Thats your problem and it doesn't change the fact that JFK, FDR and Obama are more admired than any of the European leaders you mentioned. Yup the truth really seems to hurt you. Face it.

Hint : Admired as nothing to do with a cult of personality. Mother Theresa was admired, so was Ghandhi and so is Nelson Mandela. They are admired for their ideals, their courage and vision.

PS: The kurds are really impressed with Austria's selfish and greedy foreign policy.

Also Kurt Waldheim was a lousy UN chief. It was during his tenure that lavish UN salaries become the norm with the UN more interested in maintaining the lifestyles of the rich and famous for UN staff than about the plight of the world.

Waldheim was known for his high lifestyle love of the good life while doing nothing. He didn't solve any international crisis and was only interested in getting perks and more perks.

And when he became President of Austria he was an international pariah. However I wouldn't expect a person of your morality to understand why he was an international pariah, it is simply beyond your moral compass.

Firstly, you assert I am "anti-American", and then you claim "most of the intellectual elites" are Anti-American. I LOVE America. I LOVE its FEDERALISM (again the people you listed were hardly "federalists"). I LOVE its innovation (the people you listed were hardly the greatest thinkers America has to offer - indeed, they often invoke other thinkers). I LOVE its laissez-faire economic attitude (again, the people you listed are hardly pro "laissez-faire"). I LOVE its initiative-and-referenda, and its town hall meetings. I LOVE its diversity and culture. Indeed, populism/popular sovereignty, (2) liberalism, (3) federalism, all quintessentially American ideals - ideals which I emphatically support. What I do not like - and what the framers' did not intend - was for the US to be as centralized as it is today and to wasting resources on foreign wars - they wanted a strong military yes, but hardly verging on an imperial power.

Now as for the ad homiem - "intellectual elites" - really? I don't see most "intellectual elites" advocating lower taxes, greater decentralization and direct democracy, American principles of limited government. If anything, I am critiquing America for not being American enough i.e. minding its own business, decentralizing decision making, worrying more about "We, The People". I don't have to agree with EVERY aspect of America (I support making the bill of rights non-justiciable), but there is much I like about America.

Secondly, I don't think most people in Europe really care too much about JFK or FDR (I don't think they lie awake at night fantasizing about either) or even for Obama (given their negligible impact they have on people's lives). In fact, historians - who do have some impact on public sentiment - have hardly delivered rosy accounts of either leader. Furthermore, different people have a different view on JFK, FDR or Obama (put a libertarian, anti-war activist in the room with a socialist). Furthermore, what comprehensive poll have you conducted specifically comparing a German (or elected European) leader with Obama? (Or have you interviewed 500 million Europeans?) Moreover, they might be "admired", but for what exactly? Speaking well? Putting rhetoric over action? One could look at this and say "so what? If form prevails over substance, then you are right. But if substance prevails over form, I put Vaclav Klaus over Obama any day in substance".

Thirdly, of course the people you listed would be "admired" by their people - their countries were basket-cases precisely because of 'government-by-career-politican' you support - often caused by people who are "admired" (at one point Hitler was admired; Nikola Kljusev) then proceed to trash the country. And of course, the people you listed are not admired by some, but loathed by others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa ; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333723/WikiLeaks-files-reveal-A... ; http://rajcritic.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/gandhi-was-a-sex-maniac/ ; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/51468.stm This shows that "admiration" is a matter of personal preference. To some their "ideals, courage and vision" were grotesque, misguided and even totally counterproductive. Admiration and the cult of personality are not mutually exclusive, indeed the former helps create the myths which support the latter.

But worse still, fancy putting imperial forces - JFK, Obama - or big government - FDR - in the same category as comparatively peaceful, non-violent individuals like Mother Theresa, Ghandi and Mandela!!!

Ps I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk of Austria and the Kurds (possibly, this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/44243.stm ). But, yes, tough titties for the Kurds. Can't help someone who can't help themselves. Otherwise, Austria would end up like California - that is what happens when the United States becomes the "Unitary" States of America, under successive governments.

Once again, it depends on what you mean by "lousy" (which is an ad hominem attack without any empirical evidence to back it up). One might actually conclude he did a damn good job: he actively helped pass the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development; the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment; the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea; the World Population Conference and the World Food Conference. These treaties today serve as the bedrock of environmental conservation and form much of customary international law in these areas. His diplomatic efforts particularly in the Middle East were also far-reaching; he was the first Secretary-General to visit and have discussion with North Korea http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3486823.stm

I suppose with all these treaties and reforms taking place their "lavish" lifestyles and more pay could be justified (although I would like to see the data where you got the figures from, and more importantly, whether you can directly link "lavish UN salaries" with direct actions by Waldheim himself, rather than the accusation being a matter of correlation means causation - I doubt the Secretary-General has time to set salaries of the UN!)

The accusations of why he become an International Pariah ended up to be unfounded, albeit he did give a little white lie about the scope of his service - he had chances of knowing what could have occurred, but (1) no evidence whatsoever occurred that Waldheim took part in any war crimes and (2) he could not stop what was going on in Yugoslavia and Greece even if he knew.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/jun/15/guardianobituaries.austria

And yes, my moral compass is different to yours - as a consequentialist I'm not too fussed about it.

But the main issue is not your preference or mine: I come back to the fact the people should be able to choose who their Head of State is, something that does not occur in Germany (as this is a post about Germany, not Austria, although the latter may help instruct some viable constitutional reform for the former).

I really don't think giving excuses for Waldheim such as "white lies" does anything for your credibility. Just as excusing his nazi activities as a "historical context".

Do you really think the world doesn't know millions who lived in the same "historical context" as Waldheim chose a different path?

It appears you do. I rest my case.

There was a reason why he was an international pariah and it had nothing to with "white lies", it had to do with the man's morality or more precisely his lack of morals.

As for your disingenuous claim that I was comparing JFK, FDR & Obama to Ghandi or Mandela you know very well I was not.

I was merely rebutting your cult of personality claims.

If Hitler was admired than it tells us about the character and morals of the people who admired his scapegoating, hatred and racism.

Good people will admire good people. You are not going to convince anyone that JFK or FDR or Obama are admired for spewing hatred and racism like Hitler. They are admired for the good they did just like Gandhi, Mother Thereas or Mandela are admired for all the good they did.
JFK was admired for coming out in favor of civil rights, for his idealism in creating the Peace corps, etc. There was a reason why he was and is hugely popular worldwide.

I really don't think giving excuses for Waldheim such as "white lies" does anything for your credibility. Just as excusing his nazi activities as a "historical context"

I'm not sure why this has anything to do with my credibility. Indeed, it appears to be affecting yours: just because you have mild association with the Reich you are suddenly a Nazi "All Germans are Nazis!!" See the issue here is what do the facts suggest. Waldheim merely denied having any involvement being an intelligence officer in the Wehrmacht during WWII(call it "guilt by association") as opposed to banging secretaries [insert US President here], or going to war with poor intelligence [insert US President here] - naturally, so - no one really wants to be associated with such a corrosive, failed regime.

However, the key issue is this: did Waldheim - or any of his actions- actually violate international law? (somewhat ironic if he did given he was a former UN Secretary General) The answer: no, they did not. He did violate jus cogens in any way and the mere fact he was on the axis side during the war does not deny (1) people change or (2) the entire population of Germany or Austria are somehow "bad" merely because they happen to be alive and defend their country in a bloody war during that period. Presumably, if your country is being attacked you will defend it, irrespective if you are from the left or the right.

Do you really think the world doesn't know millions who lived in the same "historical context" as Waldheim chose a different path? It appears you do. I rest my case

Indeed, that is my point: millions of people were associated with the regime incidentally i.e. mere fact they were being attacked because of decisions taken by their career politicians'. They were merely cogs in the machine. The findings relating to Waldheim show there were no to:

[v]ery minor possibilities to act against the injustices happening. Actions against these, depending on which level the resistance occurred, were of very different importance. For a young member of the staff, who did not have any military authority on the army group level, the practical possibilities for resistance were very limited and with a high probability would not have led to any actual results. Resistance would have been limited to a formal protest or on the refusal to serve any longer in the army, which would have seemed to be a courageous act, however would have not led to any practical achievement.

There was a reason why he was an international pariah and it had nothing to with white lies, it had to do with the man's morality or more precisely his lack of morals.

Whose morals? Yours? What self-evident, universal criteria of morality are you invoking? As noted above, even if he had "morals" (presumably, if he surrendered, protests) it would have been utterly pointless and moot - a consequentialist would simply shrug. Resistance in the context would be futile and possibly even counterproductive.

Anyways, as I said, this is all a matter of preference: hence, why I argued the people should be allowed to choose the President. All those problems would most likely be aired.

As for your disingenuous claim that I was comparing JFK, FDR & Obama to Ghandi or Mandela you know very well I was not

Well it was an irresistible conclusion from your proceeding remarks telling us how much the people of Europe love these men (more than any other European leader!), i.e. how admired they are! I merely pointed out (1) different people might have different opinion on their performance; (2) one man's lyric is another man's expletive; (3) and asked you why might they be admired - other than putting rhetoric over substance!

If Hitler was admired than it tells us about the character and morals of the people who admired his scapegoating, hatred and racism

While I agree with you personally, I am not so solipsistically narrow-minded as to ignore the fact their might be people in this world who (1) really like short mustaches; (2) really like the aesthetic and vocal displays of such a man as utterly exciting; (3) admire his Nietzsche 'will to power' and taste in music; (4)there is some sad man in the world who do hold those views and support corporatism as it promotes full employment, and yet there is no "Charter From Heaven" (but there are my personal preferences!!) which declare such preferences to be a priori superior to mine or yours.

Good people will admire good people. You are not going to convince anyone that JFK or FDR or Obama are admired for spewing hatred and racism like Hitler. They are admired for the good they did just like Gandhi, Mother Thereas or Mandela are admired for all the good they did

You seem to be missing the point: different people will hold different criteria with what is 'good'. If good were self-evident or objectively determinable, we would not be having a discussion on Waldheim, or JFK, or Obama or anyone else. There would never be disagreement. For some Obama is a hero; for others he is a fascist by introducing healthcare reform and persisting with policies similar to Bushes. For some JFK was an attractive young Catholic fighting for civil rights (some argue to increase his share of the vote); for others he merely escalated the Vietnam War, who was corrupt, and utterly disloyal to his wife. For some Mother Theresa was an icon; for others she represents the old school on issue relating to abortion, pretending to be above politics while being in it and so on.

I was merely rebutting your cult of personality claims

Well, I don't think you rebutted them: you merely proved my point that there is a lot of make-believe behind personalities; and we worship or "admire" people often for the most spurious pretenses (at least in my opinion!).

JFK was admired for coming out in favor of civil rights, for his idealism in creating the Peace corps, etc. There was a reason why he was and is hugely popular worldwide

Indeed. And as you know, there are reasons why he is loathed or viewed cynically in some quarters and by some historians: his decision to escalate the Vietnam War, his extra-martial infidelity; his drug addiction; he had to trade secretly with the Russians to remove the Missiles from Cuba; Khrushchev ripped him apart in the debates they had and so on: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/The_critics.html

I don't need to cite the literature and recent books critiquing JFK, as no doubt you have probably read them.

"I'm not sure why this has anything to do with my credibility."

On the contrary your desperate attempts to excuse Waldheim's behavior with pathetic explanations such as "white lies" and "historical context" has unwittingly exposed your own character, morals and therefore discredited your credibility.

"the entire population of Germany or Austria are somehow "bad" merely because they happen to be alive and defend their country in a bloody war during that period."

OK so it was Poland, France, Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Luxenburg, USA & USSR that started the war by attacking Germany & Austria for lebensraum.

The victims have become the aggressors and the aggressor is the victim. Wonderful but you are not going to convince anybody of that.

Sorry it was the other way around, it was others who were defending themselves against an aggressor who had gone on a murderous rampage across Europe.

Do you think the world doesn't know millions of Germans were fighting for the nazis even when no one attacked Germany? In fact the more Hitler conquered the more popular he became. The height of Hitler's popularity was AFTER the conqest of France.
Do you really think the countless documentaries & books written on this subject is not known to millions around the world?

PS: Regarding Waldheim and Kennedy. There is definitely something missing in your moral compass if you can compare taking part in nazi activities to having affairs. Period

And please don't bore us with how some certain segments of the population didn't like some particular aspect of JFK, FDR or Obama's policies. There were also certain segments of the world that didn't like Mother Theresa, Gandhi and Mandela, however the they are viewed favorably by world opinon in general as admirable people.

In conclusion if it sticks in your crow that *American* leaders such as JFK, FDR or Obama are more admired by world opinon in general than any of the European leaders you mentioned that is your problem, not the world's problem or mine.

On the contrary your desperate attempts to excuse Waldheim's behavior with pathetic explanations such as "white lies" and "historical context" has unwittingly exposed your own character, morals and therefore discredited your credibility
By “pathetic” you mean actually citing the historical data and OFFICIAL REPORT INTO WALDHEIM which concluded he was a mere cog in the machine and could do absolutely nothing with the miniscule knowledge he had? You mean the fact you have at no point challenged or provided evidence to show he violated jus cogens. Indeed, you have cited no data; no official commissions; no historians for any of your claims. With respect, it is you who has deployed ad hominem attacks on that poor man – and I’m still waiting for empirical evidence (not just assertions) that he (1) violated international law; (2) was a criminal and (3) your datasets which show how UN salaries were rising during his tenure and that he was the cause of it. It is the curious absence of any of this that has “unwittingly exposed” your lack of credibility, your ability to make unsubstantiated accusations on the spot (where are your datasets?).
It also demonstrates that you are solipsistically narrow-minded enough not to imagine there might be people who hold different opinions to yours. Once again, you are using YOUR morality to judge the person, a morality that looks at intentions not outcomes. I look at the outcomes. You look at the intentions. Even if Waldheim had good intentions, I doubt it would have lead to good outcomes (as the report cited above noted). Nor have you procedure a "Charter From Heaven..." which makes deontological ethics is a priori superior to a consequentialist approach.
OK so it was Poland, France, Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Luxenburg, USA & USSR that started the war by attacking Germany & Austria for lebensraum. The victims have become the aggressors and the aggressor is the victim. Wonderful but you are not going to convince anybody of that
Nobody said that. What was said was this: not everyone who lived in Germany or Austria from 1939 to 1945 was a Nazis by mere fact of association – just because they lived under the regime, and were forced at gun point to serve in it (or the fact they were also being attacked by of their career politicians’ actions), does not suddenly make them ALL criminals (indeed, in the case of Waldheim you have not pointed out where he broke the law, certainly not international law).
Sorry it was the other way around, it was others who were defending themselves against an aggressor who had gone on a murderous rampage across Europe.
Here I agree: if these countries had the Swiss or Liechtenstein system they probably would not have self-serving megalomaniacs running their lives.
Do you think the world doesn't know millions of Germans were fighting for the nazis even when no one attacked Germany? In fact the more Hitler conquered the more popular he became. The height of Hitler's popularity was AFTER the conqest [sic] of France. Do you really think the countless documentaries & books written on this subject is not known to millions around the world?
Irrelevancy. Hitler never got a majority; but there is so much one person can do against an organization as violent and well-backed as the Nazis were in the 1930s. The discussion and point I was making is the people should choose the President - which I was arguing (presumably, then, that would increase his or her notoriety). I gave examples of people who at the time were highly regarded.
Regarding Waldheim and Kennedy. There is definitely something missing in your moral compass if you can compare taking part in nazi activities to having affairs. Period
It was not just infidelity, it was also escalating the VIETNAM WAR! Moreover, I was making broader point why people might not admire these men. In fact, in terms of consequence - as noted above in the report I cited - Waldheim could do nothing about the information he had (he was only 20/21 when the war started, brain washed with Nazi propaganda, a mere cog in the machine - I'm sure you were all power at the age of 21). JFK, a grown man, could control his lustful actions.

[continues...]

And please don't bore us with how some certain segments of the population didn't like some particular aspect of JFK, FDR or Obama's policies

To quote you: do you really think the countless documentaries & books written on this subject (critiquing these men) are not known to millions around the world? And once again, I want to see evidence the people you listed are admired – I think you are confusing your own preferences with an imaginary poll which has interviewed 500 million people asking them who they admire.

In conclusion if it sticks in your crow that *American* leaders such as JFK, FDR or Obama are more admired by world opinon [sic] in general than any of the European leaders

The premise does not follow from the conclusion: you did not cite a single poll comparing levels of admiration between Europe (be it German leaders, Czech leaders, anti-communists, the late Otto Von Hapsburg or Queen Elizabeth II) with any American leader. In fact, I doubt many Europeans at all care about JFK or FDR, and probably their attitude to these political leaders is much the same as their own: same old non-sense, same-old wars, same-old career politicians’. "Give me a democracy - a direct democracy".

"I doubt many Europeans at all care about JFK or FDR,"
Thats what you wish due to your anti-Americanism and europhile sentiments but reality is quite different.
And I will end this by saying this once again. A person whose moral compass is so out of whack that he compares having affairs to being involved in nazi activities is well beyond help.

Thats what you wish due to your anti-Americanism and europhile sentiments but reality is quite different

As discussed above, I am pro-American: I love federalism, I love popular sovereignty, I love American capitalism and its libertarian streaks - these are all quintessentially American precepts.There is MUCH MORE to America than just admiring career politicians'. It seems anytime any American criticizes a US President they too must be anti-American (I thought America was the land of free speech - yet another value I practice and preach).

Moreover, and it's not was I "wish", it was what the data does or does not show (which I repeatedly ask you to procure). For example, you asserted Waldheim was a "lousy" UN S-G because salaries went up, but at no point did you procure data show that they did, whether that might have been justified and more importantly, I doubt anyone really cares - but of course, this matter could be settled once and for all if you show me THE DATA which shows Europeans really care about JFK and FDR. In fact, the ONE MAN you should have mentioned, but have not, at least in my view, who would stack up against German thinkers, philosophers and anti-communists, or even Queen Elizabeth II, would be Ronald Reagan.

And I will end this by saying this once again. A person whose moral compass is so out of whack that he compares having affairs to being involved in nazi activities is well beyond help

Absolute non-sense. Waldheim was (1) in his early 20s at the time the war started; (2) had no official military rank; (3) even if he did act on the sparse information he had it is questioned whether he could do anything (he probably would have been shot if he did; murdered without any compensating benefit); (4) you have not shown anything beyond an argument of "guilt by association" - indeed, you have not shown that he was actually anything more than a cog in the machine (by your logic anyone who lived in Germany from 1939-45 are FOREVER Nazis, even if forced to fight at gun point); (5) you cited no evidence he violated international law (jus cogens), or committed any actual crime, or shown us a "Charter From Heaven" that declares your morality superior to a consequentialist doctrine.

You then misrepresent what I said: I cited affairs AND ESCALATION OF THE VIETNAM WAR. Fancy comparing a cog in the machine, a small irrelevant young man (a 21-23 year old Waldheim who had to cope propaganda for several years!) to the most powerful man on Earth, who could dispatch an army at the stroke of a pen! With respect, it is your moral compass that is out of whack - comparing a boy (let's face 21 is still young) to a grown man who perpetuated Vietnam and fails to understand basic precepts of fidelity and bilateral loyalty! Spying at gun point versus lying, cheating and abusing power! Out of whack indeed!

If fidelity is used as measure than the vast majority of Europe's leaders will not qualify.
Bunga Bunga, Chirac with his many mistresses, Mitterand whose funeral was attended by his mistress and wife. Schroder with his 4 wives and mistresses, DSK who would most surely have became the French president if not for the NYPD. I hear he was detained overnight in a French jail recently in connection with a prostitution ring. Sarkozy with his 3 wives and mistresses..
Lord American leaders cannot hold a candle to European leaders on this issue. Except for Clinton and Kennedy there has never been any hint of personal scandals among recent American presidents in sharp contrast to European leaders. There was never any hint that Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 & 11, Obama ever cheated on their wives.
The vast majority of recent American leaders look like boy scouts when compared to Eurpoean counterparts. Doubt if Obama has ever frolicked with Berlusconi in one of his numerous bunga bunga parties as some European leaders have.

I suspect "3 wives and mistresses" is a norm in France. Personally, I'm no fan of the French system (as I said, I like the Swiss!) and I entirely agree with you. I'll gladly choose the US over France any-day (in fact, if you read my remarks carefully you will notice I do not like politicians' in general - be they Australian, French, German, American, Japanese, India - whoever). So your criticisms of "Bunga Bunga, Chirac with his many mistresses, Mitterand, Schroder etc" merely reinforces my criticisms and my cynicism of "career politician's" (btw the President is Head of State in France while the Chancellor is Head of Government in Germany - our discussion here was designed to be confined to non-executive, Heads of State, not executive Heads of State or Government - so we are comparing apples and oranges - if it is an executive office, then YES I suspect a politician to be elected). As I said, I LOVE America. I think it is one of the greatest forces good in the world - but where I agree with Ron Paul is that it should exercise its military muscle on its own boarders not on others. I also think America could do better if the President was a largely symbolic and moral figure, which dealt only with foreign policy (like in Finland). I don't know whether the American people agree with this: they have never been asked whether they wanted leadership 'above politics'.

I will observe, however, how the tone of the debate here has shifted: "Except for Clinton and Kennedy there has never been any hint of personal scandals among recent American presidents in sharp contrast to European leaders". So we have moved from Schlesinger-ian, Camelot hagiography of JFK to the fact they are human, have foibles, and different people can have different views on them (so you know, I always had a soft spot for Theodore Roosevelt, but it was you who listed JFK, not me - I would have thought any of the other people you listed were worthier than him). I merely looked at the people who you listed and showed how they might be reviled rather than admired - citing them as somehow "self-evidentially" admired simply shows your personal preferences.

Of course, I am still waiting for the data-sets I asked for, namely, (1) linking high UN salaries with Waldheim, (2) breaches of international or criminal law; (3) why a 21 year old who was a cog in the machine should be more mature choices than a powerful man in his 40s, who could wipe out thousands at a stroke of a pen; (4) polls proving the monarchs or Nobel-Prize winning European Presidents' (or anti-Communist Presidents') of Europe are less admired than their American counterparts (noting that publicity and notoriety does not necessarily translate into admiration).

In the USA the president is the head of state as well as the chief executive so he carries a double burden than say the president of France, prime ministers of Britain, chancellor of Germany etc.

This has served the USA well for over 200 years and so I wouldn't tinker with a stable political system.

Each country has evolved its own system and those countries that do have symbolic head of state indeed do have the choice of forgoing career politicians. However political interests rule the day which is why I believe Merkel chose Gauck.

Regarding Ron Paul, Yes the USA should cut back on its many military burdens. It can start by removing all troops and bases from Europe and withdrawing from Nato evenutally. The EU with 500 million people has a bigger GDP than the USA so it can easily take care of its defense needs. Footing the bill for rich countries for over 60 years has been a burden too great when they have let their military capabilities deteroriate to such an extent that they were powerless when a tin pot dictator in Serbia went crazy with ethnic cleansing and genocide-Sebrenica. Apparently they couldn't even enforce a no-fly zone over Libya without crucial American military assets. I think Obama is on the right track by shifting American stragetic interests to the pacific from Europe. So the days of leeching on the US security umbrella are going to come to an end for Europe. Lets face it the reason Europe has been able to afford its lavish welfare programs is because Uncle Sam has been footing a big portion of the bill for Europe's defense through Nato. Europe will have to deal with the economic & political ramification of losing American protection as the US looks to the Pacific.

Waldheim was not a cog he was an ethuisastic participant which is why he had to lie to cover it up. Waldheim was the head of the UN when plush salaries become the UN and as the head is responsible for it. The buck stops with him.

You can easily google PEW and check the favorable ratings of Obama vs European leaders.

In the USA the president is the head of state as well as the chief executive so he carries a double burden than say the president of France, prime ministers of Britain, chancellor of Germany etc

Yes, that is my point: under a constitutional monarchy or non-executive Presidency, the Head of State must be dignified (i.e. they must have moral authority). The Prime Minister must be efficient (i.e. political authority). In the US, the President must be both dignified and efficient. So comparing the US Presidency - who has both political and moral authority - and thus greater notoriety - to European systems is like comparing apple and oranges.

This has served the USA well for over 200 years and so I wouldn't tinker with a stable political system.

Just ignore the civil war; the growing polarization; the occasional war and depression every few decades; growing centralization and so on. If you want stability, look at Switzerland (indeed, I'd argue the state constitutions - which allow for organic development - are far superior).

Each country has evolved its own system and those countries that do have symbolic head of state indeed do have the choice of forgoing career politician

Well, the people have never been freely asked - directly - which system they want with all the options being on the table. For all we know people could want direct democracy federally with a semi-executive Presidency akin to Finland.

Agree with the rest on your views on the military.

As for Waldheim I repeat: everyone who was fighting in the war is, by your definition, an "enthusiastic participant". He merely gathering intelligence. He was 22. Even if he participated and had information, there was NOTHING he could do. The fact he "lied" shows that he moved on from the childish folly of his youth. In any event, he committed no crime at international law, or indeed at criminal law. So I don't mind the man. Furthermore, you have not shown me data that they did indeed rise under him - you merely asserted it; I would also need to see whether that trend - if your data has empirical merit - was going upwards EVEN BEFORE he took office. I suspect the buck does not stop with him: he is too busy to set salaries of the UN and I doubt he has a 'veto power' over salaries. That would be delegated to others. And even if he did, as noted, the amount of ratified treaties rose exponentially under his leadership - particularly in space and environmental law, so maybe they were more productive than before!

You can easily google PEW and check the favorable ratings of Obama vs European leaders

I tried googling it; I could not find polls on Obama v the Pope (I'd think the latter will do very well in Czechoslovakia, Germany or Poland); or Obama v Thatcher; or Obama v The Queen - or local whether the Germans want Obama as their leader :)

Even funnier that Sherry's reigning Overloards are those hated Germans from some Saxe-Coburg-Gotha bloodline...modern Windsor!

LOL :)

Don't make a fool of yourself with your profound ignorance of the world outside of Europe.

Canada's head of state is the Governor-General who is Canadian. LOL

"Canada's head of state is the Governor-General who is Canadian."
________________________________
No, he is not. The Canadian head of state is Queen Elizabeth II., the Governor-General is merely the Queen's REPRESENTATIVE, and he is APPOINTED by her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
http://www.gg.ca/index.aspx
Again, you know nothing about Canada. Must be because you really aren't Canadian, but American, a thought I keep surpressing because it embarasses me, EMMAFINNEY=SHERRYBLACK.

Good point;-)... .

Actually, I discuss that issue in my book:

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/who-is-the-australian-head-of-stat...

For the Canadian context, the relevant case law is:

Re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) [1991] 2 S.C.R. 525, 576. (‘The Queen of Canada is our Head of State, and under our Constitution she is represented in most capacities within the federal sphere by the Governor General. The executive powers of the Governor-General are of course exercised in accordance with constitutional conventions. For example, after an election only he asks the appropriate party leader to form a government’).

R v Eldorado Nuclear Ltd [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551, 562. (‘In Canada, the Head of State is Her Majesty the Queen, the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom’);

N.I.P. v Blencoe (2000) 193 D.L.R. (4th) 752, 798. (‘The Queen is the formal Head of State in the provinces and the federal government. They are called the Crown in the right of Canada or the Crown in the right of each individual province, as the case may be’);

Roach v Canada (Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship) [1994] 113 DLR(4th) 67, 70-87 (‘Although there is an immemorial common law tradition behind the role of the monarch Head of State, that is now subsumed by §9 and by §17 [of the Canadian Constitution]’); Roach v Canada (Attorney-General); Ibid., (2009) 185 C.R.R. (2d) 215, 219. (‘The fact that the Queen is Head of State [is] constitutionally prescribed by §9 and §17 of the Constitution Act, 1867’); Ibid., (2007) 155 C.R.R. (2d) 357, 365 (‘The fact that the Queen is Head of State [is] constitutionally prescribed by §9 and §17 of the Constitution Act. Canada is a constitutional monarchy’);

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Appellant); ex parte Quark Fishing [2006] 1 AC 529, 545 (‘The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and other territories acknowledging her as Head of State. Thus the ...the Crown exercises executive power...[and this] makes plain that the Queen is the Head of State and the source of authority in the state’).

But see also Attorney-General For Canada v Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co [1915] 52 S.C.R. 78, 100. (describing ‘The Sovereign’ as ‘the Supreme Head of the State...’);

Citizens’ and Insurance Cos. v Parsons (1880) 4 S.C.R. 215, 347. (‘Within this Dominion the right of exercise of National Sovereignty is vested solely in Her Majesty, the Supreme Sovereign Head of the State, and in the Parliament of which Her Majesty is an integral part’);

See also Alberta v Byatt (1998) 158 DLR (4th) 644 (Alberta Court of Appeal) (“We do not swear such allegiance to provide feudal tenure or service, which are long gone. We do so to acknowledge the Queen as our Head of State, to adopt symbolically the shared values of Canada”);

Roach v Canada (Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship) [1994] 113 DLR(4th) 67, 70-98 (citizenship “requires an oath or affirmation to the Head of State. Such affirmations express a solemn intention to adhere to the symbolic keystone of the Canadian Constitution, thus pledging an acceptance of the whole of our Constitution and national life” with “the oath of allegiance to the Queen as Head of State for Canada [being] binding in the same way as the rest of the Constitution of Canada so long as the Constitution is unamended in that respect”);

Giolla Chainnigh v Canada (Attorney-General) 78 Admin. LR (4th) 201, 204-20 (“The role of the Queen as Head of State...[is] succinctly described in the Oaths of allegiance and citizenship as the Queen of Canada”).

So Josh_US Lux is correct: the Queen is Head of State of Canada.

And some of these sneaky bastards angelized their names so that even 80 years later some of their less intelligent subjects don't get it :-)

I wouldn't put it too far beyond the capacity of my dim-witted compatriots to not know who their Sovereign is. I remember seeing a survey in which a significant number of Canadians did not know that a Windsor was the head of state for Canada.

Oh my the German bloodline has been diluted over the years.

For example the current monarch had a Scottish mother, and Prince William's mother was well you know of British heritage.

Prince William's wife is of British heritage. Now do the math and see how little German bloodline their children will have.

"..Besides, he has to come clean on a few things, such as distancing himself from Sarrazin's dogmas and marry his....mistress (I wonder if that is the correct word for it). "<<

Why should he do any of this? Why do you think he is so immensely popular? If Gauck would now start to be Political Correct in his high age, he would disappoint lots of people! It's this unbending honesty which makes him in the peoples eyes so much more authentic than any professional party politician.

No, no...he is perfekt as he is! He is like a fresh breeze in all that stifled PC world full of empty phrases.

He will hopefully keep on stepping on many toes! ;)

>>"A German president must radiate integrity and invoke the love of all parts of the society. A German president can not be imagined to talk ill about minorities and ridicule student protesters, can he?"<<

First, a president is allowed to have his own opinion. It's not his job to please everybody (which is quite impossible actually).

Second...again...why do you think he is so popular? The majority of the Germans thinks the same as he does, about Sarrazin and Occupy.
Most people didn't like at all what Wulff before said about "Islam belonging to Germany". That was Wulff's opinion...but not the one of the majority. Still he was also allowed to say that. Like the wishy-washy oh so politicall correct party bubi he was...

Now I clearly see your view.
A few things I would like to contest though:
He is not "so immensely popular". According to recent polls, little more than half the population want him as president. Wulf enjoyed that meager popularity during most of his time on the job (except shortly before resigning).
But more importantly, you assume Gauck is popular because of his controversial views about the Sarrazin debate and Occupy. That is a mere assumption and one I personally do not believe in. As a matter of fact, the papers were not writing about these issues at all before it became clear he would get the job. So, I think your argument cannot stand at all.
I also do not believe that the German people are mostly against the Occupy Wall Str movement. If you know of any reliable polls, please let us know.
And Tilo Sarrazin - where is he now? Didn't he loose his job and got kicked out of his party? You believe people love him - well, let him form a new party and see how many votes he gets, including NPD's.
Just because many common people in Germany may have less of a candid view about immigrants than their mainstream politicians openly express, does not automatically mean that most Germans are xenophobes. Or IS THAT JUST the way YOU look at things! It does not matter to me if you are "politically correct" or "incorrect". But you are wrong anyway :)

You said he should retract his comments about Sarrazin and the occupy movement to be a "good" president. I asked, why should he? The majority likes him as he is.

And yes, that Sarrazin's book became a bestseller in Germany for so many months and that the Occupy movement has dwindled down to a handful tents somewhere in Frankfurt doesn't exactly show the wrongness of his opinion. ;)

If you don't like what he stands for it's perfectly okay for me.
That's democracy! :)

In the GDR you could get into jail and worse for not having the "right" opinion....Gauck never complied with pressure to say the "correct" things, he won't start now! :)

According to PEW surveys 50% of Germans have negative views of muslims so no wonder Gauck's views about Sarrazin are "mainstream" for Germany.
PEW surveys
Negative views of muslims
Germany = 50%
France = 38%
Britain = 23%
USA = 23%
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/955/unfavorable-views-of-both-jews-and-musli...
Germany is not a tolerant country, intolerance of "difference" is widespread.
Michel-Berlin is another intolerant German who represents a big portion of German society, he also exhibits anti-semitism but not as openly as his xenophobic views about muslims.

with his opinions openly, freely and honestly expressed, he may still be the wrong man! As it applies to you and me, freedom of thought and speech does not excuse people for having a mentality which is incoherent with the Zeitgeist.
Of course he shouldn't hold his tongue. Still, a controversial president (i.e. an old East German pastor that dislikes multiculturalism, mixes in conversations he does not understand and sports ambiguous family relations) is not what Germany wants at the moment. It is more a matter of esthetics than democracy. After all, the Bundespräsident is a representative, decorative institution. If something looks ugly, than no notion of democracy can make it likable to the masses.
That is my humble opinion, which does not have to apply to you, or Herr Sarrazin. You guys have a different view about the good life. Such is beyond democracy.

He is an upstanding, honest man who stands for freedom.

That's more than you can say for many modern politicos.

He was never political correct but speaks his mind, that too is a novelty.

That's the reason why he is perfect for this position and why so many want him in this position.

The only one fighting him are the GDR-nostalgicians form "Die Linke" full of ex-Stasi.

He will for sure not stop fighting them now! :)

He is the best choice! :)

I don't know who you think you are defying or what you take me for. For your information, I am neither a leftist, nor an ex-Stasi. I was not even born in Germany, although I feel I belong there now as much as you do.
If you want to argue about "the best choice", which isn't a choice after all, as there are no other official candidates, I can give you at least two names of people that would way better fit the job: Paul Kirchhof and Joschka Fischer. Both of them, in different ways, have shaped Germany for what it is now, namely a great country.
The only reason people were in favour of Gauck two years ago, was him being the alternative to Ch. Wulff. People hadn't heard of him, didn't know much about him, but embraced him for being the underdog in the fight (just like the sympathy for the underdog in a tennis match).
While we are wasting our time with this long replique (I am on holiday anyway), a dynamic is building up in the German press gainst Gauck. Let's wait and see what happens. I hope you are right after all and everyone will be happy :)

There are no other candidates because the main parties have come to a consent about their common candidate.

And not only that the majority of the people support Gauck too...

It might be that you never heard of him before, that is not true for most of the Germans.

A win for german democracy, sorry that you (and die Linken) don't like it! :)

"...lecturing Greece about corruption while its own President was being investigated for corruption..." Even the president can be investigated for relatively minor offenses. That seems to be a good thing, doesn't it...

Why should she?

Does someone else?

She knows that if she goes against the wishes of the german people she will not be voted for again.

So take it that she is more congruent with the interest of the german people than...say..canadians or greeks...as is her duty!

Nobody in Germany is above the law, absolutely nobody! That is really a good thing.

I wish the same could be said about UK. At least when it does happen it's a long way down the line...

LOL

Josh inadvertedly logged on as "mashed potatoes" while he was chatting with Forlana.

You are obsessed. Get help.

That's the long and short of the lesson Eastern Europeans* (including East Germans such as Gauck and Merkel) first learned themselves and should now teach to the rest of the continent... .
* Referring to the former east-west dichotomy, and not meant as a socio-ethnic category;-).

Looks like you caught red handed again Josie boy.

What happened to "German-Econ" ? lol

Emmafinney=Sherryblack:

Would you be so kind as to take your trolling act - which you apparently continue undisturbed after you got banned under your previous monnicker "Sherryblack" a few weeks back - someplace else?

Thanks.

I am sure you have been busily rushing about and reported my remarks to be deleted. Can't have your alter ego exposed can we?

Now run along and go back to your deleting binges

I remember my anger 2 years back as Wulff was voted for, not Gauck...I couldn't believe it for the longest time.

I admit to a little bit of Schadenfreude watching his fall from grace...but now "Ende gut, alles gut!"

With Gauck Germany has the best president ever! :)

I really expect much of him.

...but two years Wulff was abit much...;)