CountVolcula
Eternal Vol
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2008
- Messages
- 32,490
- Likes
- 19,827
I'd be extremely upset if she got any support. Not just because I think she's less likely to defeat Obama, but also because I'm not happy seeing people as seemingly crazy as her getting so much attention. She shouldn't be getting so much attention from so many people.
Crazy may have been the wrong word. I've listened to her many times, and at no point does she seem like she has the intelligence or the experience to be the president. Claiming foreign policy experience because of Alaska's proximity to Russia was one of the things that bothered me.OK... time to challenge. What does she propose that is "crazy" or outside of mainstream American political thought?
I don't want her to run. I think it would take support away from solid conservatives who could beat Obama. I think she is best suited for what she is doing... but she gets attention because many, many people agree with her. When the ideas are separated from the person... Americans agree with her at a rate of something over 50%.
Clinton made similarly strained claims to "prove" he was ready to take over foreign policy. Every governor has to- Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W...Crazy may have been the wrong word. I've listened to her many times, and at no point does she seem like she has the intelligence or the experience to be the president. Claiming foreign policy experience because of Alaska's proximity to Russia was one of the things that bothered me.
I just feel like people are often too quick to look for someone with identical views at their own without actually considering whether or not the person would make a competent leader.
The way he handled the issue with the immigration law in Arizona was disgraceful.
Personally, I think a lot of what he's done has been disgraceful. However, from a leadership perspective I'm just looking at results. Somehow he managed to get his democratic party to pass a health care bill that, based on poll results, the majority of voters were against. As a result, a number of those Dems have now lost their seats.
Like him or not, I have a hard time thinking an ineffective leader could have pulled that off.
Personally, I think a lot of what he's done has been disgraceful. However, from a leadership perspective I'm just looking at results. Somehow he managed to get his democratic party to pass a health care bill that, based on poll results, the majority of voters were against. As a result, a number of those Dems have now lost their seats.
Like him or not, I have a hard time thinking an ineffective leader could have pulled that off.
Just curious... why do you think Obama is a poor leader?
Personally, I think a lot of what he's done has been disgraceful. However, from a leadership perspective I'm just looking at results. Somehow he managed to get his democratic party to pass a health care bill that, based on poll results, the majority of voters were against. As a result, a number of those Dems have now lost their seats.
Like him or not, I have a hard time thinking an ineffective leader could have pulled that off.
All he had to do was bully his way through anything he's wanted done the past two years (Health Care, the way he's handled Arizona like has been mentioned)...it's not about being an effective leader,
He sold the Ds on it, Thats all he had to do to pass the stuff. Is he a good salesman? Yes, many on his side paid for it.
Great leaders convince people to do or in his case support things they would otherwise not support.
Beyond that, I see almost no evidence that his staff is effectively led or is effective. He has not surrounded himself with strong, experienced people or leaders. He seems to fear people who are stronger, more/differently experienced, or smarter than he is. Strong leaders do not fear/disdain the talents, ideas, or success of other people- he does.
You assume he led that charge? The liberals in Congress have been stewing on nationalized health care and waiting for the opportunity for at least 20 years. It really isn't hard to lead pigs to slop. If anyone in the WH was a major mover on that vote it was Emmanuel.
"Bullying" is a style of leadership, which in fact can be quite effective... just ask the military.
Really? Effective? There is more descent among troops when you have a complete and total hard ass as your leader, then someone who expects you to be your best, trains and leads you to be your best. It's not effective in the military to be a bully. It's not a style of leadership, and it's stupid to thing that it's going to be good for a POTUS.
Completely agree. Convincing others to buy in to something, as sjt states below, is a style of leadership.
Obama apparently convinced MANY people to vote for him who at the beginning of the election hadn't even given him consideration. Has he made bad decisions... yes. But if convincing others to do something they might not otherwise do is a sign of leadership, then he apparently has done that quite well.
As far as surrounding himself with strong people, lets not forget about Reagan's or Clinton's staffs... imo two effective leaders who had relatively weak people around them. Also, your second post seems to somewhat contradict your previous statement that Obama fears people who are stronger or smarter than he is.
How about this scenario... Obama managed to get something passed that he wanted (healthcare), managed to have a couple of others apply the primary heat (Emmanuel and Pelosi), and at this point has not personally had to pay a price for getting it passed. The fact that other Dems lost their seats, according to some, actually helps Obama potentially get re-elected.
Personally, I think a lot of what he's done has been disgraceful. However, from a leadership perspective I'm just looking at results. Somehow he managed to get his democratic party to pass a health care bill that, based on poll results, the majority of voters were against. As a result, a number of those Dems have now lost their seats.
Like him or not, I have a hard time thinking an ineffective leader could have pulled that off.
Really? Effective? There is more descent among troops when you have a complete and total hard ass as your leader, then someone who expects you to be your best, trains and leads you to be your best. It's not effective in the military to be a bully. It's not a style of leadership, and it's stupid to thing that it's going to be good for a POTUS.
Authoritarian leadership is extremely strict and rigid. It is the stereotypical boss giving orders to the subordinate. This leadership style is used during basic training, when drill sergeants teach obedience and respect to new recruits. This type of leadership does not involve yelling or abuse, rather it is a stricter form of appropriate leadership. Commanders may also choose to be authoritarian in time critical missions or during emergencies, where taking the time to debate orders would cause property damage, mission failure or injury.
if he was a good leader he would have convinced the american populace that what he was doing was right.