Leadership & Personality - let's replay Iraq

[Ma'ake]

Subliminal cues on approach & personality

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...4oP0gD93F50V00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

The last week offers valuable insight into personality & leadership styles.

McCain implusively suspends his campaign, rushes back to Washington to forge consensus on the bailout, then leaving that job undone, (evidently) resumes the campaign & does the debate.

Obama was more cautious, considered, saying a President needs to focus on more than one thing.

Obama is reflective, willing to acknowledge merit from others, even his opponent. McCain couldn't even look at Obama, apparently unable to note any good.

McCain - aggressive, risk taker

Obama - thoughtful, more measured

Let's replay the run-up to Iraq:

Which candidate would have been more likely to let Hans Blix' efforts to play out? Which candidate would have been more likely to essentially repeat what happened in terms of making the decision to go to war?

Which approach should have been followed?

If you believe the Iraq war was no mistake and that given the same circumstances, we would & should to the same thing, by all means, McCain is your man.

If you believe we made big mistakes in the runup to the war, that the emotion led to an enormous blunder, maybe you'd agree that we need a more measured, thoughtful leader.

[il Padrino Ute]

None of that means anything to me when it comes to voting for President. I vote for whomever I think sucks the least and my definition of who sucks the least is:

1. Which candidate will let me keep more of my money.
2. 2nd amendment position.
3. Abortion.

For me, it's a sweep for McCain.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

None of that means anything to me when it comes to voting for President. I vote for whomever I think sucks the least and my definition of who sucks the least is:

1. Which candidate will let me keep more of my money.
2. 2nd amendment position.
3. Abortion.

For me, it's a sweep for McCain.

Based on that criteria, you would vote for Bush again?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Based on that criteria, you would vote for Bush again?

Over Obama? Yes.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Over Obama? Yes.

Fair enough. Actually, I was the same way on the 2000 election. I would have voted for Clinton again. Actually, knowing everything we know today, I still would have voted for the morally challenged Clinton in 2000.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Fair enough. Actually, I was the same way on the 2000 election. I would have voted for Clinton again. Actually, knowing everything we know today, I still would have voted for the morally challenged Clinton in 2000.

You are a cool advocate, but those of us in the advocacy game know it's just a game. So let's cut the crap out.

Our politicians are not leaders or persons of character or judgment. Frankly I don't care if they are, they're just crappy people like the rest of us. It's interesting how everybody wants to put lipstick on a pig.

And our "leaders" are not leaders in the classical sense at all. None of them, except McCain as a soldier, he was a POW, you know, have risked anything.

What were past political leaders? They were soldier or men, rarely women, of gravitas commanding the power of military or power to sustain their culture. Attila the Hun, or Ghenghis Khan were leaders, putting their very lives on the line, their fortunes to carve out their own culture and people.

Today, we have micro managers, who don't and haven't risked anything. We have Harry Reids who go into politics poor and leave mysteriously as multi-millionaires. All four of these persons are veritable horseshit and should be regarded as such. They have nothing to contribute.

Obama's style is the gentrified Harvard approach, assemble teams of persons with lots of credentials to make it look like you have viability. In Obama's world, the appearance of viability is viability, unless of course it's a fetus, but that's another matter.

Obama plugs into all the rhetoric of French socialists, in that he believes in dialogue and rational discourse in an irrational world. His approach reminds of the Naked Ape type discussions. It's a failed prototype for social engineering but some still adhere to the approach.

If we're being honest, which nobody will be, what has happened is people have selected a person or party they like and thereafter seek to window dress it as best they can.

None of us have enough expertise to address the impending economic crisis. Pelagius may be best equipped and he is curiously silent. Yet even economists have agendas. Go and read the papers of Obama's lead economic advisers, I have. I found them to be fully agendized, supported of course by the rhetoric of the profession, but seemingly full of holes that suggest economics is more artforn than empirically based. You decide whihc conclusion you which to make and then construct studies which you support your thesis. There is no discovery in economics apparently, just advocacy and argument.

So when you come before the unwashed, don't bring argument used to deceive the masses, for the masses are assess some of the time.

Admit none of these bastards are worth a damn, they haven't risked anything because at the end of the day, whoever wins will be worth more than when he or she entered, even if our country is in total disarray.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Admit none of these bastards are worth a damn, they haven't risked anything because at the end of the day, whoever wins will be worth more than when he or she entered, even if our country is in total disarray.

Sexist!

Seriously, that was quite an outburst. I'm genuinely impressed.

Those who are better off - who would be taxed at a higher rate by the plans they advocate - do indeed sacrifice. (Come on, cough up a nod here, even if it doesn't rise to the greatest risk or sacrifice.)

Personality & leadership style do matter. On top of the machines assembled to operate the executive branch are individuals that do bear accountability. At the heart, I believe McCain & Obama care about the nation, independent of themselves and their own aggrandizement and financial interests. (Even clowns like Orrin Hatch & Harry Reid care about the nation.)

We need a more measured approach to things. The testosterone-laced bravado has wedged us enough.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Based on that criteria, you would vote for Bush again?

president? I think he's been an average president considering what he had on his plate during his presidency.