IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Ornstein: The Myth of Presidential Leadership.

The theme of presidential leadership is a venerated one in America, the subject of many biographies and an enduring mythology about great figures rising to the occasion. The term “mythology” doesn’t mean that the stories are inaccurate; Lincoln, the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie, conveyed a real sense of that president’s remarkable character and drive, as well as his ability to shape important events. Every president is compared to the Lincoln leadership standard and to those set by other presidents, and the first 100 days of every term becomes a measure of how a president is doing.

I have been struck by this phenomenon a lot recently, because at nearly every speech I give, someone asks about President Obama’s failure to lead. Of course, that question has been driven largely by the media, perhaps most by Bob Woodward. When Woodward speaks, Washington listens, and he has pushed the idea that Obama has failed in his fundamental leadership task—not building relationships with key congressional leaders the way Bill Clinton did, and not “working his will” the way LBJ or Ronald Reagan did.


Everyone who screams "bully pulpit" should read that piece before yelling it again.

(via Ed Kilgore at WaMo - http://www.washingto...rn_myth044654.php )

New lets wait 20 years and see how he is compared with nixon.
hell Jimmy is starting to look good after the last three
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
New Ok, no more "bully pulpit"
The question still remains:
Judging on past performance, he obviously can't lead a pack of cub scouts to the toilet. So, does he really have absolutely no leadership skills at all, or is he leading in the direction he really wants to?
Consider: We have an alleged two party system, both of which are run by committees comprised entirely of representatives of the big money special interests. These committees will only allow candidates who are acceptable to big money. On the republican side, they put up a billionaire and some mooks who are crazier than a ferret on acid. on the democratic side they stuck with the law teaching speachifier who's performance evaluation makes him either solidly republican or a damn fine Harkonnen. Are we to believe that big money is so stupid they don't know what they bought?
The only conclusion I can come to is that this is the desired result. The country is split about 50/50. Nothing is progressing socially except we are slipping closer to feudalism. "Representatives" of both sides play their orchestrated roles and only agree on stripping further rights from the people. I mean nobody REALLY needed the first, second, fourth, or fifth amendments, did they? The rich are getting richer, the middle are being pitted against the poor which reduces the chance of armed revolt. I see nothing here that gives me any surprise or hope. Only futility.
At least I never have to listen to the "But what if the BAD guys won? Think of how bad that would be!" argument again. We have a live demonstration that it's pretty much the same as if the "good" guy won.
     Ornstein: The Myth of Presidential Leadership. - (Another Scott) - (2)
         lets wait 20 years and see how he is compared with nixon. - (boxley)
         Ok, no more "bully pulpit" - (hnick)

The cancers of the tank come!
31 ms