If Romney were to withdraw, who gets your vote?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I doubt Harry Truman gave a damn.

Brilliant!

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Weird, but I thought you said history was shaped by popular opinion.

I doubt Harry gave a damn whether people liked him, a trait shared by W.

History is definitely shaped by popular opinion.

Truman hepled end a war, so over time, I guess he was associated with his dropping of the bomb. In school, that is about the only thing I remember about HST.

W has no such luxury. He is associated with getting us involved in a wildly unpopular war. This is what kids will be taught in school.

Whether either man cared, I dont know, but it would be superhuman if they did not care at all. They are human, aren't they?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Weird, but I thought you said history was shaped by popular opinion.

I doubt Harry gave a damn whether people liked him, a trait shared by W.

Exactly. Ten years from now when Iraq is a viable Arab republic and a force for stability in the Middle East, W will get some due.

He's not a polished guy, and certainly not as smart as Bill Clinton, but he believes what he believes and stays the course. The others would have done exactly the same thing; they're just too afraid to say so (well, I do give Hillary credit for standing her ground on this issue).

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

IMHO It may be more important to be a highly intelligent visionary that is also a fantastic communicator than an executive as you define it. Leadership is more than executive experience. I think leadership is the ability to inspire and get people to follow. Obama has that kind of leadership in spades even if he does not have what you consider executive experience.

This is my point, as well. I am still not 100% sold on Obama, but the thought of a fresh start is very appealing. Obama has charisma, intelligence, a not so overwhelming political track record, and seems to lack serious baggage (this could change).

Put that in your pipe, Truman lovers!

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Brilliant!

I've met the enemy and he is me.

"We're going to die! "We're going to die! I'm going to throw up, and then I'm going to die!"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

I mostly stay out of political discussions but one thing struck me. I am not sure if I want a manager of bureaucracies to be president. Arnold Schwartzneger was a punchline when he was elected govenor of CA and had absolutley NO experience managing a bureaucracy and was not an executive. Yet he has done a great job here in CA.

IMHO It may be more important to be a highly intelligent visionary that is also a fantastic communicator than an executive as you define it. Leadership is more than executive experience. I think leadership is the ability to inspire and get people to follow. Obama has that kind of leadership in spades even if he does not have what you consider executive experience.

Well if I were to outline a perfect candidate and none are running, I'd make these the criteria:

He or she would have business experience, a la Arnold, he would speak like Reagan, he or she would be highly educated but be close to the common man, he or she would be athletic, he or she would have extensive executive experience.

I disagree just because a guy spins a pretty phrase that such constitutes leadership. He has done nothing which required leadership. Absolutely nothing.

In an Arnold, or Reagan, we got lucky, but both had at least Masters Degrees, had been in the public eye, had connections to business and articulated a believable vision.

Obama doesn't have any of that, and his vision runs contrary to good economics. I don't see any evidence of inspiring anybody to do anything. He's all talk with no action and no history to prove he could do anything.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

History is definitely shaped by popular opinion.

Truman hepled end a war, so over time, I guess he was associated with his dropping of the bomb. In school, that is about the only thing I remember about HST.

W has no such luxury. He is associated with getting us involved in a wildly unpopular war. This is what kids will be taught in school.

Whether either man cared, I dont know, but it would be superhuman if they did not care at all. They are human, aren't they?

I think you're correct that Truman is largely remembered as the guy who saved the lives of countless Americans by bombing Japan. His low approval numbers were due to his getting us involved in Korea, then seen as a civil war and quite unpopular.

It will be interesting to see how President Bush is judged, not only for the war in Iraq but also for the war in Afghanistan. If both nations can find stability, it will provide a strong U.S. ally presence on two Iranian borders.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

I mostly stay out of political discussions but one thing struck me. I am not sure if I want a manager of bureaucracies to be president. Arnold Schwartzneger was a punchline when he was elected govenor of CA and had absolutley NO experience managing a bureaucracy and was not an executive. Yet he has done a great job here in CA.

IMHO It may be more important to be a highly intelligent visionary that is also a fantastic communicator than an executive as you define it. Leadership is more than executive experience. I think leadership is the ability to inspire and get people to follow. Obama has that kind of leadership in spades even if he does not have what you consider executive experience.

Arnold had extensive experience as an entrepreneur that goes way beyond his fine work in Twins.

I do agree with you when I hear the word "manage." I want a leader who is willing to take a strong analytical approach when looking at the bloated federal bureaucracy. There are some serious deficiencies within the agencies and they need overhauled. A business leader with this type of experience could do wonderful things, largely unseen by the American public, with the entire federal operation.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Arnold had extensive experience as an entrepreneur that goes way beyond his fine work in Twins.

I do agree with you when I hear the word "manage." I want a leader who is willing to take a strong analytical approach when looking at the bloated federal bureaucracy. There are some serious deficiencies within the agencies and they need overhauled. A business leader with this type of experience could do wonderful things, largely unseen by the American public, with the entire federal operation.

I do like the idea of a business approach to our bloated federal bureaucracy. But how could a Democrat seeking Union support ever cut the federal bureaucracy?

Don't cite Clinton as the only jobs he ever cut were military jobs not bureaucratic jobs.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Arnold had extensive experience as an entrepreneur that goes way beyond his fine work in Twins.

I do agree with you when I hear the word "manage." I want a leader who is willing to take a strong analytical approach when looking at the bloated federal bureaucracy. There are some serious deficiencies within the agencies and they need overhauled. A business leader with this type of experience could do wonderful things, largely unseen by the American public, with the entire federal operation.

This is definitely Mitt's strongest asset, in my opinion. We have had lawyers and military men as Presidents. We have never, to my recollection, ever really had a pure business/corporate approach to the CIC office. Mitt has an incredibly strong track record of taking companies and turning them around, he could definitely revolutionize our approach to politics....stop electing lawyers, seek out more accomplished MBA/finance types.

Plus, Mitt can be charismatic when he is not too busy coating himself in plastic.

PS Commado is Arnold's finest hour......one, Alyssa Milano. Two, "Let off some steam, Bennett."