Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjarider
Guys- there is a lack of understanding of leadership here. To assume that successful leadership of one is mutually exclusive of successful leadership in the other is, pardon the word, INSANE.
I never said that business and gov't are the same. What I am saying is that regardless of entity, successful people have been able to switch venues and attain success. There are traits we can look for in leaders.
The key thing is a track record of leadership success and more of that will come from private business or nonprofit than a track record of 30 yrs in government.
What do you really think of a politician who says: "Throughout my career I have fought for the middle class." To me - I think SO WHAT!
Better questions are: What have you accomplished? What big deal has your name on it?
Who looks to you as a leader and game changer? What is your leadership style?
Most politicians are NOT Leaders. This is evidenced by their willingness to stay in Washington for decades.
A true leader would move through that place and then onto other more fruitful venues.
I stand by my comments that more Business people should be in Washington.
Walker also needs to move out of government and into the real world.
Most businesses aren't run by leaders either. Very few are. I'll pick a politician than can build constituencies and play the political game (its a trainwreck when people that aren't adept at this get into office), over someone used to being responsible to just a board of directors.
And "more fruitful" venues? Fruitful how? I'm for term limits, but there isn't much more fruitful than public services in its various forms.
Most businesses aren't run by leaders either. Very few are. I'll pick a politician than can build constituencies and play the political game (its a trainwreck when people that aren't adept at this get into office), over someone used to being responsible to just a board of directors.
And "more fruitful" venues? Fruitful how? I'm for term limits, but there isn't much more fruitful than public services in its various forms.
We agree on term limits.
I doubt that career politicians have some sense of public duty. 99% are there for their own benefit. Do you really think otherwise?
If you would be so kind - could you offer examples of these trainwrecks? I would argue - Obama is the ultimate train wreck President and he certainly does not come from any business background.
The "Political game" is what is bad about the system. It certainly cannot be construed as a strength.
I doubt that career politicians have some sense of public duty. 99% are there for their own benefit. Do you really think otherwise?
If you would be so kind - could you offer examples of these trainwrecks? I would argue - Obama is the ultimate train wreck President and he certainly does not come from any business background.
The "Political game" is what is bad about the system. It certainly cannot be construed as a strength.
Bush is the "ultimate train wreck President" , and he DOES come from a business background. Obama has certainly done a better job than Bush, although that's not saying much..
History shows businessmen make bad presidents
By William W. Campbell, M.D., retired U.S. Army colonel
495
4
All the surveys produce remarkably similar results. The top tier is always Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Truman. The only post-19th century presidents to crack the bottom quartile are George W. Bush and Warren Harding. An aggregate of the five surveys that included W rank him 34th; presidents ranked lower include such notables as Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson.
For post-19th century presidents, the highest ranked are the Roosevelts, Truman, and Eisenhower. The lowest ranked are Hoover, Coolidge, George W. Bush and Harding. Harding was very successful in business but is consistently rated as one of the worst presidents, so one of the most successful businessmen was a conspicuous failure as president.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt
Bush is the "ultimate train wreck President" , and he DOES come from a business background. Obama has certainly done a better job than Bush, although that's not saying much..
This. And Cheney. There are several others.
And no, wheeling and dealing are part of politics. It's a game of horse trading. One needs to be adept at this and willing to play the game. If you don't, and you try to tow the line (in the backroom) you get stalemates and gridlock: bad governance.
And yes, at least initially, I believe most people get involved in politics for public service. Everyone I know that has done so has. Of course they have egos too. Those aren't mutually exclusive things.
Bush is the "ultimate train wreck President" , and he DOES come from a business background. Obama has certainly done a better job than Bush, although that's not saying much..
Yeah, that was my first thought. "W" was definitely a train wreck. I actually also agree on Obama's poor performance - we've had some really bad Presidents the last decade+, and I think most who are not completely blinded by partisan politics can see this pretty clearly.
For me, Harding is the worst-ever President, and his life is perfectly drawn case story on the pitfalls of "business guys" taking on the Presidency.
Yeah, that was my first thought. "W" was definitely a train wreck. I actually also agree on Obama's poor performance - we've had some really bad Presidents the last decade+, and I think most who are not completely blinded by partisan politics can see this pretty clearly.
We agree on the bad President track record currently underway. Not a partisan ploy at all.
Scott W. fortunately will not be the next one.
Walker's approval rating in WI drops even further.
Quote:
A rough poll for Gov. Scott Walker conducted just after he dropped out of the presidential race found his approval rating has dropped to a new low, and more than 60% surveyed said they would not support him running for a third term in 2018.
Quote:
The poll also showed former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold with a 14-point lead over Sen. Ron Johnson in a rematch of the 2010 race, but with many voters saying they don't know enough about the candidates to state an opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
