OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Edratman

...
My point is that time and proximity to a position has no relationship to an individuals skills and cannot serve as a predictor of success at the next position of responsibility. This is very true when a primary component of a position requires leadership...

Incredibly well put!

[licker]

Originally Posted by Edratman

McCain and his supporters are constantly touting his superior experience as a primary foundation of his qualifications to be President. I'm going to address "experience".

Well you cannot deny that he has superior experience at least.

Originally Posted by Edratman

Fact: He was an officier in the US Navy. Does that mean that all former officers are superior tacticians, leaders of armed forces and an expert in all matters military? For the answer pick up any military history book and realize that in almost every battle, both sides had a leader with long experience and exposure to matters military. And one of them always loses!
(I am not saying Obama is/would be a better supreme commander, merely pointing out the thin validity of the experience claim.)

The military man is more likely to be a better military tactician than the non military man. That said, I don't think this is a particularly large issue anymore as the president doesn't actually formulate and tactics, nor carry them out.

Originally Posted by Edratman

Another example regarding experience regards football head coaches. Just about every year, after a team wins the Super Bowl, the offensive and/or defensive coordinators are annointed as the next great head coaches. To be specific, look at the New England Patriots. A couple of years ago, both the offensive and defensive head coaches, Charlies Weiss and Romeo Crennel, went to Notre Dame and the Cleveland Browns, respectively, as head coaches. What happened then? Well, the Partriots, after losing these two "Great" coaches, never missed a beat and have been as successful as ever. Whereas the two teams with "Can't miss, gotta-be-great" head coaches have disappointed, to put it kindly. The obvious conclusion is that the Patriots head coach, Bill Belichek, is the actual source of leadership on the team and both assistants, while technically superior, relied on his leadership to get the players to do what they wanted them to do. Thus they were replaced by two other technically competent cogs and the equation for the Patriots remained unchanged.

Indeed, many owners of NFL teams do not understand that one man cannot make much of a difference without the support and backing of the entire organization. The Patriots have become a superior organization, more due to Bob Kraft than necessarilly to Bellichek. However, you might want to double check if the Patriots have not skipped a beat since losing Weiss and Crennel... clearly they have, since they have not won a SB since those two left, and for the level they were at, that is indeed missing a beat.

In any event, Notre Dame is actually decent this year, so it took Weiss some time perhaps to get the ship going in the direction he wanted it to. The Browns are not good, and Crennel is not a good head coach, but more importantly, the organization is a poor organization without clear direction.

If you look at the entirety of the US government as an analogy for an NFL team you may be able to make a stronger comparison, however, then you must grant that the president to head coach isn't exactly the correct comparison, and even so, the president is limited by the congress and supreme court in what he can do, and ultimately limited by the fact that he has to please his party to keep himself politically viable. Which indeed may speak more to 'hiring' an older 'coach' since they won't have anything to lose once they are done.

Originally Posted by Edratman

My point is that time and proximity to a position has no relationship to an individuals skills and cannot serve as a predictor of success at the next position of responsibility. This is very true when a primary component of a position requires leadership.

No relationship? That's an overly strong statement I think most would agree. Though to be fair, neither McCain nor Obama has any executive experience anyway, and my opinion is that we need people in Washington who aren't already comfortable in Washington, as the special interests, lobbiests, and general climate there is what needs to change. And again, neither has an edge there, they are both dependent on their comities, and both beholden to outside forces.

Originally Posted by Edratman

True leadership ability is an extremely rare talent. There are countless definitions of leadership, but in my opinion, it comes down to one simple thing: the ability to get people to do what you want them to do. There are many ways that a person can achieve real leadership, the most common is fear; there are other and better methods, but they require better and more versitile skills to achieve success.

Meh, you probably agree that this country is so divided at this point that neither of these candidates can be successful at this just due to the 'D' or 'R' associated with them. I also don't think either possesses any kind of great leadership qualities.

Originally Posted by Edratman

Think about your job. How many bosses are real leaders? How many meetings have you left and later enjoyed a laugh with your fellow co-workers at the absurdity of the next "plan-of-the-week", or received an e-mail detailing some poorly concieved and poorly executed program? Those are examples of failures in leadership and they are destined for failure because they will be only half-hearted supported by the staff.

Very true, but what has this to do with McCain or Obama?

Originally Posted by Edratman

For another example, I take you back to your jobs. How many times have you seen someone promoted beyond his/her level of competance? Most of the time you are unaware that the person will be beyond their level of competance until they actually get there. (Pride makes me refuse to even count the number of times I have made the mistake of promoting someone beyond their competance level.)

Again...

Originally Posted by Edratman

My point is that leadership is an elusive and impossible to predict asset. Experience and exposure in a lesser position is no guarantee of success. Of course, experience and exposure is infinitely better than absolutely zero experience, for the vast majority of people. Talented people will succeed without the experience and exposure, I cite Alexander the Great for one, but talented people are few and far between.

Hmm... it would seem the book on leadership as it pertains to McCain is easier to write than the book on Obama. If you are saying that Obama's leadership is an unknown quantity, and that while he may be able to make pretty speeches and look like an intellectual, but ultimately he has almost nothing concrete in his background upon which to judge his leadership abilities, then I'd agree. On the other hand, McCain has a long public record from which you can ascertain that he has lead unpopular fights, and made unpopular decisions. I don't pretend to know the answer to which is potentially the better leader, just that McCain has shown it is unlikely he would be a disastrous leader, though also doubtful a transcendental leader.

Originally Posted by Edratman

I am not touting Obama in this missive. His leadership is also still unknown and unproven. All I am intending to do is plant the seed that time and exposure is universally over-rated. One of my favoite expressions is "He does not have 20 years experience, he has had one years experience twenty times". And I would hope that you reflect on leadership at the same time.

Heh. Are you sure you're not touting Obama? That's smacks of double speak.

I also think you are wrong to speak of experience as always being overrated, sure for some it can be, for others it likely is very valuable.

As it pertains to this election I would agree that it is irrelevant, since neither of them really have the experience of being an executive.

[Foodstamp]

The voters are why this country stinks, not the candidates. If you would all quit accepting the lesser evil and vote the way you wanted to vote instead, our country would be a lot better off. I will be writing in a vote and hoping next election cycle the rest of you will dissolve your ties to the party you hate the least so we can turn this country around. I know that is wishful thinking because a lot of people would rather say that their team won rather than vote in someone competent.

[rabelais]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I find this post to be so offensive as to almost be beyond words.

We live in a social contract. Denigrating people that believe differently than you - hardly bodes well for civic discourse.

Saying such things as 'the republicans stole the elections', conservatives are almost always wrong', 'these people aren't conservatives, they are plutocratic fascists' is immature, offenseive, and demonstrably wrong.

I find it particularly galling that leftists make arguments such as RRegan delayed the release of the hostages, Republicans stole the last two elections, the world trade centers were a government plot - without the merest shred of evidence.

Heh. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this... triumph of hope over experience explains so many things...

The increasingly obvious attempts of the GOP to suppress votes and violate the constitution which is the legal basis of our social contract makes your civic discourse ref-working laughably moot. Look at history since say, well, ever start with hunter gatherers if you like... the liberals (those in favor of agriculture, staying in one place long enough to ferment grains... or in favor of heliocentrism, public sanitation, natural selection, universal suffrage, or whatever the era happened to bring, have nearly always been right. Even the uber-liberals of yesteryear (Jefferson, Lincoln) seem bizarrely conservative by today's standards. Wait 30 years and see if gay marriage is still an issue, assuming civilization doesn't go all MadMaxish.

Saying true things may be impolite, but immature is a much higher standard.

In any case I think Obama is WAY more mature than I am, and conspicuously more so than McCain except neuro-degeneratively.

I said nothing about 9/11... other than I hope the goat book gets a central display case in W's presidential library, I suppose.

Did you miss the eighties or the last eight years? What I said about Reagan is not factually controversial... and the data on the elections is pretty compelling.... check out RFK jr writings, or bradblog...be interesting to see if the media episteme changes once cheney and addington are out of office.

What is conservative about the bush doctrine or monster deficits,the unitary executive, or... well almost anything they've done that wasn't cynically throwing a bone to the fundies?

Look, I'm sorry if you think I'm being unfair. But the current republican party has so violated the trust of the country that calling them out for their unprecedentedly bad behavior is really the least we should do.... it's ironic that the nigh-whimsical impeachment of clinton for bull****ting about private marital infidelity should have insulated bush from impeachment for truly world-historic crimes, at least in terms of trashing the united states.

Now I really need to work on that CBM Man pretender, if you wish to continue discussing my hypertrophic sense of alarm and civic indignation send me a PM? I think we're upsetting Gandalf.

Rabe

[Gandalf Parker]

I know Im laughably diplomatic at times but I think I prefer that in a leader also. I would rather have a president who is flexible and willing to discuss subjects with his advisors over someone who bulls thru on their opinion in spite of what experts and advisers say. I think we have already had a touch of that.

Gandalf Parker
--
Daddy? Are we a republic or a democracy?
Neither son. We are a capitalism.

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by lch

But really, it's funny how everybody is writing off McCain already. "He's gonna die from a heart attack immediately after being elected", hilarious.

It is not funny at all. McCain had Stage 2A melanoma in 2000, an invasive form of skin cancer that claims the lives of up to 34% of those diagnosed within 10 years. If he were to win, he would become the oldest first-term President in U.S. history.

I am not assuming he's dead, but think its irresponsible not to consider the possibility and if you vote for McCain, I think you should be comfortable that Palin would make a good president, just as Obama voters should feel comfortable with the thought of president Biden.

Granted we are talking about politicians so the standards are much lower, which reminds me of a question I have always had since Bush won: why isn't there a test to take as part of running for president? It would just be part of the application process, similar to applying to college. We have tests for everything else law school, business school, the foreign service, driving a car, etc. but nothing for the highest office in the land.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by DonCorazon

Granted we are talking about politicians so the standards are much lower, which reminds me of a question I have always had since Bush won: why isn't there a test to take as part of running for president? It would just be part of the application process, similar to applying to college. We have tests for everything else law school, business school, the foreign service, driving a car, etc. but nothing for the highest office in the land.

But who writes and administers the test? And how is it realistically scored?

[Mithras]

As a european I would like Obama to win. He seems to be the lesser of two evils but to me thats not the point. I don't know how you'll take this but I see Obama as a milestone, it says to me that the US is capable of voting in a, to be frank, black person. I'm sixteen and I'd have thought I'd see it.
So no matter what he does later, I'll celebrate if he gets elected. Its a historic milestone.

[lch]

That's somewhat my notion as well. Too bad that Condi Rice isn't a candidate. The US having a black woman as president, that would really be a signal. And somehow, strangely, I'd think that she'd even have better chances of winning than Obama.

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

But who writes and administers the test? And how is it realistically scored?

Make them take the same test you have to take if you want to work for the Department of State. IIRC that test is a mix of geography, history, political theory. Or just have them take the GMAT like anyone applying to business school.

It might help shift this country ever so slightly back in the direction of a meritocracy instead of a plutocracy.

I don't think even the most avid Bush supporters would say Bush is the best person in the US to run the country, just as I would say Gore and Kerry were sad candidates. Regardless of your party affiliation, it is always nice IMHO to see someone who does not come from a silver spoon, everything in life handed to them background. I think you need someone who has experienced some adversity in life to develop character and perspective to be able to understand and lead a nation.

Which is why Biden and Obama are interesting to me, McCain too I admit, but why I find it ludicrous that the US has put up people like George Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry as the "best" candidates for the job. In my mind these guys are all just scions of wealthy families, who have no idea what life is really like for 95% of the nation.