Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 58 of 58
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    State Governor is a microcosm for National President.
    That did not answer my question (I'll borrow yours regarding Hillary): What credit does he deserve? What did he do prior to becoming a president that made him was so incredibly "ready" to become a president?
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    We may question the destination, but President Bush certainly led the country. And, in truth, many who are now throwing stones, were in lock step at the beginning. We should not confuse disliking the journey or the destination as absence of leadershipHistory tends to be a very kind?
    The most consequential and poignant leadership is how to end a war not start it. Surly GWB has lead this country, but what information do you have that Ms. Clinton can't lead?
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    This is the basis of my post. What credit does she deserve?
    Again, my point is: credit isn't a ticket to leadership; vision and the ability to lead is. Nevertheless, here are some of her accomplishments:
    • Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site

    • Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month

    • Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor

    • Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall

    • Name courthouse after James L. Watson

    • Name post office after John A. O'Shea

    • Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day

    • Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day

    • Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death

    • Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program

    • Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda

    • Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death

    • Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

    Five of Clinton's bills are, according to Morris, "substantive":

    • Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11

    • Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

    • Assist landmine victims in other countries

    • Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care

    • Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System
    Last edited by impish; 02/02/2007 at 12:39 PM.
  2. #42  
    HRC is not my man. One word: Biden.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  3. #43  
    He did answer your question. She is a pork barrel type of person - nothing you have listed shows any real leadership or decision making. The governor of a state leads, makes the ultimate decisions. The legislative branch makes laws and frankly there is NO leadership involved in that.

    Ben
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    He did answer your question. She is a pork barrel type of person - nothing you have listed shows any real leadership or decision making. The governor of a state leads, makes the ultimate decisions. The legislative branch makes laws and frankly there is NO leadership involved in that.

    Ben
    Assuming he did answer and that is the case. My argument from the beginning was that a list of “accomplishments” in the senate or the House is hardly a reason to elect someone for the presidency. In fact, what you are saying is that only governors are qualified enough to become presidents
    Last edited by impish; 02/02/2007 at 04:24 PM.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    In fact, what you are saying is that only governors are qualified enough to become presidents
    I personally do not think that Gov's are the only ones qualified to be Pres....but it is a higher qualification from a resume stand point as far as directly related experience.

    As I have stated in the past I vote for the candidate and not by any party lines. I consistently vote for candidates from both parties on local, state, and federal elections.....though there is no doubt that I am right leaning of center. If Lieberman would have made it last time, he would have probably had my vote.

    Here are some of the major factors that I look for in a Pres Candidate:
    • How consistent have they been over the years. I.E...Are they Liberal one year and Conservative the next depending on who they need for votes.
    • Do they flip flop on vital issues.
    • Are their actions (votes, promises fulfilled, programs supportedetc..) in line with their statements.
    • Do they hypocritically attack members of the opposing party when they are guilty of the same or worse offenses. Or attacked a member of an opposing party for an act while they supported a member of their party for doing the same.

    I personally feel that HRC is more of a go where the wind is blowing type of candidate.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/02/2007 at 02:28 PM.
  6. #46  
    Sometimes

    not(flip-flopping) = stubborn, inflexible, not responding to changing reality
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  7.    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Here are some of the major factors that I look for in a Pres Candidate:
    • How consistent have they been over the years. I.E...Are they Liberal one year and Conservative the next depending on who they need for votes.
    • Do they flip flop on vital issues.
    • Are their actions (votes, promises fulfilled, programs supportedetc..) in line with their statements.
    • Do they hypocritically attack members of the opposing party when they are guilty of the same or worse offenses. Or attacked a member of an opposing party for an act while they supported a member of their party for doing the same.
    This list makes more sense to me than "accomplishments" alluded by shopharim. Personality (including leadership, vision, willing to accept changes, admitting wrong-doing and mistakes, etc.) is the key.
  8. #48  
    It is kind of an all in one package. I was not disagreeing with Shop, only expounding further. Experience and past accomplishments, failures, positions held, scandals, etc.... are vital but not all inclusive as you have to look at the list I made above along with it.

    If a candidate had all the qualities I listed but has only served as the head of 1 business and only 1 or two years of public office experience, I would question his/her ability to meet the requirements for a President. And among those with traditional qualifications there are some resume points that would be more valuable to have than others, i.e. administration responsibilities of a Gov over the law writing and making responsibilities of a congressman.

    On the flip side if they had all the experience one could imagine for a perfect Pres Candidate and failed every point (or even half of the points) on my list, they too would probably not get my vote.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 02/05/2007 at 10:45 AM.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    ...The most consequential and poignant leadership is how to end a war not start it....
    Tangent: If that is the case, should not the legislature afford him the lattitute to do so?
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Tangent: If that is the case, should not the legislature afford him the lattitute to do so?
  11. #51  
    A business leader with a good track record would be one who must possess leadership qualities - decision making, financing, et cetera. A legislative position does not do any decision making, no final "it's my decision," et cetera. The position is pork more than anything else.

    One of the local Honolulu papers said of one of Hawaii's congressional delegation that the person best accomplishment was his ability to bring military money to the state, that it was badly needed for the economy and the wild thing is, earlier in the same article it talked about pork spending. The paper just qualified his as good.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Assuming he did answer and that is the case. My argument from the beginning was that a list of “accomplishments” in the senate or the House is hardly a reason to elect someone for the presidency. In fact, what you are saying is that only governors are qualified enough to become presidents
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Tangent: If that is the case, should not the legislature afford him the lattitute to do so?
    $363,488,547,705 isn't enough?!
  13. #53  
    Maybe that would be enough if they wouldn't throw in all that non-binding, waste of time, coulda woulda shoulda, detrimental crap along with it.
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    Maybe that would be enough if they wouldn't throw in all that non-binding, waste of time, coulda woulda shoulda, detrimental crap along with it.
    Obviously the taxpayers think otherwise: Last elections were a no-mandate-vote for this war. Besides, I doubt Bush has a plan for ending the war, and throwing into this grinder additional 21,500 U.S. troops is hardly convincing (see this thread).
  15. #55  
    Different folks read last election results differently.
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The legislative branch makes laws and frankly there is NO leadership involved in that.
    Ben
    I like this quote by Robert Geilfuss which is relevant to your comment:

    "The preoccupation with the electability of senators hides a much more general political reality: Every officeholder has a record, and every record can be used against a candidate. George H.W. Bush's campaign--under the direction of Lee Atwater--didn't spare Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis the Willie Horton fiasco (or its scorn for vetoing a Pledge of Allegiance bill) just because he wasn't a senator. In fact, if the press distinguished current and former governors, the conventional wisdom might easily be that a governor is the natural long shot, not a senator. Since 1920, only three sitting governors have been elected president: Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Six governors (seven if you count Thomas Dewey's 1944 and 1948 campaigns) won their party's nomination before losing the general election, compared with only four senators in the same period.

    "Effective politicians do not have a standard biography. They can come from any kind of background. So please, spare McCain, Clinton, and Obama the same tired line about no senator winning the White House since John F. Kennedy. Senators don't have trouble wining the presidency because they are senators; they have trouble because they're human."
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    $363,488,547,705 isn't enough?!
  18. #58  
    Impish, great points; however, being a governor first does give an edge when it comes to what the job entails and there are excellent examples of that. I again state that neither has any substantial experience in leadership. Naming a building is nothing. Writing a book in one week is nothing.

    Ben
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions