Past their prime...

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

That explains wacko extremists. They only believe the first thing they are told. So a wacko extremist has much in common with a rat. Both want to fuck others.

How fitting, coming from you. Your self reflection is improving.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Are you saying Clinton v Bush?

Absolutely.
Sadly, Clinton is the best Republican running. She simply has Bernie getting the uber left interested in the election and then when he gets his ass crushed in the primaries, he will hand all of that faction over to her with his endorsement.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

Bernie getting the uber left interested in the election

Aren't you one of the ones who took an online quiz that told you Bernie was your man?

[Griff]

My sense of it is that Bernie gets a lot of independent support that won't be there for Hillary.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Aren't you one of the ones who took an online quiz that told you Bernie was your man?

Yup ... Just goes to show how much stock I put in "those" quizzes.

[glatt]

Those quizzes aren't going to tell you about the personality of the candidate and if they have the charisma that draws you in, but they are a good source for matching how you feel on the different issues to the candidate who has the same position on those issues.

I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs. Is is better to elect a good leader who is leading in the wrong direction, or a poor leader who knows the right way?

[Griff]

That is an interesting point. I think about Reagan that way. The country was mired in pessimism. The country needed its optimism back, unfortunately that optimism made us ripe for military adventurism and the Bush hijacking. You can't put that on Reagan but he set the stage for smaller men to make bigger messes.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs.

Neither. It is about someone who can see a bigger picture.

For example Curtis LeMay was a brilliant General. When it came to tactical military decisions, he was among the best. But he could not see the bigger picture. He viewed war in terms of 'them vs us'. And not about the bigger picture of how we all coexist after the fact.

Kennedy was clearly a superb example of a leader. In an administration chock full of brilliant men, Kennedy saw things even they did not see.

Johnson was probably one of the best power brokers in office. If ever it came to getting political solutions, nobody was better. However he did not see the big picture overseas. He could not understand why he created the quagmire and why others would not negotiate with what to him was a sweetheart deal. He could see the big picture in domestic politics. But could not see the big picture worldwide.

Nixon is the classic example of a superb politician incapable of understanding that his job (and not his legacy) was more important. Much of what he did domestically and internationally was shrewd but undermined by what he wanted. Nixon saw big pictures, but was subverted by his own personal needs.

It is far more complex than strength vs charisma. The ability to see big pictures and to act upon them is critical. Kennedy's weakness was domestic politics. But he was the perfect leader for that time. In fact, most other men in that position probably would mean none of us exist.

Having said all that, can anyone say anything good about George Jr - other than he finally stopped listening to Cheney?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Neither.

So you're saying that when faced with such a choice, you should not vote at all?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Start a campaign...

If you're disgusted with government, how it's run, and who runs it, send a message, vote for glatt.

Kind of a long slogan, but you'd probably win.
I defy Diogenes to find an American who says, "Oh yes, the government is doing a fine job." At least one who isn't mentally ill.
Nobody is happy, they only vary on who to blame.

[glatt]

I'd like to think that I'm a poor leader who leads poorly in the right direction, but it's just as likely that I'm a poor leader who leads the country in the wrong direction.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That would have no bearing on the voters who are looking for any port in the storm. Like in TV viewing and in pornography, they just want something different.
Hmm... gotta find a shorter slogan.

"And now for something completely different, glatt"

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs. Is is better to elect a good leader who is leading in the wrong direction, or a poor leader who knows the right way?

Yes, this EXACTLY!

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by glatt

... I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs. Is is better to elect a good leader who is leading in the wrong direction, or a poor leader who knows the right way?

A poor leader can still be a good manager who chooses subordinates with strong leadership skills to move things in the right direction.

A strong leader going in the wrong direction is unlikely to choose subordinate leaders who would turn things around.

To thine own self be true.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

A strong leader going in the wrong direction is unlikely to choose subordinate leaders who would turn things around.

That's what Cheney did.