By looking at their chioces of candidates to be the next "Leader" of this country, to "Lead" us in a new direction, to "Lead" the US back to a positon of respect in the world, I have serious doubts as to whether they even know what the word means, much less how to identify it in an individual.
2007-12-10 05:56:24 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Notice I said LIBERALS not DEMOCRATS. JFK was not a Liberal. Can you see Hillary giving a speech where she says "Ask not what your country can do for you...?"
2007-12-10 06:39:43 · update #1
Most of the "answers" are straight attacks against Bush. He isn't on the ballot. Tell us why you believe your candidate has the Leadership Skills to be President. You need to convince 51% of the people that your candidate has the grits. So far, I have not seen one single answer outling their candidate's leadership qualities.
2007-12-10 06:54:25 · update #2
In the past the Democratic party has had some great leaders in troubling times. I can't say now that either party has any 'leaders'. Focus groups, polling numbers, media darlings, and they all say only what they think we want to hear. A real leader on either side would speak directly to us and know we can sort out the B.S. by ourselves. Neither party thinks the electorate is intelligent or in any way informed. You pointed out correctly that they all like to use the word 'lead' and I would add the word 'fight' onto that.
2007-12-10 06:04:40 · answer #1 · answered by DagneyT 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As opposed to the leader of the US that we have now, who completely avoids taking the blame for anything that he clearly makes mistakes about during his watch? He'd rather be lying about what really happens, destroying all evidence that he lied, and get enough people to make up lies about the opposition in order to demonize them. Say it enough times, and people might actually believe it.
Nice leadership tactics. Worked well, I'm told, at one time, but I can't read much of it's strategies because it's all written in German.
Being a leader means not only making decisions, but also making sure you're not being lead into a fire. I'd choose most of the candidates in either party based on leadership before I would who we have currently.
2007-12-10 14:05:28 · answer #2 · answered by JoshuaCrime 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
So do you hold up Bush as the bar for leadership? If so the gutter is pretty low for a start. Liberals have proven leadership qualities, just like some conservatives. However, the cons love the immoral leaders.
2007-12-10 14:04:50 · answer #3 · answered by kenny J 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure it's what you learn in Marine Corps Boot Camp
Every Marine is taught how to take charge when the existing leadership is injured in Combat. We all know the USMC system of Combat and how to lead attacks on any given objective.
2007-12-10 13:59:27 · answer #4 · answered by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It is NOT what has been coming from the White House. Wouldn't it be great if there was an ELECTED president who would lead us to a sustainable non-nuclear energy independence policy. The handwriting has been on the wall for years. Even Dictator Dumbya once said, in a second of apparent lucidity, we are "addicted to oil".
2007-12-10 14:28:45 · answer #5 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes...it is simply the opposite of what conservatives do. Oh wait, that's following. Crap, you got me.
If you want an example of leadership from the libs, look at John Kerry: "I've got no platform, but the other guy sucks. Isn't it time for someone else to go in there and do things in the opposite way?"
That will forever be synonymous with liberals in my viewpoint...from their own candidate!
2007-12-10 14:29:45 · answer #6 · answered by Jackal Antern 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
And your answer is to continue being led by these war mongers? They are robbing America and getting away with it. Republicans are becoming lobbyists or going to the military contractors so they can rob even more. We need leaders that are willing to lead America into a better state, not lead us into an oligarchy.
2007-12-10 14:02:58 · answer #7 · answered by diogenese_97 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, liberals fought england and won independence for the colonies while the cons of the day were bowing to the king and licking brit boot. Funny how not much changes.
2007-12-10 14:55:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
To put it simply, NO. None of the leaders in the Democrat party could lead a pack of starving wolves to a nearby carcass.
The only thing a Democrat could lead effectively is a surrender.
2007-12-10 14:09:51 · answer #9 · answered by Return of Bite My Shiny Metal... 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
So how's GWB working for you? Any ONE of the Democratic candidates would be a welcome relief to the sort of president and " leader " we have today. Sometimes one can be " led" in the wrong direction.
2007-12-10 14:27:15 · answer #10 · answered by planksheer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋