The Cranky Voter

Leadership and the Presidency - Prisioner vs. Community Organizer

So there has been a lot of talk about Leadership this political season, who has exhibited leadership and who has the experience to lead. The President of the United States is referred to as the leader of the free world and we expect the person who is elected to that office to have the skills required to manage this country and the world effectively. A poor leader can have a disastrous impact on our country. Can we all remember the one term President who presided over the worst combined Inflation and Unemployment in our history. Allowed gas prices to soar, allowed a terrorist nation to invade our embassy and capture our citizens for hundreds of days. It took the leadership of the next President to free those hostages, which shows how important leadership is for a president. If we choose a President who can not lead or worse leads us in the wrong direction, all of our lives can be impacted.

So let’s look at John McCain the War Hero and Prisoner of War. Is he a leader? According to some Democratic surrogates his military experience should not count since he was not really in charge of anything and as a prisoner of war he didn’t get much of a chance to lead. I would say that is a rude statement by General Clark, but if you think about it, perhaps he has a point. If he was such a good leader, then how did he allow himself to get captured in the first place? Don’t you think a good leader could have avoided capture. Then once they found out who he was and that his father was a a VIP in the armed services, they gave him the opportunity to be released. John McCain decided to stay with his fellow troops instead of being released. Definitely a noble act but did the volunteering to stay a prisoner of war show leadership or stupidity? How was he going to lead his men while a prisoner? How was he going to support the war effort by volunteering to be held prisoner and tortured for years to the point where he can no longer raise his hands to comb his hair?

I am sorry, I might see altruism and perhaps a twisted sense of loyalty but no leadership. If you ask me it shows stupidity to stay imprisoned without the ability to add anything further to the war effort. Perhaps it shows some character strength and weakness all at the same time. If he was such a great leader, why didn’t he figure out a way to lead his fellow troops to freedom? If he was such a great leader, why didn’t he figure out a way to mislead the enemy and cause their defeat from behind enemy lines? What kind of moron decides to stay with the enemy and be tortured? Was he like the captain going down with his ship? No one does that anymore, who stays on his ship while it is sinking? I guess the same guy who stays in the prisoner of war camp. Of course maybe that sounds a little cranky.

As for a community organizer, what the heck does a community organizer do? Was Obama a rabble rouser or did he bring people together? Did Obama help cause unrest among the populace or keep the peace? Did Obama get people out to vote? I guess he helped organize the community but did Obama organize any great event that he got the community to come to? Did he fight for some great cause that he got everyone in Chicago behind? Did he do anything but help organize the community based upon someone else’s words and ideas? He was no Martin Luther King or even Louis Farrakhan (a leader, although I would say a crazy racist leader). He had no followers or disciples but was instead was a follower, a mere cog in the great Chicago political machine. He learned how to speak well just like he was giving a church sermon. He learned how to say nothing while it seamed he was saying something. Tell me, what did Obama do? What did he organize? What cause did he fight for? How many other organizers worked with him to organize? What was the result of all this community organization?

I am sorry but community organizer sounds like a bunch of crap and it certainly doesn’t sound like leadership. If anything it might sound like management, but I don’t know if we can judge how effective a manager he was. Do we all understand the difference between leadership and management? A leader tells us where to go while a manager helps us get there. These are two very different concepts both important in a President, but they are not interchangeable. We all say that we are looking for a leader. Someone who has vision and insight. A person that can understand the right thing to do and get everyone motivated on how to do it. Someone who can reach across party lines to effectively work with all parties to do the right thing for the country, not just the easy or popular thing for your career. A speech is only words if they don’t inspire you to action and if they are not actionable. Change just for change sake is not always the best thing for the country. Hitler made changes in pre-WWII Germany, but I don’t think anyone would say that those changes were good. You can manage your way in circles if you don’t have a direction. OK, maybe that sounds a little Cranky.

So perhaps we should look at other experiences of these two candidates. John McCain spent 35 years in the Senate of the United States. While in the Senate he was not considered a partisan Republican but instead he was considered a Maverick that crossed party lines and did what he believed was the right thing instead of always what his party wanted. Love him or hate him, John McCain governed based upon his principles and did what he thought was right even if he alienated members of his own party while doing it. McCain was critical of his own party and his President about the mismanagement of the war in Iraq among other things. He was one of the strongest and earliest voices in favor of Rumsfeld’s replacement as Secretary of Defense and a change in strategy in Iraq. It was his voice that stood alone amongst the candidates for President as the proponent for the Surge which has definitely appeared to have worked and made Iraq a safer place. McCain also stood up for Campaign Finance Reform with Democratic partners (Fiengold) and has never been afraid to partner with Ted Kennedy on Education Reform or just give his opinion whether asked for it or not. McCain might not have shown leadership as a Prisoner of War, although he did show patriotism, but he has shown leadership in his experience in the Senate.

Obama has very limited experience in the US Senate. He made a very eloquent speech opposing the war in Iraq in which he had no ability to affect. At the time, everyone believed that there was WMD in Iraq and if we had found nuclear devices in Iraq, there certainly wouldn’t have been as much opposition to the war. I thought that the war was poorly planned and I thought that the original authorization for the war was going to be used as leverage in negotiation instead of as the validation by congress to invade Iraq. If Obama had been in the Senate, would he have voted along with most of the Democrats to authorize the use of force or would he have remained consistent with his principles? We will never know, but once in the Senate he did nothing that the majority of Democrats didn’t do and voted the same as Hillary and others to support the war in Iraq. Once in the Senate, was he able to provide leadership to convince everyone to stop funding the war in Iraq and get the administration to bring our troops home? Was he able to articulate any different strategy that was actionable and make his case to the American people and his fellow Democrats? What legislation did he author that made any significant difference in our lives? What had he accomplished in the Senate that he can point to and demostrate his leadership abilities?

Even now, Obama goes overseas and meets with world leaders to demonstrate his ability to lead our nation and work with our European Allies. Obama meets with them behind closed doors and then says the meetings were good and assures us that he can work with them. Didn’t George Bush look into Putin’s eye and say his viewed his soul and confirmed to us all that his intentions were good and that we can work with the Russians. All that meeting stuff is crap. What is the Prime Minister of France or Germany going to say, your candidate is an idiot? Besides, why would France and Germany hate Obama when he plans to turn America into a Socialist state very similar to their own countries in Europe with higher taxes on everyone, and Socialized Medicine. Could you imagine the PM of France coming out and saying .. that is it, Obama is full of crap, I can not work with him. America come to your senses and do not elect this utter fool! The world doesn’t work that way. Just because Obama met with these world leaders does not mean he understands foreign policy or has any experience on the world scene.

If you ask me, both candidates don’t have all of the experience you would need to become President. They have experience as a Senator, Prisoner, Community Organizer and whatever else, but they have never run anything - no company, no city, no state, no Executive experience. You think because someone talks about change that they are going to be able to implement that change? What makes you think anyone can make change for change sake? What are the details of the plan? Who do you think has a track record of working with all sorts of individuals in order to implement change? Who is most non-partisan? Who talks about change that is actionable? Who can lead this nation forward? Maybe we should start all over again. Maybe the method we have to pick our candidates is fundamentally flawed? Maybe people want to believe in fairy dust and make believe and aren’t concerned with electing a President that can lead us back to greatness. After all nobody is perfect, everyone makes mistakes. We just don’t want to make mistakes when electing the President of the United States.

OK, Maybe that sounds a little cranky! That is because I am cranky! I am a cranky voter!