Can Democrat Leaders Lead?

[Utah]

Forgetting ideology, can the current Democrat leaders lead - ie., are they good leaders. Can they drive agendas, communicate well, make smart decisions, manage crisis, make unpopular choices when neccessary, etc.?

The Republicans is charge now clearly cannot. However, have the Democrat leaders provided any indication that they can? If so, please provide evidence.

[hmkpoker]

There seems to be a belief that a good leader has no personal incentives; that he's just a benevolent deity trying to do what's right.

This is hogwash. All human beings have incentives. Sometimes they benefit others in the process, sometimes they do not. Politicians tend to to harm others. The only way a politician can get elected in a big election is to have the best PR. This costs money, money which has to come from someone who favors his policies. It's nice to believe that the charitable campaign contributions are nothing more than a sign of support for someone's good policies, but that's not the case; the money influences the politics. Why else would big corporations contribute?

When you realize that the current administration has business incentives, you'll see that they did accomplish two very important things:

1) Got in.

2) Bought protectionism and inflated the demand for their own industries.

Their crises, decision making and agenda driving have easily fulfilled a very reasonable incentive. Democrats are no different, they're just controlled by different groups.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a belief that a good leader has no personal incentives; that he's just a benevolent deity trying to do what's right.

This is hogwash. All human beings have incentives. Sometimes they benefit others in the process, sometimes they do not. Politicians tend to to harm others. The only way a politician can get elected in a big election is to have the best PR. This costs money, money which has to come from someone who favors his policies. It's nice to believe that the charitable campaign contributions are nothing more than a sign of support for someone's good policies, but that's not the case; the money influences the politics. Why else would big corporations contribute?

When you realize that the current administration has business incentives, you'll see that they did accomplish two very important things:

1) Got in.

2) Bought protectionism and inflated the demand for their own industries.

Their crises, decision making and agenda driving have easily fulfilled a very reasonable incentive. Democrats are no different, they're just controlled by different groups.

[/ QUOTE ]You miss my point. Incentive matters little in my question. I just want to know if the leaders have the skills to drive towards whatever goals they have, even if those goals are self-serving. Do they have the chops or are they bumbling idiots?

[ QUOTE ]
Forgetting ideology, can the current Democrat leaders lead - ie., are they good leaders. Can they drive agendas, communicate well, make smart decisions, manage crisis, make unpopular choices when neccessary, etc.?

The Republicans is charge now clearly cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all relative comparisons. A retarded monkey would be better than what we have now and I figure even the democrats can manage retarded monkey levels of leadership.

[John21]

I'm not sure if it stems from the overall ideology of the Democratic Party and the type of people it attracts, but they seem more like managers/administrators than leaders.

My perception is that a Democrat says "hire me and I'll get to work on the problems," whereas a Republican says "hire me and I'll do this that and the other thing."

I don't think there's anything inherently superior with either modus operandi - sometimes we need one style, at other times we need the other.

So the Republicans adhere to the doctine of definiteness of purpose, and the Democrats to the definiteness of process .

[Brann]

Democrat leaders = military intelligence. Both oxymorons.

Arrogant Republican = completely destroyed. Both redundant.

[Propertarian]

This is the political equivalent to the winner "winner/clutch/intangibles" concept in sports.

Is Hillary clutch? Sure, the democrats have good statistics, but are they "winners"?

The real questions are, why would you think that democrats or (or any politican or group for that matter) anyone CANNOT do these things? How would we measure or know whether or not these things can be done?

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgetting ideology, can the current Democrat leaders lead - ie., are they good leaders. Can they drive agendas, communicate well, make smart decisions, manage crisis, make unpopular choices when neccessary, etc.?

The Republicans is charge now clearly cannot. However, have the Democrat leaders provided any indication that they can? If so, please provide evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very tough to provide evidence that they can lead but I'll give it a try.

Before the GOP sweep into power in 1994 the Democrats lead the house for 40 years. I guess the better question would for me to ask you to provide evidence that they can not lead. I know talk radio will try to throw Nancy P under the bus before she becomes Speaker of the House. Everyone should give her a chance.

As far as Driving Agenda's, I'm sure right away the Democrats take power in the House and Most likely the Senate they are going to pass some laws to put some pressure on the Republicans and possible put future GOP Presidential candidates into some interesting positions. These are the types of things that are going to give a lot of people a lot of things to talk about early next year. We could see veto after veto from the White House or many Filibusters in the Senate.

[whiskeytown]

prior to the Republican takeover of all branches in 2000, Congress operated at least moderately in a bi-partisan fashion. They did SOMETHING - like a 200+ Billion surplus instead of a 300 Billion deficit. They actually considered Bin Laden a threat before 9/11 - something GWB couldn't do with a handpicked terrorism expert and all the intelligence of the last 8 yrs at his disposal.

as of 2000, the Republicans have so [censored] over the rules and means necessary to bring a bill to committee that Democrats are literally left trying to find a conference room because the Republicans won't tell the Democratic members of the committees where the meetings are held -

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto...t_congress_ever - good article describing how badly Republicans have destroyed the rules and civility that Congress enjoyed to a degree at least up to 2000.

as another writer put it - no Congressional rule, tradition or privilege was too longstanding or honored that it couldn't be turned aside by Republicans for personal partisan gain.

Whether or not they can lead is irrelevant - they CAN'T be any worse - and we've established even Saddam is better at running a country then GWB, so maybe when the trial is over we can bring him over here to advise GWB.

Therefore, your question is pretty much unnecessary - after seeing the core values of my country taken apart by honorless men over the last 6 yrs I'd vote for Putin before I ever vote for another one of these Republicans.

from the article -

""The 109th Congress is so bad that it makes you wonder if democracy is a failed experiment," says Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional scholar and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School. "I think that if the Framers went to Capitol Hill today, it would shake their confidence in the system they created. Congress has become an exercise of raw power with no principles -- and in that environment corruption has flourished. The Republicans in Congress decided from the outset that their future would be inextricably tied to George Bush and his policies. It has become this sad session of members sitting down and drinking Kool-Aid delivered by Karl Rove. Congress became a mere extension of the White House."

rb

[boracay]

nope, current administration is communicating brilliantly, is making very smart decisions, is very capable to manage crisis plus it has a gift to make unpopular choices popular. no matter dem or rep, it can't be any better.