Cheney did what? I'm talking about Presidents and Cheney wasn't President. I'm not sure what you mean.

He was running the country. Being a strong leader, the people under him obeyed or got the fuck out. Bush being a weak leader let it to Cheney to call the shots

So you're confirming my statement which you quoted:

You say Bush was a weak leader. That doesn't relate to my statement which specifies a strong leader.

You say Cheney was a strong leader who required that people under him go along with him or leave. That's the gist of my statement: a strong leader is unlikely to choose subordinates who'll go against him.

... and to move things in the wrong direction.

But, as "the people" did follow Cheney's direction,
they knew that ultimately Bush was still in charge.
And once Bush (and Cheney) left office,
Cheney's "leadership" went into the pits.

Had Cheney run for President, he would have failed
because "the people" recognized his direction was wrong.

A strong-but-wrong leader and subordinates
ultimately are brought down by the followers.

.

That person would be a poor leader AND a poor manager; or, a person whose beliefs don't coincide with yours. Either way, you shouldn't vote for them.

After what amount of damage is done, at what cost in money and lives? We're discussing selection criteria because an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.

Absolutely.
Cheney is a good example of the quoted statement, your statement preceding that said a weak leader will hand off. Bush did that, unfortunately he handed off to a sociopath.

Now you're mixing terms... "poor" vs "weak" "leader" vs "manager"

Ask Wayne LaPierre *



* added just for L J's benefit

Not hardly. Either "poor" or "weak" can be used to describe an ineffective leader. One of the keys to being an effective subordinate leader is to have an effective leader over you. The affects of not having an effective leader at the top can be minimalized if that person is a good [or strong] manager.

While there is some overlap, the distinction between leadership and management has been established since Genghis Khan first wrote about it during his campaigns in the 13th century. The terms would only seem mixed to someone untrained in this area and that's why common core leadership training exists.



He's not running for President my faithful one trick pony.

But some may be surprised they are not speaking, or even being spoken to

Reince Priebus and Jeb Bush
Attachment 53959 Attachment 53960

Exclusive: GOP campaigns plot revolt against RNC
Politico - Alex Isenstadt - 10/29/15


All the money in the world may not save Jeb Bush's campaign

LA Times - David Lauter, Seema Mehta and Noah Bierman - 10/29/15

As for the Democrats, two debaters had such poor (silly) performances they have left the race.
One seems to think he can get more speaking minutes by becoming a 3rd-party candidate.
The other will try a another approach to converting the US over to the metric system.

Attachment 53964 Attachment 53965

Lincoln Chafee drops out of Democratic primary race
CNN - Dan Merica and Tom LoBianco - 10/23/15

...
—

Jim Webb exits the Democratic presidential race, weighs run as independent
LA Times - Kurtis Lee - 10/20/15

His later comment probably did not help his image with the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party.

Anyone who sees any porn can tell you bush is out of fashion.

:blush:

A strong leader without a grasp of the big picture (a strategic objective) is often a poor leader. Cited were two examples - Curtis LeMay and Richard Nixon.

One's only strategic objective was defined by his rhetoric (ie We are already at war with the USSR. The American public does not know it yet.). Another's strategic objectives were defined by what was important to him (ie his legacy) and not interests of the nation.

A strong leader must have a well defined 'big picture' that is based in fundamental facts. Not based in personal biases, political rhetoric, and emotions. A strong leader without abilities to view logically, honestly, and as a moderate will be a flawed leader.

Cited were two examples of strong leaders who were poor managers. Leadership is about the ability to motivate people to accomplish goals. Management is about the selection of goals. There is some overlap; but, not to the extent you imply. Goals that you disagree with can still have long term viability with effective leadership to maintain them. Just look at all of the countries that don't have our system of government; yet, have been around for a long, long time.

Within each given type of system there is a moral component to leadership in which the selection of goals needs to reflect the big picture rather than limited interests; or, self interest. That's necessary to prevent what Lamplighter mentioned earlier: "A strong-but-wrong leader and subordinates ultimately are brought down by the followers." His characterization of leaders who don't get the big picture was more accurate than yours.

For those without formal leadership training it may help to think of it this way: in the military, from corporal to general, leadership training stays the same; but, management training varies widely and by the time generals get a second star they're considered to be more like politicians.

For those with formal leadership training, the terms are already defined and discussing it with those who don't know the jargon becomes a game in semantics. Similarly, saying "a grasp of the big picture (a strategic objective)" is not the way I would put it. I equate "the big picture" with a comprehensive understanding of the way things are now and "strategic objectives" with a person of vision. The terms are not synonymous for me.

OTOH, I understand the gist of what you're saying tw, even though others may have said it better, and I don't disagree.

The D's process is a farce.
The R's is messy, but far more open. Though the moderators at the CNBC debate were Godawful.
I was waiting for the "So when did you stop beating your wife?" question to come out.