Past their prime...

[sexobon]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[sexobon]

So you're confirming my statement which you quoted:

Originally Posted by sexobon

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

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.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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

...

... 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.

.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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

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.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

So you're confirming my statement which you quoted:

Absolutely.

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.

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.

[Lamplighter]

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

Originally Posted by sexobon

...at what cost in money and lives? ...

Ask Wayne LaPierre *



* added just for L J's benefit

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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

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.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Ask Wayne LaPierre.

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

[Lamplighter]

The time has come," the Walrus said, “To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings--

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

Reince Priebus and Jeb Bush


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

Republican presidential campaigns are planning to gather in Washington, D.C.,
on Sunday evening to plot how to alter their party’s messy debate process —
and how to remove power from the hands of the Republican National Committee.

Not invited to the meeting: Anyone from the RNC,
which many candidates have openly criticized in the hours
since Wednesday’s CNBC debate in Boulder, Colorado
— a chaotic, disorganized affair that was widely panned by political observers.
...

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

The one-time front-runner in the Republican race,
Bush has suffered a steady eclipse for months, first at the hands of Donald Trump
and more recently from his fellow Floridian and one-time protege, Sen. Marco Rubio.
...

[Lamplighter]

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.



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

(CNN)Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee ended his long-shot bid
for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, he announced Friday.
"As you know, I have been campaigning on a platform of Prosperity Through Peace,"
Chafee said at the DNC's annual Women's Leadership Forum in Washington.

Chafee spent most of his life as a Republican.
He was nominated to his late father's Senate seat in 1999 and then
was elected as a Republican in 2000.
He served only one term, losing to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006,
but then successfully ran for governor of Rhode Island as an independent.

...
—

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

Former Sen. Jim Webb’s long-shot quest for the Democratic presidential nomination ended Tuesday
much the same way it began: on a defiantly — some might say unreasonably — optimistic note.
Webb, who served as secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration
before representing Virginia in the Senate for one term,
said that over the next several weeks, he would speak with leaders from both parties
and weigh a run as an independent.

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

I fully accept that my views on many issues are not compatible
with the power structure and the nominating base of the Democratic party

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Lamplighter]

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

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

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.

[sexobon]

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.

[classicman]

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.