Posts tagged ‘Leadership’

March 8, 2011

Squishy or Slippery, That is our President!

by Steve Dana

I was listening to Dave Ross this morning as I was driving on the highway.  Since Dave added Luke Burbank to his show, the content of that 9am to Noon time slot has gotten even more liberal.  I would not characterize the change as a positive one.

Dave and Luke were talking about how disappointed they were that President Obama has decided to move forward with military tribunals at Gitmo even though in the campaign he was clear about closing the prison and trying the inmates in civilian courts.  Rather than being upset that he made a commitment to voters and reneged like he has done on about every important issue in the election Dave and Luke were talking about how much they admired the President for being flexible when presented with information that led to a different action.

Luke Burbank characterized Obama as being squishy.  He like the fact that the President was squishy.

There have been a number of times when the President has “realized the error” of his campaign  rhetoric and directed his administration to act 180 degrees different from the promises in the campaign.

If you didn’t know enough about his record or his political leanings before the election in 2008 to vote for him you were looking for a reason to choose one candidate over the other.  You were listening to the words he was speaking so eloquently and were convinced he was your guy because of those words.  When he said he would close Gitmo and that was your issue, you decided to vote for him.

So how do you feel now?

The reason Dave and Luke characterize Obama as squishy is because he is not afraid to say what you want to hear but act completely different when a decision has to be made.  Think about how many times he promised to act if you voted for him but when push came to shove, he flip-flopped.  Is that the president you thought we elected?  Is that the kind of man we want leading our country?

If there was ever a “bait and switch” president, this is him.

We have a huge task before us to hinder him from delivering any more of his true agenda during the remainder of this term of office; and to replace him with a candidate who stands behind his words.  Where I am more likely to support conservative candidates, some of you might just want a candidate of your own persuasion that is not a prevaricator.

In the remaining months of his presidency Barak Obama will make every effort to convince voters that he is a moderate with his words like he does so well.  What will be important is to watch what he does.  His actions are a much better indicator of his political agenda than his words.

If he has any leadership he should be showing it now.  Skyrocketing fuel prices caused by the crisis in the Arab world; two significant issues requiring leadership.  What is he doing to address either?

In the State of the Union speech he talked about cutting the deficit.  The Republicans in the House sent a bill to the Senate addressing last year’s budget with 60 billion in cuts.  If the President is serious about his words in the speech, he works to get the Democratic Senate to approve the House Bill.  Let’s see what kind of leadership he has with his own party?

During his campaign, he talked about putting on a comfortable pair of shoes to walk the picket line with union members because everyone is entitled to union representation.  State Budgets are hemorrhaging red ink because of commitments to made to unions and the President is more concerned about the workers.

Leadership is what we need and this guy doesn’t appear to have any.  He is a good looking smooth talking politician but a leader he is not.

March 5, 2011

Leadership Happens at the Front

by Steve Dana

So I am watching The O’Reilly Factor and Bill is interviewing Sarah Palin, talking about Social Security and Medicare Reform.  He asks her what specifically she proposes to modify the system and she launches into some spiel about everyone having to shoulder some of the burden which didn’t even partially answer Bill’s question.  He tried to get her back on track and she continued to evade his questions until she finally had to offer something.

Sarah Palin isn’t likely to get an easier questioner than Bill O’Reilly and she couldn’t come up with better responses than “nothing speak”.

If Sarah Palin (or anyone else for that matter) expects to be taken seriously as a candidate, it will be necessary for her to come up with better answers than that lame drivel.

If Sarah Palin has any chance of being elected president, it will slip away quickly if she isn’t prepared to address issues like O’Reilly’s with answers that speak to the issues.  Governor Palin is entitled to act like a politician, but our country needs a leader.  The reason Americans should support her is because she has good ideas she can articulate to solve problems plaguing our country.  So is she just a politician or a leader?

The double speak of politicians who are afraid to tell the truth because they are afraid of losing votes make them losers from the get go.

Governor Chris Christie isn’t running but he has ideas he is willing to share.  All Governor Palin would have to do is echo Christie’s comments.  Something like:  “I think Governor Christie made some good suggestions the other day; raising the retirement age to 65 for early retirement and 67 for full retirement for folks who are younger than 57 today and to 67 and 70 for folks who are 47 or younger today.  I could support a solution that included those changes, recognizing that means testing and payroll contributions might also be on the table.”

Leadership happens at the front of the formation.  The person who ultimately is nominated to run against Obama must take on the problems in the public debate with decisive answers to the questions and clear plans to address the problems.  If they are afraid to offer their solutions as a candidate there is little chance they have any.  Period!

I question whether Sarah Palin can be elected.  I appreciate her passion in addressing Conservative issues many of us support and she connects really well with common folks who have been out in the cold for a long while so I want her to be a part of the process, but I think her best contribution would be as a GOTV operative.

Chris Christie is popular with Republicans and Democrats because he addresses problems head-on with solutions that are painful but that make sense.  He has consistently been honest with his constituents and the rest of us at times when he addressed national issues; unlike the too many to list here who are always testing the wind (or the water) before offering their thoughts.  In the vernacular, he “Walks the Walk!”

If Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the entitlement programs with the greatest impact to the budget drain then that is where the spotlight needs to be.

Since we know that elected officials tend to want to be re-elected, they seldom take big chances that might endanger re-election. 

My sense is that Americans are looking for leadership in dealing with the big gorillas and evading the issues just serves to identify those potential candidates who aren’t leaders.

Tags:
April 20, 2010

Quality of OPPORTUNITY or Quality of OUTCOME, what is our mandate?

by Steve Dana

I spent all day Monday being a guest speaker at Snohomish High School. My friend Tuck Gionet teaches Economics and Government to high school seniors in all of his five classes. He was gracious enough to allow me to interact with his students as they discussed whether government’s role should be to insure to citizens quality of “opportunity” or “outcome.”

This was the fifth or sixth time for me in Mr. Gionet’s class. It was the first time I spent the day talking about their subject matter rather than focusing on my candidacy for office. My assignment was to work into the discussion my political perspective without actually campaigning. Mr. Gionet and I did not tell the kids in advance too much about my political persuasion, he wanted them to figure out my political point of view based upon my responses to the questions during the discussion. That idea went out the window right away since I couldn’t come up with any applications where government had a role in guaranteeing the outcome of anything.

The students are required to write a paper this week comparing and contrasting the two, declaring a preference for one and then defending the choice. It was clear from the interaction that some had given the assignment some thought already because they asked me good questions. It became clear to the students in every class that I had strong feelings about both sides of the argument.

The most challenging aspect of the day was remembering what part of the subject matter I had discussed with which class. All five classes were doing the same assignment and I wanted to standardize at least a part of my presentation for all of them then launch into the actual discussion with the kids. After you have done your spiel two or three times, you forget whether you shared a particular anecdote that demonstrated a point or not. By the end of the day, my feet were sore, my voice was hoarse and I was really parched. That teaching thing is a tough job!

It’s hard convincing some kids that education is an opportunity rather than a given. We talked about how our state constitution calls for education to be the paramount responsibility of state government. We weren’t so clear about whether it meant the opportunity to get an education or the guarantee that all students would get one. We talked about how some kids put more effort into school work than others and as a result got more out of the experience.

I tried to demonstrate to them that as they get older and encounter choices in their lives the quality of their opportunities will ultimately determine how far they get in life. Most of the kids have so few life experiences they fail to grasp the importance of quality opportunities until they are lost. Many of the kids have been so sheltered from the realities of the world that they already have a sense of entitlement. That distresses me!

In the course of the day, discussions in each class went in a different direction. As a champion for “opportunity” I tried to steer the discussion to the importance of “personal choices” and taking responsibility for them. In a free society, people need the opportunity to choose how hard they are willing to work to achieve a level of success. Government does not have a role in guaranteeing a successful outcome for any segment of society except those individuals with demonstrable handicaps that would prevent them from taking advantage of available opportunities.

The other argument that came up on more than one occasion was the role of government in curtailing opportunity for some when it substantially damaged others. “Ethics” in life and business might be a topic for discussion another day, but Monday the regulatory role of government did not fit with arguments supporting the “opportunities” of capitalism and personal initiative.