Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] interesting article from a former Bush supporter

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> This is nonsense, Vern.  If somebody is engaging in behavior that you
> know will make them less successful, you need to do something I would
> not equate with the intuitive meaning of "support them".  First, you
> do praise/reward/support them when they do make appropriate actions.
> Second, you let them know when their actions are inappropriate.  In
> some cases, that reminder could be very gentle, but in others, you
> might really have to get into that person's face.
I have no problem with this, sometimes hard love is needed, and I
think that is what Bush is experiencing now. For the most part I agree
with what he says and does, we also have to understand that he is not
in control of everything. Despite popular belief Bush is not a
dictator.

I have been critical of Bush, but I cannot fall to the same level as
the democrats and other sideline quarterbacks who only offer criticism
but no real options. What ever happened to constructive criticism in
this country? Did we ever have it on a political level?

Do any of you remember when the republicans took control of the house?
They came out with a contact with America laying out exactly what they
would do if America put them into power. They did this because the
democrats, who controlled the house at the time would not allow their
ideas to come o a vote. It was not because the republicans had no
ideas.

Now we have the reverse, except the democrats are offering no plans.
All they say is the republicans are evil and they are not and America
should vote them in. So without any semblence of leadership from
anyone else, I have to support Bush as I see him as a leader.

> Three very strong personal qualities of George W. Bush are these:
>
> 1) He does not listen to criticism, and shuts out contrary opinions
> and evidence.

This is one thing I rightfully criticized him about. Bush really needs
to listen to people and take advantage of the smart people he has
around him, Now then, sometimes you might have people around you
telling you to do this or do that, but when the buck stops, it stops
on the leader's head, in these cases it is important that he makes the
decision that HE thinks is correct because ultimately he is going to
be the one held responible for it.

Responsibility, a novel concept in this day and age.

> 2) He does not revisit his decisions willingly, even when he realizes
> that things may not
>    have gone well.

I am not so sure about this statement. I think he is pretty stubborn
and does not reverse his decisions, (perhaps that is what you meant) I
could not say if he never revisits them, I think he is reminded of his
decisions everyday.

One thing you don't see him doing is passing the buck. Clearly he
stands responsible for his decisions, even the bad ones.

> 3) He equates flexibility with weakness.

I would tend to agree with him in certain circumstances. I think it is
important that a leader be able to make a decision, once that decision
is made, it needs to be followed through to completion.

As a team leader, I am faced wth this exact dilemna nearly everyday.
There is always conflict, two or more factions will feel confident
they have the right plan to proceed. In these cases a leader has to be
able to make a decision in order to move the team forward. Flexibility
has no place, if a leader allows himself to be blown with whatever
whim has his ear at the moment, forward momentum will end.

Any good plan does have to be able to be modified, but once the
decision is made, then everyone needs to be onboard, flexibility in
that instance is weakness and dangerous.
> To be honest about it, none of these qualities are intrinsic to his
> particular political beliefs or to anybody's beliefs or ideology.
> Similarly, he's hardly alone in the world in having these qualities.
> But these qualities are precisely NOT ones you would like to see in a
> leader when things are not going well, and when there are many
> alternative actions you might take.

Again, everyone has an opinion, and many people are quick to offer up
criticism, but few offer any real alternatives. I certainly do not
hear any from the democrats. Occasionally you might hear Biden or Reid
offer something about what they think should be done, but there is no
way a clear voice of alternative coming from the opposition. So what
alternative is Bush supposed to consider?

> > Let me ask you this, do you want your son to succeed? Do you support
> > your son? Those are personal questions and I ask them only
> > hypothetically, I don't want you to answer them. However, if the
> > answer to those questions is yes, then you have to continue to support
> > your son when he fails to live up to your standards in the hope that
> > he will "come around".
>
> This is misleading.  What you don't do is "give up" on your son.  You
> would continually engage him, but "support" does not mean
> "unconditionally praise".  It really doesn't.

I never in anyway suggested Bush needed unconditional praise. I have
said many times the issues I have with Bush, but when we are talking
about these idiotic attacks like the e-mail that started this thread,
then yes, I will support Bush through that since those attacks are
really unfair.

> Meanwhile,  I find the
> analogy here quite inappropriate.  George W. Bush is not a child.

Not all children are children Jonathan. Mikes son just happens to be a
child still, but I am sure you are someone's child, just a Mike is. At
some point Mike is going to be supporting an adult as his child.

> What we are looking for here is not a parenting strategy that exists
> in an environment of unconditional love (which is what I have for my
> kids, even if I have to help them change their behavior).
Support does not have to be unconditional. I was pretty clear that I
do not unilaterally support Bush, I have parted ways with him on many
things. His stand on abortion, illegal immigration, and I am not
pleased with the spending habits. The only thing about Bush's spending
that makes it easier to swallow is that he is not creating new
entitlements.

> What we are looking for here is more something like accountability.
> Bush was asked the other day why he thought his poll numbers were so
> low.  He replied that he thought people were just unsettled, maybe
> because of the war.
That is spin Jonathan. He knows why his numbers are so low, he just
does not want to admit that his stand on illegal immigration and his
out of control spending are costing him support from his own base.

> Now, to be sure, outside influences certainly have an effect on the
> polls.  Both Bush and Congress enjoyed 90% support after 9/11, even
> though they had not taken any specific actions yet.  A reflective
> person would not have looked at those high numbers and seen it as a
> personal mandate.  Similarly, it's healthy to realize that low
> approval today might not be entirely your fault either.  But if you
> apparenly see no connection between polls that have dropped into the
> high 20s and anything you have done...this is problematic.  Effective
> leaders have a strong sense of personal responsibility, which is part
> of why they will, when necessary, change their actions if their
> actions are just not getting the job done.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the things that are bringing his
numbers down are not proven a failure yet. Yes, I know a lot of people
think the war in Iraq is a failure, I am not so sure. I think the
actual war in Iraq, the original mission was a success and is clearly
over. What we are seeing now is a new conflict in the area, that we
are winning. I think the plan being executed is working, I just wish
we could get the real truth from Iraq.

> I think this, more  than anything else, is what has finally begun to
> change the opinions of more serious conservative writers and thinkers,
> and people in the general public.

I think there is some truth to what you say, I think some of what is
happening is Bush's failure in getting information about the plans out
there. And yes, there is a lot of stubborness that is not getting any
better.
>

--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion