logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Is it possible to have a good baby boomer leader?, 2 lame-ohs in a row- is this the best ?
CruisingRam
post Jan 29 2006, 01:21 AM
Post #1


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



After nearly 16 years of horrible baby-boomer rule- I have come to the conclusion that the baby boomer generation has nothing to offer in the realm of presidential or legislative/congressional leaders- I am equally unimpressed by both- I mean, the list of baby boomer lame leaders is so long and horrible

Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton

Gw Bush
Condi Rice

Bill Frist

Newt Gingrich

And the list goes on and on- they are all horrible- and holding them to the standard of those that came before them- those known as the "greatest generation" - it is even more depressing.

So my questions are these

Is the entire generation of baby boomers as publically elected officials just morally , ethically bankrupt of all leadership and skills?



Are there any boomer stars on the horizon we, as a nation, can all rally behind, that won't split the nation as bad as the <ahem> leaders for the last 16 years


Are we just doomed to have bad/awful leaders in this country until the next generation takes over?

Why is this generation producing such awful leaders?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 24)
Paladin Elspeth
post Feb 6 2006, 12:33 PM
Post #21


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted)
Since you seem to think, as many liberals do, that corporation are the root of all evil, I though you might be interested in some facts concerning PACs.

Actually, I think that GREED and SELFISHNESS are at the root of most evil, Ted. And I don't recall pinning it exclusively on politicians on the "Right," either.

PAC's were started partly to offset the already large influence American businesses exerted in political campaigns. Now who would you like on your side if you were running for office--Enron (before the scandal), Dow Chemical and Exxon-Mobil; or MoveOn, Emily's List and the labor unions? rolleyes.gif

The corporate influence is disproportionately large with our Congresspeople and obviously with the office of the Chief Executive. Because it is necessary to wage a media campaign, the ability to run has become restricted to those of independent wealth and/or those with powerful, influential friends. The result is that it is a rare occasion when the most worthy actually get within range of being elected, and those who do manage to get elected owe a lot of favors to those who contributed heavily to their campaigns.

Have I made myself clear?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Feb 6 2006, 01:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 6 2006, 06:18 PM
Post #22


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
Actually, I think that GREED and SELFISHNESS are at the root of most evil, Ted. And I don't recall pinning it exclusively on politicians on the "Right," either.

PAC's were started partly to offset the already large influence American businesses exerted in political campaigns. Now who would you like on your side if you were running for office--Enron (before the scandal), Dow Chemical and Exxon-Mobil; or MoveOn, Emily's List and the labor unions

Actually I would not side with either group or want them to have undue influence on our elcted leaders. Since I am not a Socialist or even far left I would not side with the folks at MoveOn. Who by the way get millions from G Sorrous.

PE you did not mention “pinning it on” any part of the political spectrum you just said “corporate” enough times so that it was clear. Certainly I would not think “labor unions” influence is any “better” for me (or you) than Mobil.

The issue is how do we create a political system where the people elected truly represent the people who elected them and NOT a special interest – ANY special interest, Union, Corporate, Lawyers, Medical, etc.

This post has been edited by Ted: Feb 6 2006, 06:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Feb 6 2006, 11:36 PM
Post #23


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 6 2006, 01:18 PM)
QUOTE
PE
Actually, I think that GREED and SELFISHNESS are at the root of most evil, Ted. And I don't recall pinning it exclusively on politicians on the "Right," either.

PAC's were started partly to offset the already large influence American businesses exerted in political campaigns. Now who would you like on your side if you were running for office--Enron (before the scandal), Dow Chemical and Exxon-Mobil; or MoveOn, Emily's List and the labor unions

Actually I would not side with either group or want them to have undue influence on our elcted leaders. Since I am not a Socialist or even far left I would not side with the folks at MoveOn. Who by the way get millions from G Sorrous.

PE you did not mention “pinning it on” any part of the political spectrum you just said “corporate” enough times so that it was clear. Certainly I would not think “labor unions” influence is any “better” for me (or you) than Mobil.

The issue is how do we create a political system where the people elected truly represent the people who elected them and NOT a special interest – ANY special interest, Union, Corporate, Lawyers, Medical, etc.
*



Yeah, I think you nailed it there, Ted. Achieving true representation, I am afraid, is akin to finding a unicorn while walking in the woods these days.

I cannot blame those who try to balance the playing field, however, by seeking financial backing to counteract the massive war chests on the other side of the aisle. Like it or not, money talks far too loudly in our legislative and executive branches of government. Trying to promote a worthy candidate without being bankrolled is a short exercise in futility. While the analogy of "cream rising to the top" is meant to describe the ascendency of the best, the reality is that the cream is loaded with artery-clogging fat, and it does not represent the relatively wholesome liquid beneath it.

So what do we do? I think the McCain/Feingold Act is a good beginning, but so much more needs to be done if Generation X is to provide leaders of any higher quality than the 'Boomers have produced.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Feb 7 2006, 04:28 PM
Post #24


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
I cannot blame those who try to balance the playing field, however, by seeking financial backing to counteract the massive war chests on the other side of the aisle



Not sure what you mean here. The Dems score nearly as much money as Repubs.

As of Dec. 14, the Democratic Party had raised $710 million in the
2003-04 election cycle. The GOP had raised $863 million.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=455267

But the real point is that regardless of the absolute amount of money in total large contributions demand and grant contributors extraordinary access to our elected officials. IMO we need to have the government fund ALL political candidates and not allow the elected officials to know where the money came from. McCain is definately on the right track.

Here are the top donners:

Top 10 donors:
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
$36,694,599
National Assn of Realtors
$26,955,118
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America
$25,300,041
National Education Assn
$25,180,941
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$23,617,005
Service Employees International Union
$23,354,475
Communications Workers of America
$22,937,924
Laborers Union
$22,812,207
Carpenters & Joiners Union
$22,606,447
Teamsters Union
$22,550,008


http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
skepticasm
post Mar 1 2006, 02:57 AM
Post #25


*
New Member

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 5,908
Joined: February-26-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jan 28 2006, 08:21 PM)
After nearly 16 years of horrible baby-boomer rule- I have come to the conclusion that the baby boomer generation has nothing to offer in the realm of presidential or legislative/congressional leaders- I am equally unimpressed by both- I mean, the list of baby boomer lame leaders is so long and horrible

Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton

Gw Bush
Condi Rice

Bill Frist

Newt Gingrich

And the list goes on and on- they are all horrible- and holding them to the standard of those that came before them- those known as the "greatest generation" - it is even more depressing.

So my questions are these

Is the entire generation of baby boomers as publically elected officials just morally , ethically bankrupt of all leadership and skills?



Are there any boomer stars on the horizon we, as a nation, can all  rally behind, that won't split the nation as bad as the <ahem> leaders for the last 16 years


Are we just doomed to have bad/awful leaders in this country until the next generation takes over?

Why is this generation producing such awful leaders?
*


From the tone of your questions you’re not going to like the answers.

Is the entire generation of baby boomers as publicly elected officials just morally , ethically bankrupt of all leadership and skills?
I was born on the ebb of the baby boomer generation. I would like to think there is temporary relief in my generation.

Are there any boomer stars on the horizon we, as a nation, can all rally behind, that won't split the nation as bad as the <ahem> leaders for the last 16 years
No. So, you’re looking for a single person to turn all of this chaos around. There are 1000s working to continue the current trend. Part of the problem is far too few recognize there needs to be a change so, I think you’re headed in the right direction.

Are we just doomed to have bad/awful leaders in this country until the next generation takes over?
The next generation’s leaders won’t be any better than this one. You need to take it a step farther than where you are now. You need to take responsibility for this nation.

Why is this generation producing such awful leaders?
I hope you see it’s time we elected people other than main stream of politicians? You/we are promoting the wrong people to leadership positions in the United States. The leaders you/I elected are doing exactly what they set out to do. They don’t enter a national election without a goal. It doesn’t appear to me they have you and I in mind.

This post has been edited by skepticasm: Mar 1 2006, 02:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 2nd, 2021 - 09:57 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.