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?

1. No. This is much too sweeping a generalization. I'm sure you could name good Baby Boomers of the Left, Right, and Center who hold public office. Besides that, there are lots of people who like all the people you named. Besides, I think you are looking at the past through rose-colored glasses. It may have given us FDR, but it also gave us plenty of vile Dixiecrats. Every generation has its good and bad points.

2. I'm won't claim to have any insight into the future. A lot of people support folks like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, and so on. I don't know if these all count as "Baby Boomers" or not.

3. I don't think the "next generation" is likely to be any better than the current one, or any worse.

4. "Have you stopped beating your husband?"

Well, assuming I accept the premise of this question, I can only speculate about why the Baby Boomers seem to be different than previous generations. The big factor, I think, would be the immense impact of the Great Depression on the generation of the 1930's. (Just as the First World War had an immense impact on the generation of the 1910's.) Right after that, the gigantic challenge of the Second World War came along. There hasn't been a crisis since that came anywhere near that one-two punch. There have been great challenges, of course; the Cold War, the Civil Rights Era, and so on. However, as difficult and traumatic as those events might have been, they can't be compared to the Crash and the Big War. Because of this, the Baby Boomers might be seen as "spoiled." Speaking for myself, I'm very glad I was born in 1956 and not 1936! Maybe I would be a stronger person if I had faced the great challenges of the mid-century; but I'd prefer to lead a life of some comfort. Another Depression and another WWII are too high a price to pay for great leaders.

It is not that I am saying they are producing NO great leaders- it is that NO great leaders are rising to the top. Not one of the leaders of the baby boomer generation are a unifying force in this country- in fact, they are incredibly polarizing. It isn't that we don't have a Reagan- it is that we don't have an Eisenhour. Someone that both sides can respect- even if they disagree.

I have not even a modicum of basic respect for a single person I mentioned- oh, I understand they are powerful, and I have agreed that this policy or that was a good idea- but not one of the "top shelf" level of leaders would I cross the street to shake thier hand- they generally all disgust me.

I thought Bill Clinton was competent, but that is about it- that would be about as far as I would give him. It just goes downhill from there.

McCain seems respectable- but he really hasn't been able to "break into the bigtime" would be my statement on that.

Is Barak Obama a boomer? I thought he was younger than that.

No respect whatsoever for Guliani. About the same as Clinton there- competent enough- but that is as far as that goes.

When you talk about Dixie crats- none of them really rose to the top. Truman did, Eisenhour did, FDR did, JFK did.

Do you see what I am saying a bit here?

There very well may be great poeple of that generation- of course there are in fact- just none of them rising to the top spots!

CR,

You need to define what the BB generation is. Then you need to determine who hired whom when you talk of national leadership. Finally, you need to determine that BB leadership has been poorer than other leadership.

I frankly see no difference. You'll have to show me, even though I'm not from Missouri.

Here's a little fodder for your research and analysis: Bill Gates, balanced budget, Korea, Richard M. Nixon.

Boy- you BBs are prickly- but us Generation X "slackers" don't care much for it LOL (really j/k)

I am talking Elected leaders here- and there was once a saying "our leaders reflect those who elected them" or some such- and as such, they have been very, very poor indeed.

Of all of them, Clinton I don't have any hard feelings towards- but I don't consider him exactly President fodder either- but, going back all the way to say, LBJ- there hasn't been much to sneeze at there- a long litany of very bad presidents.

Let me put it this way- even during Ike's presidency- or after- his polar opposites respected him. I am not so sure about JFK- he did have some nasty skelatons- but, even before his assasination- he seems to have garnered alot of respect from every political angle- even though they may not have liked his politics- though, of course, there was the usual religious vitriol considering he was a Catholic.

Well, Nixon, LBJ, competent- but you respect them personally as a human being? Carter- decent enough individual- and a guy I could hang with- but his presidency, whether or not he deserved the scorn he receieved, never galvanized the nation as a man of vision- and then it just gets worse and worse from there. Pretty much since Bush 41, the BBs have been large and in charge.

Nothing great and some barely good has come from them. I think the best years there were was the first 2 years of the Clinton presidency- and that gets back to "balanced budget" you mentioned- but except for that very brief period- the country has been on a down hill roll, and a very fast one, since the baby boomers first came into power, as business folk and political leaders- slowly assuming the mantles of power from the WW2 guys.

Gates is a great man- don't get me wrong- and a very bright star at that- but from my view- a very rare star.

I guess we Gen Xers are a sullen and hopeless lot of black clothes wearing code writing slackers- but hey, that is our cross to bear- but, I certainly hope our generation does a little better- but we don't have too many good examples at this point- you guys at least had the WW2 folks to emulate- what do we have? GW ? Clinton?

You still haven't defined the BB generation. What birthdates do you have in mind? I've seen several date ranges, so maybe I'm not in the BB generation, maybe I am.

It's a simple question. If I was prickly about it, sorry. However, you seem a bit defensive too, so there you go. Listen: I did not make up the names BB or X generation. I think it's a silly way to look at history or current events, especially when birthdates aren't given. VS states '56, I'm '52, my sister was '38, oldest bro '45, next one '47.

Give me a clue. What do you mean by BB generation? What birthdate range? You might want to clarify the range that consitutes the X generation too. I don't think everyone has read that book. I haven't, so this needs clarification. This also happens to be your core argument, that there are differences between generations.

I don't think this has been established, but I do accept that it is a popular way to try and figure things out, sort of like splitting history into decades. I guess it's as good a categorization as any, but let's get a solid sense of what the categories are.

Oh- I misunderstood your questions I guess- my bad-the most usual numbers I heard were from the American official involvement in WW2- 1941 (which means my mom just made the cusp of that one) - to 1958- 3 years after the end of the major hostilities of the Korean war- and there is a gap there- because from 1958 to 1965 - I was born in 65, and it is usually considered, by alot of writers-your baliwick I think- I remember reading back in the 80s some famous author that coined the phrase- but it was placed there, because I guess the first boomers started breeding in large numbers about then. And for some reason, I keep hearing that "generation xers" ended around the end of the 70s.

But for the most part, I kind of agree with the 1941 to 1958. You think that is reasonable? Pretty much, if you think about it- soldiers marry and get thier wives pregnant about the time they are leaving for war or returning from - and pretty much ended 3 years after major hostilites of the Korean war- so that makes sense to me. I am sure there is room for fluctuation.

I have always taken great interest in the boomers because of my grandfather- he had alot to say about them- most of it bad, or at least crotchety- he never was very mean spirited about anything but those that supported the Vietnam war- him losing a son to it and all- and of course, every that knew that son agrees he was the best of all the boys.

It is funny- because, alot of polls finds us "X'ers" closer to our WW2 generation grandparents in values and politics than our parents- not suprising for those that have raised children I suppose.

I came up with this subject one night scanning about this figure or that in politics today- and after looking at the list- I had a "beavis and butthead momemt"= "is there anyone here that DOESN'T SUCK" -

And, after trying, with the acception of the trainwreck of an admin we have now- trying to be objective - just don't see a single person there that I can say "now THERE is a leader I could respect"- especially when I am disagreeing with them.

Take- oh, Barry Goldwater for instance- I often don't agree with his positions- but I always respected him- can't find a single boomer I could say that about in Politics- some in business- like Gates- but not politics.

Okay CR, this puts the current trailing age edge of the BB at about 48 years of age, and the leading edge at 62. It's a span of 14 years, which fits into a general idea that a generation spans 20 years.

GWB - 59
WJC - 59

All the other POTUs are way out of the defined BB generation. The two presidents from this generation are toward the leading edge, so it looks like we have quite a broad field to examine for potential presidents. To answer the debate questions, sure, it's possible to get good political leadership out of the baby bubble that occurred after WWII. This leadership needs to be elected, of course.

So why aren't we getting the good leadership? Is it that the entire BB generation is incompetent? Or is it that politics attracts only the incompetent? Or is it that politics brings on incompetence?

If an entire generation is incompetent, how did we build the Internet? Continue the space program? Change the way we do business to be more ecologically sound? Why did the stock markets boom so much in the 1990s? Where did herbal tea come from, alternative presses, copyrighted music still worth millions? The list can go on for miles of text, so we have to conclude that an entire generation is never incompetent.

But what makes leaders from this generation incompetent? Aye, it's a bigger question than I can answer. However, I reject the notion that it is a generational problem.

Regarding the Gen X thing, I think it is a load of poo as well. What we are probably looking at if there are differences are the simple differences in ages. Older people think differently than younger people, and this difference has nothing to do with when one was born. We all go through the same stages in life. Some of the details change, but the general movement is the same.

I don't blame anyone in the Gen X group for being resentful that some forgotten author got a best seller off of them by calling them slackers. It's a cheap shot, but cheap shots sell books and make money. Does that justify the attacks? I don't think so, but I'm not exactly rich either.

The Generation Gap was big press in the 1960s and 1970s. It was repeated so many times that it became a part of conventional wisdom. I think the idea has survived to this day and seems to tempt confrontation between generations, but when you look at our political situations and how they developed, it really is a bunch of hot air. Youth and age are the universal and eternal confrontational positions. The old farts have always screwed things up and the young punks are always wrong. Then youth gets older, has kids and the position changes.

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

I think painting everyone with the same broad brushstroke is wrong.

I like my two senators, Stabenow and Levin. Stabenow is a baby boomer, I think. Levin might be a little older.

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

Let's make one thing clear: It is the political machinery that insists on the divisive politicking which characterizes the opposition as all-out villains and tries to place its candidate at the right hand of God. As long as this is going on, there will NEVER be a boomer star that we "can all rally behind".

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

As long as corporations can exert more influence on election campaigns than the voting citizens of this country, we will have some pretty abysmal choices on the ballot. And just why, CruisingRam, do you think it is going to change with the next generation?

Why is this generation producing such awful leaders?

Because we are electing the best (?) leaders money can buy. Take away the strong corporate influence, and we might have actual contests involving candidates who stand for something other than the status quo.

Is the entire generation of baby boomers as publically elected officials just morally , ethically bankrupt of all leadership and skills? No, nor do they seem to be quite as bankrupt of rational skills as some Gen-Xs. Last time I checked, Condi isn't an elected official or legislator....

Of the folks on your list, only two could theoretically be described as bankrupt of leadership and skills, those being Hillary Clinton and Condi. Hillary has ridden the coattails and avoided ever actually leading, and Condi, never having stood for election, is a somewhat unknown factor where leadership is concerned. As for the rest, ascending to the Presidency or even Congressional leadership does take a great deal of both skill and leadership. It also takes a lot of compromise, because politics is the art of compromise. Our leaders don't become so on the basis of their birth, but rather as a result of a very competitive process.

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 Not with deeply divisive issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the role of religion in public life, and national sovereignty and survival in play. I don't buy into PE's cynical indictment of corporations as the root of our problems. I do agree with the principle that there are many out there in our political landscape who either deliberately or inadvertently exacerbate the divisions. One of the key players in this overwrought drama is the media. Setting aside any questions of bias, the simple fact is that all of journalism relies on "the story." And as any first year creative writing student will tell you, all stories rely upon drama as their engine, whether or not the story is fiction. Political drama makes a better story for the media... so they play up the drama.

Are we just doomed to have bad/awful leaders in this country until the next generation takes over? No, and 'tis a wondrously arrogant to assume that the next generation's leaders will be any better.

Why is this generation producing such awful leaders? For the same reason that it produces some pretty darn good ones as well. Because its a generation of humans.

The classic Baby Boom birthdate range is 1946-1964. I was born in '65 myself so have not considered myself a Boomer. I am currently reading a new book called "The Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy" by Leonard Steinhorn that you might want to read. It is at a times a bit defensive, but then, it IS a defense. LOL

I was raised by "Greatest Generation" parents who had lived through the Depression and WWII. I probably did inherit more of their values and traits than my older siblings because I didn't have the opportunity to be sidetracked by the great social upheavals of the late 60s and early 70s -- I was a preschooler and primary-grader then. My brothers who were in their teens at that time got swept up into drugs and anarchy and haven't quite found their way back, somehow.

But there were also plenty of Boomers who didn't go down that road, and generalizing all of them as unfit for leadership doesn't help.

Our "Generation X" is one I've never cared to be associated with. I'm certainly no slacker. But perhaps I just resist being characterized as a permanent representative of a generation, rather than a human being in my own right.

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

Regardless of what the definition of a baby boomer is, or what we can agree is morally and/or ethically bankrupt, it just seems to me that really fair, uncorrupt, sensible, straight-shooting, people-serving candidates are not tempted to run for the highest office, and when they do, they lose big.

In history, there have been bad presidents. Perhaps more "bad" ones than "good" ones. So I don't see a correlation with Baby Boomers=bad leaders, here. I see a downward historical trajectory, overall, though. But I think this has to do more with the sensationalist media, the corrupt Washington environment, and negative campaign tactics. I don't see Baby Boomer-ness as being on a level with these variables.

In my opinion, there are a handful of good people on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and in the House. Just a handful.

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

I thought John McCain could've been this kind of a star. I think Russ Feingold could be.

McCain got smeared badly in 2000. It's become a kill or be killed kind of environment, which encourages evil to rise to the top.

Kinda reminds me of a scene from the Beverly Hillbillies:

Granny: “Remember what William Jennings Bryan said, ‘Fight hard, but fight clean!’”

Jethro: “But, you ain't fightin' clean, Granny!”

Granny: “Course I ain't! William Jennings Bryan was a loser!”

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?

I think we're doomed to have bad leaders until the whole system changes. The two party corporatist system encourages corruption. Corporations are represented very well. Ordinary people aren't. The public has come to accept personal issues over policy issues in elections. And on and on.

I don't see how these trends can be reversed easily. We're ... hosed.

Backing up Vibiana, from what I’ve read the Baby Boomer dates are 1948-1964. I read once where I’m a “third quartile tail ender”. OK.

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

They are just a victim of the system. The ethically bankrupt machine that is our national political system will just continue to crank out more ethically bankrupt leaders. I have no doubt that many of the boomer leaders would be excellent politicians if they were given autonomy from their respective organization.

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

I know several state/local boomers that are excellent political leaders. Many don’t want to take it to the next level because of the “system”.

I have my own theories for the “great divide”, best left for another thread.

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

Until you change the system, the X’ers, Gen D’ers (digital generation) will continue down the path of their lemming predecessors.

Is the entire generation of baby boomers as publically elected officials just morally , ethically bankrupt of all leadership and skills?
It is not a generation issue but a “people” problem. Politics obviously does not attract the best at all levels.

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

Mitt Romey




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.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/topa...pe=C&cycle=2002

Top 20 PAC Contributors to Federal Candidates, 2001-2002*
DEMS | REPUBS | ALL
PAC Name Total Amount Dem Pct Repub Pct
National Assn of Realtors
$3,648,526 47% 53%
Laborers Union
$2,814,200 88% 12%
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America
$2,813,753 89% 11%
National Auto Dealers Assn
$2,578,750 34% 66%
American Medical Assn
$2,480,972 39% 61%
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees
$2,423,500 96% 3%
Teamsters Union
$2,390,003 86% 14%
United Auto Workers
$2,339,000 99% 1%
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$2,249,300 96% 4%
Carpenters & Joiners Union
$2,243,000 77% 22%
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
$2,200,350 99% 1%
National Beer Wholesalers Assn
$2,065,250 21% 79%
Credit Union National Assn
$1,951,933 44% 56%
National Assn of Home Builders
$1,924,600 38% 62%
Service Employees International Union
$1,886,662 89% 10%
National Education Assn
$1,833,000 91% 8%
United Food & Commercial Workers Union
$1,726,474 98% 2%
Communications Workers of America
$1,722,300 100% 0%
Ironworkers Union
$1,656,000 88% 12%
American Bankers Assn
$1,630,019 35% 65%

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

That was a pretty half baked attempt there Ted. You do realize that a PAC isn't the only way one can donate money to a politician right? You have massive individual donations, you have lobbying, you have support for things like corporate hosted fundraisers and parties (inaugural party ring a bell - That thing cost about 41 million, all paid for by corporate contributions) and you now have 527 groups which make in-kind contributions.

If you start adding that up then those contributions heavily outweigh the amount that a few PACs for groups like unions, realtors and lawyers donate.

If you want to actually argue this point then you better be prepared to dig just a little bit deeper than the front page of Open Secrets. You have barely scratched the surface there and you have proven nothing.

The fact that you are completely wrong about the state of corporate political donations that has absolutely nothing to do with corporations being "evil", I don't see where anyone made that claim in this thread so you must have pulled it from your book of Blanket Generalizations About Liberals.

Not really. Go to the site I posted and see that data. Many politicians receive more than ½ their money from PACs and regardless why would you think that the individual contributions would be distributed differently. Labor unions don’t have “fund raisers”?

Clearly the Unions have the big PACs. So even if their individual contributions are less they make it up in PACs. Some unions even use Dues (without member concent) to fund their Dem buddies.

Show me some real data please.

Here is Pelosi:
Source of Funds:
(How to read this chart / methodology)


Individual contributions $312,083 (42.6%)

PAC contributions $419,675 (57.3%)

Candidate self-financing $0

Other $314 (0.0%)
PAC Contribution Breakdown
(How to read this chart / methodology)


Business $132,600 (39.9%)

Labor $185,000 (55.6%)

Ideological/Single Issue $14,975 (4.5%

NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
Top Contributors
1 International Assn of Fire Fighters $10,000
1 Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union $10,000
1 Office & Professional Employees Union $10,000
1 United Transportation Union $10,000
5 Human Rights Campaign $9,975
6 AFL-CIO $5,000
6 American Bankers Assn $5,000
6 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $5,000
6 American Postal Workers Union $5,000
6 American Resort Development Assn $5,000
6 Boeing Co $5,000
6 Bricklayers Union $5,000
6 Carpenters & Joiners Union $5,000
6 Communications Workers of America $5,000
6 Credit Union National Assn $5,000
6 DASHPAC $5,000
6 Fannie Mae $5,000
6 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $5,000
6 Ironworkers Union $5,000
6 Laborers Union $5,000
6 Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn $5,000
6 Metropolitan Life $5,000
6 Microsoft Corp $5,000
6 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $5,000
6 National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $5,000
6 National Education Assn $5,000
6 Painters & Allied Trades Union $5,000
6 Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $5,000
6 Service Employees International Union $5,000
6 Sheet Metal Workers Union $5,000
6 Teamsters Union $5,000
6 UBS Americas $5,000
6 United Auto Workers $5,000
6 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $5,000
6 United Parcel Service $5,000
6 United Steelworkers of America $5,000
6 Wells Fargo $5,000

I don't need to Ted, I do all of the research I mentioned as part of a project I'm involved with and I can assure you that I know far more about the intricacies of political funding than you do so I don't need a lesson there. I know for a fact how the money is distributed because I have done the research, you popped open a page and used someone else's research.

Opensecrets only researches a very limited subset of contributions and if you'd continue on to their "about" page you'd see that. You are presenting this like it is all of the picture or even most of it. It isn't.

However, this doesn't seem to be on topic so I'm not sure why it is relevant we even get into this here. The questions for debate have nothing to do with political donations, campaign finance, or corporations.

Is the entire generation of baby boomers as publically elected officials just morally , ethically bankrupt of all leadership and skills?
Quite the contrary. Leadership skills is all they have. The BB generation is the first to give rise to the idea that it is possible to bluff your way through something -- that to appear competent is better than being competent. For the first time, a generation grew up with television, seeping into their little minds every day. More than that, their Depression-era parents tended to either shield them from the harsh realities that they went through, or take it out on them. (Sweeping generalizations, of course, but you only need a majority of any given group to elect someone.) As a result, this generation tends to have much stronger beliefs in themselves and their own world views, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Polarizing figures appeal to them because ideals are more important than results. And even when they aren't particularly polarizing, other figures will rise up to make sure that they become polarizing.

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
The boomer stars are the horizon now, we just have to wait for them to retire or die off.

Are we just doomed to have bad/awful leaders in this country until the next generation takes over?
Yep. The "I'm right because you're wrong" generation doesn't like to see things in shades of gray -- Clinton tried to buck this with his "third way" politics that went nowhere. He did pretty well, as far as I'm concerned. But he gets no credit because to go that route, you have to p*** off both sides of the issue.

The data show clearly that Dems receive most of their money from Unions, lawyers and those they support in Congress – same for Republicans. My point to PE was that it is not as simple as “the bad corporations”.

The reality is that regardless of what generation the Congress people are from the SYSTEM stinks. All these folks need to raise lots of money to stay in office and the contributors expect something in return for their donations. IMO Until we as a nation deal directly with the mess that is campaign financing we will have the same problem – regardless of the generation from which the lawmakers come.

To answer the original thread title, "Well of course it is", and frankly, I think some of the Boomers that have been denigrated on the thread have been VERY good leaders.

On the other hand, it's interesting to note that after the NEXT election, or POSSIBLY 2012, Boomers will be done. Most generations get only 2 or at most 3 Presidents. For Example -- The Greatest Generation had JFK, Nixon, and GHW Bush {all 3 WW2 vets}. LBJ was older, and sort of a half-way into Eisenhower's generation.

The Parents of the Boomers had -- Eisenhower and Truman {both WW1 vets}. Then add Reagan, who came out of turn, so to speak.

Carter was, like LBJ a halfway candidate -- Younger than The Greatest Gen, but older than the Boomers.

Clear Boomers -- clinton and George W. Bush + whoever is elected in '08. By 20012 the challenger may well be from the Gen X crowd.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.