As Yehoshua and I have been discussing in the Who Won? Post, Bush's leadership can be viewed a number of different ways. Bush has showed qualities that some Americans view as indicators of "strong leadership," I am however skeptacle.
Questions for Debate:

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?


2) There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."


3) If not "strong" how would you describe Bush's "leadership"?


4) If Bush can be a "strong leader," how does his "strength" of leadership compare to Past presidents, or historical figures like Martin Luther King or Mandela?


5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?

Yes per the definition.

strength: The ability to maintain a moral or intellectual position firmly.

Bush has maintain his position due to both his intellectual and moral reasons, despite public opinion.

2) There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."

Other qualities per the definition.

strength: The power to resist attack; impregnability.

The polls tend to reflect a boost for Kerry not an attack against Bush. Though more people seem to have decide to vote for Kerry over Bush, it is not because of Kerry Attacks on Bush, or peoples 'anti-Bush' stance, but do to a now understanding of who Kerry is.

strength:Capacity or potential for effective action

Both in Iraq and Afganhistan, Bush was able to overturn the previous governments effectively.

3) If not "strong" how would you describe Bush's "leadership"?

I would describe strong.

4) If Bush can be a "strong leader," how does his "strength" of leadership compare to Past presidents, or historical figures like Martin Luther King or Mandela?

He compares to Churchill. The only man in a voice that points to the evil doers and says, 'there they are.'

5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

No. People agree. The question in the poll was not 'after watching the commentary by FNC do you feel Bush is a strong leader.' The question was, 'who is the stronger leader.' And Bush took 53% to Kerry's 36%.

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?

Well this is entirely subjective subject matter, but so what. I have to say no. They are not equivalent, consistency may be a characteristics of strong leadership, but in and of itself it is not, it is just being consistent.


2) There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."

Yes, there are, but I would again say that part of being a "strong leader" is consistency, Bush has not been consistent, therefore his strength as a leader is weakened.

3) If not "strong" how would you describe Bush's "leadership"?

Self serving.

Any who happen to share his beliefs consider him a good leader, those who don't consider him a poor leader. To be an "EFFECTIVE" leader, which may be the better adjective in regards to leadership, one should represent as many people as possible. Bush makes no effort in this area. You're either with him or against him. He makes little attempt at inclusion, both domestically and internationally, isolates himself from opposing positions, and disregards those who don't buy into his self serving approach. He does what he wants for himself and his inner circle, if anyone, or no one, happens to agree with it it is purely coincidental.


5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

The charade of talking points is just the public face of what strength he does have, to fully understand his strengths you would have sit and talk with him, allow him free range to move subject matter and make the correlations he feels relevant. In the absence of that, we have to try to piece the various public components together, not something many people can do.

As for the second part of the question, it has the same effect as any other type of propaganda, the ignorant and uninformed will succumb to it and parrot it endlessly, the informed and enlightened will take it on a case-by-case, issue by issue basis. The effect it has is directly proportional to the demographics of the populous.


P.S., I'm going to vote NO in the poll, becasue I don't think the word "leader" is applicable, I'll give him credit for having, and being of strong conviction (at this point in his life anyway). But just as every sadist needs a masochist to get satisfaction, a leader needs followers. Bush doesn't need followers, he's doing what HE wants, anyone who wishes to follow is just brownie points for him.

For me to answer this question I did something helpful. I detached myself from the current politics that inspired this thread and asked myself what a strong leader was in a dictionary answer.

For me a strong leader is someone who leads from the front, who unites people, who is open minded, flexible, observant and head and shoulders above those he commands. Who fits this? Men like Hannibal Barca, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Agustavus Adolphus.

When I apply those ideals to Bush he fails them...in fact he fails them all. He doesnt lead from the front. I do not see Bush taking the same sacrifices as the people he is ordering. He certainly doesnt unite people. In fact he is the most divisive US president of all-time in all probability. The citizens of earth at the very least despise him and at the most fear his antics and misguided courses of action. He isnt flexible. I do not see him adapting to hardhips and improvising failed techniques and methods. I am not seeing heads roll that should roll in his administration. He isnt observant base on the simple reality of the source of information on Iraq. He seemed fine on following intel from Saddam's enemies without really questioning their motives.

I think Bush is a horrific leader when I first set my definition for a strong leader and then apply it to him. In fact he would fit my definition of a weak leader. A very weak leader.

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?

I think that I would have to agree wholeheartedly with what kabalus wrote. Being a strong leader does not mean bullheaded no matter what the dictionary says. So no consistency is not equal to strong leadership.

I would describe a strong leader in the following ways:
- Someone that not only has a vision, but is able to inspire others to achieve it.
- Someone that commands respect not because they ask for it or demand it, but because they have earned it. In other words someone people want to follow.
- Someone that makes intelligent decisions based on all of the information available, even if that information changes. As an example - would you consider a military commander to be "strong" if they had some new information about the enemy but refused to use it because they had already laid out their plans?
- Someone that has integrity and honor.
- Someone that is fair

2) There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."
I don't think there is Yehoshua, because he isn't. The poll that started this whole thing first of all was a Gallup poll and we already know how accurate those are. Secondly, just because people don't understand what being a strong leader actually means doesn't make Bush a strong leader.

3) If not "strong" how would you describe Bush's "leadership"?
I would say inept and incompetent. Based on the definition of a strong leader that I cited above, Bush meets none of the criteria. In fact he does almost the very opposite of most of those things.

5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?
Its the "if you say it often enough it becomes true" philosophy at work. By having right-wing outlets like Fox News parrott this stuff people actually start to believe it, even if they are woefully mislead.

How any intelligent person could objectively think Bush was a strong leader when they put their partisan hat aside is beyond me. I don't see how you could rank him in even the top 20 amongst great leaders of our time from a historical perspective.

It is odd that you say 'unites people', 'open minded', and 'flexible' and then example Churchill and Lincoln. Under both Churchill and Lincoln people were not united, they were not open minded and they were not flexible. Lets take Lincoln for example.

UNITE PEOPLE: under Lincoln the south segregated and divided the nation. Lincoln had to start a war to keep the south united. He may have wanted the states to remain united, but he wasn't the cause of unification. When Lincoln started the draft, the Irish of New York started riots. They felt it was unfair to send them into a war they did not believe in. They did not feel that slaves and slavery was anything to unite this nation over.

OPEN MINDED: in his pig-headedness to maintain the United States as one country, he did not listen to his generals and lost most of the start of the war. Doom was certain under Lincolns command and lack of open mindedness. It was until Grant started acting under is own orders that the war changed for the better. Lincoln may have given speeches about open mindedness, but his actions speak louder then his words.

FLEXIBLE: Despite not allowing his generals to run the war, despite allowing slavery to remain in all the states, Lincoln lacked flexibility with abolishinist, using militia's to silence the cries and end the underground railroad. He tolerated the slave like conditions for the poor who worked in the North while attacking the better slave conditions in the South.

It is odd to us these terms to describe a "strong leader" in the face of the definition of the word 'strong.' On definition defines the word "strength" as "The ability to maintain a moral or intellectual position firmly." How does someone working towards the goals of open mindedness, flexibility, and unification when faced with the need to stand firm? How can one stand firm, yet be open minded to others?

But then again, this is your definition of a strong leader, not mine. I see open mindedness as a fake action. No one is truly open in mind to hear others words. And those who are, never have much mind to added to the topic. I think your definition is not of a strong leader but a cunning leader. One with ability to fake everyone into a sense of open minded, flexible and unification. Like in the move, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" where the women trick the man into think it was his ideas, when it was there.

This is positively the very first time I have ever heard anyone espouse the theory that neither Abraham Lincoln nor Winston Churchill were other than strong leaders. It doesn't surprise me, though, that if such a belief WERE held by someone, that they might also believe that Bush WAS a strong leader.

I truly wonder if Lincoln or Churchill would have mixed up terrorists names, like George Bush did 10 separate times, especially as they were trying to sell the War on Iraq as a War on Terror.

Besides Lincoln and Churchill, Jefferson, Roosevelt, Adams, Washington, Eisenhower and many others, there were many far stronger leaders than Bush 43. Bush's aggressive and intolerant posture rivals only the oppositely affected passive and submissive nature of Neville Chamberlain in poor decision-making.

I am still waiting for the treatise concerning Churchill's weakness.

Good Spin. Almost had me there. No where did "I" say they were not strong leaders.

I said based upon kalabus definition of a strong leader ("For me a strong leader is someone who leads from the front, who unites people, who is open minded, flexible, observant and head and shoulders above those he commands."), two of his examples (Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln) were not strong leaders based upon the qualities of "unites people, who is open minded, flexible" because they did not do this by any means.

Sorry if I seemed confusing, but if you look at my first post, Churchill is my example of a strong leader.

Good spin right back at ya

I noticed that you have attacked Kabalus' choices for strong leaders by suggesting that they don't have those attributes (and yes you did do that), but you haven't addressed the attributes themselves.

So taking the examples aside, perhaps you should comment on the qualities of a strong leader rather than on the men themselves. The question you posed for debate was about qualities of a leader, not examples of people.

Now if Kabalus had simply said that he felt that X, Y, and Z were strong leaders and Bush wasn't then you could have compared them, but you did completely ignore his definition (and mine by the way too, which is similar).

Why is it necessary to link the same web dictionary to the same post three times?

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?

There are two key words in the concept of this post. One is “strength” and the other “leadership.”

There is more to strength than merely pushing ahead with an idea whether or not one is on the right track. Strength is often manifested in gentleness (BTW: I’m not talking about bin Laden, or anything like that here) rather than combativeness. It is often shown more in someone constantly looking at or reassessing events as political environments change rather than riding a rail line straight into oblivion.


2) There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."

I think flexibility, sensitivity, (if Dick Cheney will excuse me) vision, openness are signs of strength, but one’s Bush doesn’t seem to have mastered. Here’s an example. A man beats his wife up on a regular basis. Sure, he has the brute strength to do it, but does this “strength” carry over into other areas. Is the guy not, in fact, a coward? Would he take this kind of liberty with some guy down at a bar? Outward displays of “strength” are often signs of inward weakness.


3) If not "strong" how would you describe Bush's "leadership"?

I’m not sure Bush is either “strong” or a “leader.” One of my professors once jokingly pointed out that a leader is “someone who determines which direction the people are heading and runs out and gets in front of them.”

There is ample evidence that Karl Rove new well before Bush was ever Governor of Texas, which way people were heading. Did we not know this from Newt Gingrich and his “Contract for America?” The March, 2003 edition of The Texas Monthly tells how Karl Rove carefully selected Bush as the candidate to put out in front of the pack. (I can’t assess TM on line right now, but I'll try to get a copy from a used books store). A good book for explaining how Rove knew who to look for, try What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank.


4) If Bush can be a "strong leader," how does his "strength" of leadership compare to Past presidents, or historical figures like Martin Luther King or Mandela?

As Lloyd Bentsen might have said to Bush, “Sir, you’re no Nelson Mandella or Martin Luther King, Jr."

5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

I think Shakespeare had the answer long ago. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Hamlet III, ii.

Of course George is a strong leader to the people who wish to follow him. George Bush is a conservative and conservatives, for the most part, make better followers than liberals.
Does George Bush have leadership skills... I don't think so, but I am not a follower of him. Of course unlike many Patriots I have never seen the Presidency as a leadership position.

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?

Of course not. You can have a strong leader that will sway with the wind. There is one thing that make a strong leader. The ability to bend other's will to theirs. That is it. That is all a leader is. Bush bends no wills to his. In fact he probably bends to others within his administration.

Very well I'll address your characteristics plus kalabus'

Let's start with kalabus'

1. leads from the front
   Obviously a strong leader is a leader.
   
2. who unites people
   Depends on how the people are united. Saddam united people under fear. Dear is the quality of a strong leader.
   
3. who is open minded
   As I mentioned before, I see open mindedness as a fake action. No one is truly open in mind to hear others words. And those who are, never have much mind to added to the topic.
   
4. flexible
   Flexible defers from my definition of a strong leader: the ability to maintain a moral or intellectual position firmly. You can not be firm and flexible.
   
5. observant
   Yes. Always a good quality in a leader.
   
6. head and shoulders above those he commands
   This as pointed out in Machiavelli’s Prince is not for the protection of the people but for the protection of the leader to prevent being over thrown, or to prevent a rise in power through the ranks.

Now to yours, Cube Jockey:

1. Being a strong leader does not mean bullheaded
   What is bullheaded?
   
2. Someone that not only has a vision, but is able to inspire others to achieve it.
   This is a good leadership quality, though a bit depective if used the wrong way. A person who uses charisma to tricking people into achieving things that benefit their self centered vision.
   
3. Someone that commands respect not because they ask for it or demand it, but because they have earned it. In other words someone people want to follow.
   That is only define by history. Very few people have a commanded respect that is not based on fame envy.
   
4. Someone that makes intelligent decisions based on all of the information available, even if that information changes.
   The ability to adapt to change is important but it must never get in the way of B. If B. is lost to adaption gone awry then that leadership quality is lost.
   
5. Someone that has integrity and honor.
   Very true, but it must not be false like Nixon. When the Nixon tapes were released there was this huge let down when people heard him cuss and rant. The leaders honor has to be ingrained not conditioned.
   
6. Someone that is fair
   Mercy is a quality. Fair is important to a leader who judges people

So what to mine?

Woa I have been popular in here while I was watching the game

First off it wasnt under Lincoln that the south left the union SC split before he reached Washington. It was because of his election. It wasnt Lincoln that divided the nation it was the election of Lincoln the northernor that was the final straw. A whole series of events had taken place before Lincoln. Kansas-Nebraska act, Harper's Ferry, Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas, The compromise of 1850 the Dred Scott case, the attack of anti-slavery newspaper's in Alton, Il etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.......etc etc. It wasnt Lincoln who divided the nation....in fact Lincoln didnt even attack slavery. The south left because of the huge pressure that had been building for decades was finally spilled over with Lincoln a northernor being elected. In short Lincoln didnt divide the country...The country was already divided. Bush has caused this current schism. The cause the reaction can and is all attributed to him and him alone. As for his openmindness you are "misinterpreting" the situation. Lincoln kept switching unsuccesful generals until he found Grant. Lincoln didnt remain loyal to broken horses. This is why he went from Mcdowel to Maclellan to Pope back to Maclellan to Hooker to Burnside...etc etc because he was open-minded because he was flexible....the result? Grant and victory. Bush keeps the same failing cronies. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Tenet all failures. Just for reference dont try to pull civil war balogna on me. I have a personal civil war library.

Churchill was dishonored and considered unpopular by the British GOVERMENT prior to WWII but during the time of need the people of Britain and Europe did rally around him. He was the commanding voice from Britain. He was the rock that those of Europe listened to as they openly and secretly battled Nazism. It wasnt Roosevelt. Churchill killed his beloved empire to secure victory. Churchill deferred to American Military commanders to ensure cooperation and alliance. Bush spit on the UN. Bush refused to relinquish any authority in order to help the overall objective. If Churchill would have been like Bush the end result would have been a disunited army and the continuation of the Nazi empire. If Lincoln would have taken a page from the Bush book Lee and his generals would have kept walking all over Mcdowell as Grant won meaningless victory after meaningles victory in the west. In fact if Lincoln would have played the Bush game Bush would currently be the president of the CSA.

Saddam didnt unite people with fear he controlled them with fear. Uniting from my personal opinion is something done out of want.

1. If someone is bullheaded that would be equivalent of saying they were strong willed, stubborn, etc. Being a strong leader does not mean that you never change your position. I originally posted this in the political humor thread, but it illustrates the point nicely, take a look.
2. Yes, I didn't put a qualification on it, but there is such a thing as a good vs. a bad vision. I'm not sure what exactly you are getting at by your response to that qualification though.
3. It isn't defined by history, you can tell this about a person just by meeting them. I'm sure that you have encountered people at work etc in your life that you just really admired and wanted to work hard for, I know that I have. The same goes for a president or any leader whether in the military world or in the civilian world. Bush clearly does not have this quality.
4. I'm not sure what you mean here, one should always work with the latest information and if that happens to change your vision then maybe that vision was wrong to begin with. If you think about this outside the realm of politics, I'm sure that you'll see I'm right. If your "vision" is that you are going to start a venture capital empire and invest in dot com companies and then they all start tanking, I'd think you would find someplace else to invest your money.
5. What do you mean by false? Are you talking about Bush or Kerry (or both)?
6. By fair, I didn't necessarily mean mercy, but I suppose that is one interpretation. What I probably should have said is the ability to compromise and negotiate.

I never said Lincoln divided the nation, i said he didn't unite the nation.



Grant decide to no longer take plans from Washington and strike out on his own. He felt he couldn't afford to wait for Lincoln and the rest to make up their minds, and fed up with Lincoln's lack of listing to him. How was Lincoln open minded
when he wouldn't listen to his only winning general?

Lincoln changing generals had nothing to do with being flexible, but because he was trying to win the war. When it comes to war, you can not be flexible with the your generals.

1) Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")?

No. A flexible reed will bend with the wind and survive. Bush's much praised consistency is nothing more than blind faith and if the history of the world teaches us anything, then it should be that as human beings we are not infallible!


2) There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."

None that I can think of.


3) If not "strong" how would you describe Bush's "leadership"?

Incompetent.
Divisive, confrontational, arrogant and down right stupid.


4) If Bush can be a "strong leader," how does his "strength" of leadership compare to Past presidents, or historical figures like Martin Luther King or Mandela?

Bush compares badly, even when compared to his father who was a prudent and shrewd man.


5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

Bush makes his supporters feel good because he talks about strength, drapes himself in the flag, uses the US military as a foreign policy tool and refuses to listen to any perspective that might run counter to his own.

He is as a man playing loud music with his eyes shut tight as he races down the road in a powerful car.

Consistency is a part of strong leadership, as long as the leader isn't consistently wrong.

Flip-flopping is the catch phrase of the GOP. A leader must not only be strong; s/he must also be effective. That means paying attention and being able to take all available information into consideration, not throwing caution to the wind in one's zeal to wage war.

Without the Republican majority in both houses of Congress, I suspect that we would see something that bore no similarity to "strong" leadership. In addition, without Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney, I don't think anyone would have that perception of Bush Jr. being a strong leader.

It is the leadership of an idealogue. He describes himself as a man of faith. In the Bible it says that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That could well describe his belief in Saddam Hussein possessing all these weapons of mass destruction that never materialized.

The Bible quotation, however, had nothing whatsoever to do with invading a country or waging war.

It's important to have faith, but it is vital to have hard evidence before committing the lives of tens of thousands of your subjects, er, citizens to invade a country that is not at war with you.

I don't know--when did George W. Bush ever risk his life for a cause as Martin Luther King, Jr., or Nelson Mandela did? Was he ever jailed for the sake of helping someone else or fighting for a cause? What self sacrifice has George W. Bush ever shown in his life?

When Bush dressed in the flight suit and landed a plane aboard the USS Lincoln , that was obviously staged for propaganda purposes. The Republicans have consistently suggested that reelecting George W. Bush is the only way to fend off another terrorist attack within the United States. And yet, they cannot provide proof of this, especially in light of the shoddy job they have done financing Homeland Security to stop the illegal immigration across our borders (it isn't just Mexicans anymore) or by not managing to inspect more than the 5% of incoming cargo ships on our coasts.

There is a saying that if something false is repeated often enough, people start to believe it. That is the Republican strategy. It is a strategy based on fear and misinformation.

I realize you may be speaking from your own experience Yehoshua, but I think you will find that viewpoint very much in the minority.

Open mindedness is a willingness to consider all viewpoints. That does not forfeit the ability to have your own. In fact, doing so often codifies the very beliefs you hold true. However, they can also, if one is truly open, allow for a chance to change and grow. That is very much a trait that a strong leader can possess.

A very good example of this is the time that has passed since the end of the Cold War to today. One of the things that all administrations (in my opinion) since 1988 have struggled with is the shift of the predominant form of conflict from nation-state to a far more decentralized one focused in individual acts of violence (sometimes terror) that often do not have a nation associated with them. And even those that are nation confined (Chechnya as an example) still have the characteristic of being small, individualized conflicts or acts as opposed to the large offensives that we seem to focus on.

9/11 drove that point home. And instead of accepting this change of the nature of geopolitical conflict, we keep looking for nation-states to attack instead of addressing the source(s) of the conflict. Iraq was the most grievous example of this.

Do I ask for consistency from my leader? Yes. But not at the sake of being consistently wrong. Doing so is the pinnacle of arrogance and the very definition of insanity. It takes a far bigger man to admit a change of course based on failed assumptions, in my opinion.

Doc

Some characteristics I believe a good leader should have:

Seek the input of others before making a decision.
Bush cherry-picks what input he chooses to listen to (example: intelligence reports). A good leader will evaluate all information, whether or not it fits his preconceived notions.

Be driven by principle. It is not who is right that is important but what is right.
In my opinion, this is Bush’s biggest failure in leadership. His insistence that every issue is either black or white and he is always right shows a stubbornness and lack of vision that is disturbing in any leader, let alone the “leader of the free world”.

Admit error quickly and be receptive to criticism.
This doesn’t require any explanation. Bush absolutely does not admit to making any errors (e.g. that infamous interview question he couldn’t answer about whether he’d made any mistakes.)

Creativity, vision
Bush’s admitted lack of curiosity and disdain for reading and improving his mind shows a complete lack of creativity. His inability to think beyond the immediate shows an immaturity and total lack of vision.

Practice empathy and forgive as quickly as possible.
I can only base this on opinion, as I do not know the man personally. But, from all indications, my opinion is that Bush would be the kind of person who holds a grudge.

Ask for help when you need it.
Bush is a complete failure at this leadership quality, shown by his inability to even acknowledge that a decision he has made could even be considered wrong.

Be committed to your responsibilities.
Bush’s responsibility is to the American people. His statement of “I’m the president; I don’t have to explain myself” speaks volumes to his failure in that regard.

Develop a Plan then work the Plan.
One of the basic tenets of leadership, and Bush fails miserably. As has been said many times before, planning a war is short-term thinking without planning the PEACE.

Be the best you can be in everything you do.
I think his track record speaks for itself. I don’t think any company would hire him based on his experience, let alone "success". After many years drinking and partying through various colleges, he joined the Guard (and we all know how that went), ran Harken Energy into the crapper, mismanaged (but made a tidy sum on) the Texas Rangers baseball team. Bush's Business Record. From there he used Daddy’s connections to become governor of Texas (essentially a part-time job). The only appropriate word for Bush’s work ethic is slacker.

The ability to reflect on the past and learn from it.
Bush is a complete and utter failure in this regard. “Stay the course” no matter what. ‘Nuff said.

Mental toughness
No one can lead without realizing he will face criticism. A leader needs to be mentally tough; not mean, not stubborn, but able to make a decision and face the consequences of that decision without laying the blame on others. The difference between a mean leader and a tough-minded leader is one who sees things as they are and is willing pay the price. The presidency carries a great deal of responsibility; but that responsibility is to the American people, not special interests.

It’s all well and good to be “a regular guy”, someone the regular Joes can relate to, but being liked cannot be the #1 factor for a true leader. Single-minded obsession is a huge character flaw in anyone; in a leader it can be (and has been) fatal.

Seek the opinion of others before making a decision?
Well, if Mr. Bush doesn't do so, what do you call his cabinet? Your reference to intelligence reports is interesting. All of congress as well as British leadership believed these reports, as did Mr. Kerry. How again did he not seek opinions? Surely this wasn't a reference to the UN....

Be driven by principle
This is where Mr. Bush as excelled! Let's discuss Mr. Kerry whom has been driven by politics. Need we discuss how his story has changed with popular opinion?

blah.. blah.. blah

This is the same old story, different post. The reality is that Mr. Bush has made some unpopular decisions. This is the mark of a true leader. Consider public opinion of Mr. Reagan. Many people (I can think of many liberals) whom possessed disdain for Reagan and his policies. People denounced him publicly and privately for years, but it turns out that now he's "one of the greats".

The war in Iraq was supported unequivocally in the beginning, and I know no one whom returned the money saved in tax cuts. Mr. Bush has taken a stand on gay marraiges, whether it's popular with moderates or not. As a staunch republican, I am NOT the biggest Bush fan, but it sure seems that he's attempted to lead by example... not by popularity. Kerry would happily give up national sovereignty to the UN. Kerry would happily denounce his morals for a jump in the polls, etc, etc... Who's the best leader???....

Well, you have shown that Bush is strong, but you have not shown that he is a strong LEADER! There are several qualities of being a great leader that you have not inlcuded. Some people see Bush as a strong leader because he never wavers. I will give you that. He does not. The question is, is that a good quality all the time?

Being a great leader involves getting people to believe in you and trust you. More importantly, being a strong leader means that you have a vision, an ability, to see bumps in the road that others can't see. Bumps that are miles ahead. Being a strong leader means that you can continually adjust your leadership to meet the needs of those who follow you. To do that, you need to have a vision of what lies ahead and the ability to admit when you made a mistake and change direction before you steer too far off course. Every leader makes a bad decision now and then. The great ones have the courage to admit when they were wrong, learn from it, and not make the same mistakes again. Have you ever heard Bush say, "Well, maybe I made a mistake doing it this way. We are going to adjust the plan now and do.....instead." All I ever hear from Bush is "It's hard work, we're working hard." You almost expect he's going to say, "I worked over 40 hours last week!"

Here's an example of Bush's vision: 10 years ago, Major League Baseball instituted a Wild Card to add to the playoffs and increase fan interest and generate revenue. Every owner voted for the Wild Card with the exception of one, George W. Bush. Bush said "I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right. This is an exercise in folly." Sound familiar?? Ten years later, the Wild Card is still viewed as a huge success. This past weekend, sellout crowds packed Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Houston to see games that decided a playoff spot. Without the Wild Card, these games would be meaningless.

What if Bush is also wrong about his "convictions" on stem cell reseach, Iraq, etc. Does he have the ability to adjust his thinking? MLB could afford for Bush to be wrong on the Wild Card because they didn't need him. We can't afford for him to be wrong, but convinced he is right.

If you are strong in your convictions and you are right, then you are a hero.

If you are strong in your convictions and you are wrong, then you are a one-term President.

Bush is not a strong leader. He is AFRAID to admit mistakes and AFRAID to see others' viewpoints.

I liked Bush for a long time, especially after 9/11. I would still support him today if he had any ability to lead and any ability to change his many flawed ways of thinking on many issues.

Interesting debate technique. I'll have to try that the next time I hear the same rhetoric from the Bush camp.

You conveniently left out the key element of being driven by principle: not WHO is right, but WHAT is right. Bush is driven by ego and his own agenda. If you believe sticking to your guns, whether right or wrong, is being principled, you are welcome to that belief, but I don't subscribe to it.

The first part of this is blatantly untrue. Plenty of people (myself included) did not support the war in Iraq "in the beginning". Iraq was an attempt (successful, I might add) to divert attention from the REAL terrorist threat posed by Al Qaeda. And as for tax cuts, I didn't get one, so I couldn't return it, but I do know of several who donated theirs to various causes in protest (it was in some long-ago threads; I don't have time to look for it).

As for the smears against Kerry, I thought this thread was about whether or not Bush was a good leader?

I am not surprised a Bush supporter espouses this one-size-fits-all explanation. I wonder, though, if such supporters really believe such explanations or appoint themselves apologists taking one for the Republican team by spreading anecdotal simplifications.

Is consistency equivalent to strong leadership (i.e. not "flip-flopping")? / Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

Regarding Bush's refusal to revisit past decisions and campaign stops:



To illustrate how Bush's refusal to be perceived as anything but "strong" is another Slate article. In 1994 Clinton gave NK a Carebear package in return for their cooperation in dismantling and inspections. The merits of the freebie can be derided as appeasement but it is a fact that replacing presidents shouldn't disown international agreements out of hand because said agreement doesn't jive with the replacing president's philosophy.

A few years after Clinton's accord it was clear we weren't going to hold up our end of the bargain. The financing went awry. Jong-il upped the ante when it was clear Bush wouldn't attend to the issue diplomatically. Jong-il had almost two years to process radioactive fuel rods into plutonium. Militarily committed in other places we can't rattle our saber to any great effect. As talks resumed this summer Bush put a proposal on the table. Guess what? It's very similar to Clinton's. Difference is Jong-il has had time to bring more leverage to the bargaining table in exchange for more Carebear love.

There must be more than one quality that makes Bush a "strong leader" so now, with no reference to Bush's consistency, are there other factors that make Bush a "strong leader."

His bullheaded domestic approach is perceived as the stuff of strong leadership by social conservatives to the detriment of real, across-the-board conservatives who refuse to get sucked into a culture war.

One-size-fit-all? We are trying to develop a clear definition of a 'strong leader'. How else do develop the definition without removing definitions that do not define a strong leader. The objective of the definition is to create a one-size-fits-all definition of a strong leader.

As to my beliefs, why wouldn't I say them? Am I suppose to be some mindless robot that exerts nothing more then what my commanders tell me? Am I suppose to remain on talking points with the GOP leaders? Or am I free to choose my own mind? And in making a choice am I open minded?

Maybe what makes the attack on open mindedness so cut off from the remainder of the world seems to be due to the views of open mindedness by the masses. I, unfortunately for you Lesly, tend to open mindedness as a weakness of todays societies need to make everything equal. As experience and observance demonstrate time and time again, the ability to make things equal is achieved.

I find it more humorous that in my lack of open mindedness you, Lesly displayed your own lack of open mindedness. If you were truly a student of open mindedness, you would have observed that my point of view was valid and not an "anecdotal simplifications." I should be thankful to you for explaining that "no one is truly open in mind to hear others words" through your example which is above and beyond any I could have created. Yet I feel a sense of sadness that you believe something you can not practice even in defense of that item.

You will be unable to lay out a standard that satisfies everyone's idea of what constitutes a strong leader. You may, however, be able to lay out parameters that satisfies a majority of posters that choose to participate in this thread. If the effort is worth it to you knock yourself out. With a quick scan it doesn't look like the majority agrees with your idea that an element must be absent for strong leadership to be possible (i.e. open mindedness).

If steadfastness and refusal to adapt your opinion in light of unfolding events is a sign of strong leadership Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini fit the bill in purely objective terms. However, since this is a debate site devoted to politics an adjective isn't as easy to prove as a fact. In fact, strong leadership is very interchangeable with other subjective ideals/virtues monopolized by political parties.


How did you confuse loyalty with autonomy? Evidence of both traits are present in both parties.


You are a) applying your own interpretation of open mindedness and attributing that interpretation to me, and b) preaching to the choir in some respects. Whatever the intent of this paragraph it is lost on me or didn't have the desired affect.


Translation: I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks on you!

I make no bones about my dislike for Bush, and thank you for addressing the rest of my post expounding that dislike, too.

As to your "point," I find it humorously ironic that you refute kalabus's definition of strong leadership to include open mindedness and at the same time expect to be shown some slack for your own choice of words. Your point of view that open mindedness is just a buzzword, that open mindedness and strong leadership are exlusionary, are just as easy to refute as kalabus's definition when fine-tuning subjective arguments.

[quote=Lesly]With a quick scan it doesn't look like the majority agrees with your idea that an element must be absent for strong leadership to be possible (i.e. open mindedness).[/quote]

That is true, though I shall continue to argue this one single point. Though people do agree that a strong leader must be open minded, they have yet to make an argument as to how open mindedness is a valid quality in a strong leader.

[quote=Lesly]If steadfastness and refusal to adapt your opinion in light of unfolding events is a sign of strong leadership...[\quote]
Is this a quality that people with the 'lack' of an open mind have? Or is this a quality that 'evil leaders' (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini) have?

[QUOTE=Lesly]However, since this is a debate site devoted to politics an adjective isn't as easy to prove as a fact. In fact, strong leadership is very interchangeable with other subjective ideals/virtues monopolized by political parties.[/QUOTE]

This is true, so which party is open minded?

[quote=Lesly]As to your "point," I find it humorously ironic that you refute kalabus's definition of strong leadership to include open mindedness and at the same time expect to be shown some slack for your own choice of words. Your point of view that open mindedness is just a buzzword, that open mindedness and strong leadership are exlusionary, are just as easily to refute as kalabus's definition when fine-tuning subjective arguments.[/quote]

Then demonstrate your observations. Your endeavors to formulate a comprehensive statement without evidence or examples ultimately destroys your argument. Engage me in an unconditional comprehension of the uncomplicated question of: why? Why do you feel this way? Why under no proof do you resign yourself to consider the ridiculous idea that a “strong leader” requires an “open mind?”

Talk about "same old story, different post"! Unpopular decisions are the mark of a true leader? If - and only if - those "unpopular decisions" also happen to be good ones. If they are idiotic, counterproductive decisions which endanger the future of a country and the well-being of its citizens, I don't see how that can be considered "true leadership" by anyone's definition. I would argue that leadership is based on making appropriate decisions, regardless of their popularity (or lack thereof).


To whom? The members of the Committee To Name the Moon After Ronald Reagan? Sure - nothing new there. To most of those who denounced him publicly and privately during his awful tenure in the White House? Hell, no. To history? That remains to be seen, but I seriously, seriously doubt it. How is this relevant? Are you arguing that every hollow crown which must be tutored daily and fed every word, which couldn't lead itself out of a toilet stall is similarly strong?


Again I must ask by whom? Do you have any foundation for this?


Do you have any foundation for this?


Aaand do you have any foundation for this?

Anyone can just make stuff up, Aevans - or repeat stuff that someone else has made up. Here we try to debate facts and express opinions with at least a modicum of foundation. Launching spurious ad hominems may be self-gratifying, but you cannot expect to be taken seriously. This is especially true when discussing a president who would sell his hideous mother if it meant getting a pat on the head from Dick Cheney. (See how easy that sort of "argument" is?)

Bush's illusionary "strength" is the ultimate triumph of style over substance. At his core Bush is a empty shell, but is quite malleable to for spin-doctors, power brokers and fat cats to shape into this bumbling, but oh-so-sincere "regular guy" who is impatient with nuance and detail, but knows how to get things done. For too many people doing something even if it's dead wrong is more important that doing it right.

5) Is Bush's strength only a charade of talking points and manipulated public opinion? What affect does the "strong leadership" phrase have when it is iterated through every speech, flyer and presentation on FNC?

In 1989 Milton Bradley released Trump-The Game. “The Game” augmented Donald Trump’s image as “The Donald.” Now, with the success of The Apprentice, Hasbro re-released Trump the Game..

The Bush campaign has taken a page from the book of Trump. I keep seeing these little round bumper stickers for “W the President.” What I see is a Madison Avenue attempt to package Bush in Trump like aura.

I’m not sure it’s working. For such an allegedly “simple,” "direct" man, many concepts of W emerge. This thread started off with “W the Leader” and “W the Strong." Soon others chimed in with “W the Horrific,” “W the One-Term President.” “W the Bullheaded,” “W-The Hero” and “W the Shell" Any of these descriptions would make a good pro or con bumper sticker.



MIT linguist Noma Chomsky quoted above and in my sig line, gives more possibilities for “W the?”

How about “W the Younger.” “W the Image,” “W the Visionary,” "W the Simple," “W The Caricature,” “W The Dreamer,” "W the Children’s Tale” and “W the Cowboy.” Any of these would also make great bumper stickers.

Or consider this from an article entitled “George W.’s @#$@!% Genius” by S. C Gwynne in the March 2003 of The Texas Monthly.. The genius, of course, is Karl Rove. According to Gwynne’s account of a meeting involving Bush, Rove and Texas Republican legislator Terral Smith in 1989:



Gwynne gives a few more bumper sticker ideas: “W the Confident,” “W The Almost Cocky” “W the Fable” and “W the Gossip.”

We have "W the Man" and "W the Myth." The two images just don't synchronize. I would say that far from "W the Leader," we have but “W the Karl Rove Fabrication.”

Bush is a strong leader, but with scewed morals. Strength : The ability to maintain a moral or intellectual position firmly. In this aspect, bush should be considered a strong leader. However strong leadership can be used either for better or for worse. Bush's ties with bin laden's and the saudi's show that he is having to carefully balance looking out for American interests and Saudi/bin Laden interests. A few facts to show Bush's ties with Saudi's/ bin Laden's are as follows; Bush's founded a oil company by the name of Arbusto, which were being funded by James Bath and the bin Laden family. James Bath was the manager of money given by the bin Ladens. After running Arbusto into the ground, Bush's daddy got him a seat in the oil company Harken, also being funded in part by the bin Laden family. Shortly after, Harken ran into trouble and Bush was investigated by the securities exchange commisions of trade. Thereafter, bush resigned his position in harken and gained a seat in the Carlyle company, funded mainly in part by the bin laden family. The Carlyle company invests in companies strongly regulated by the U.S. Goverment such as United Defense. Sources show that from 2000 to 2004 the Bin Laden family and other Saudi's contributed over 1.4 BILLION dollars to Bush and his friends. On September 13, 2001 Bush arranged for the 113 members of the Bin Laden family and other Saudi familys with ties to Bin Laden to be flown out of the US before any question as to the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden.
The american people should have seen this type of leadership coming after the 2000 election. If anyone can honestly say that Bush won the election fairly, I can honestly call them a blind fool. A few facts you may want to know about the 2000 election are as follows. If you will remember the election came down to one state: Florida. Whoever won Florida would win the presidential election. Flordia's govenor was no other than George Bush's brother. Bush's campaign chairman was also the vote count foreman, which had a nasty habit of throwing out votes for Gore, for whatever reason she deemed reasonable. Election 2000 was decided by the supreme court, which many of the judges by no suprise, where close friends with the Bush family.
After buying his win for President of the United States, the Washington Journal shows that 42% of the first 8 months as president, Bush spent on vacation. Also in the first 8 months Bush cut BILLIONS of dollars from the fbi's budget on anti-terroism fund. So is it really a suprise that bush ignored a CIA briefing on sept. 9, 2001 about a plan to hijack airliners and attack the United states.
The argument should be "Is Bush a strong leader for the American People", which to that I reply NO. I would feel safer letting my 18 month old son run the United States than Bush. The facts show that Bush is not looking out for the interests of America, rather he is looking out for the interests of his money. May God have mercy on the United States.

Hey americatheblind, welcome to America's Debate, hope you're enjoying it here. Although I agree with much of your post, could you please put sources up. This helps a lot when debating certain facts and allegations. I know a lot of your post has information that isn't necessarily new, but it's always good to back up your post with sources from the net.



Consistency is important in leadership, but also having the necessary skills to evaluate your position is important. Charging forward into situations, then continuing when new facts and ideas surface, and point to change and adaptation, is not my preferred style of leadership.



I don't understand how openmindedness can be a bad quality. Are you stating that you every time you have listened to someone else speak, you have just been letting them talk at you until they stop, then reiterate you point? You have never considered someone elses opinion or idea, and found it to be better or more useful in some way? Being open to new ideas doesn't mean forfeiting your own ideas, it means listening and evaluating other opinions/ideas with the ability to accept/reject them (to me). I see this as a very valuable asset because no one person has all the answers. One can be skeptical, but shutting out others ideas is just tomfoolery.

Well said Devil’s advocate. I suppose the opposite of openmindedness would be the “ditto heads" that sing Rush Limbaugh praises daily, although without doubt, there are other examples.

Despite heated rhetoric, I think this board thrives on people being able to understand someone else’s position--being openminded--at least enough to understand and reply.

Sometimes a cogent, well written reply can change ones perspective. Here’s an example. Ultimatejoe’s post on the Canadian drug thread confirmed my opinion that Canadian drugs are safe. More importantly, I found presentation of the issue from a Canadian point of view instructive.

Not only am I stating that every time you have listened to someone else speak, you have just been letting them talk at you until they stop, then reiterate you're point, but that everyone does this.

HOW? That is the true question. How do I see this? Because as humans we apply everything into our own little world and how it benefits us. Point to a person who did things for what you deem "unselfish reasons" and I will find the self centeredness in them. However, you may disagree that certain actions are acts of self promotion, to which you default your own open mindedness to explore the possibility, that ever "selfless" act is selfish in nature.

It in this "wisdom" that the introduction of bias attitudes or as I said "no one is truly open in mind to hear others words." In the pursuit to determine whether or not the new information is valid, we as humans introject with our bias views to determine more so whether or not the new information fits our bias logical sense.

Now truth to me is bias and worthy of a whole new debate, but as you can see those who believe they hold the truth, despite new information that is contrary, it will always be perceived as non information.
EXAMPLE: Quote the Washington Post to a Republican or FOX News to a Democrat. If the subject is not accounted for in another source, then the subject is false. This is due to the person own lack of an open mind, and control of their own bias wisdom.

This applies to my second statement about open-mindedness, "and those who are (open minded), never have much mind to added to the topic." The fact that an open minded person, in order to maintain the stance of open minded, will dismiss truth and wisdom that they know solid within themselves. This dismissal may satisfy the person's needs to remain open minded but has created a conflict between the logic the know to be true and the new information wisdom determines to be false. In my other words, the person probably did not have much of a mind (wisdom or knowledge of truth) to add to the topic. Which leads back to the question I asked Lesly, "how can one stand firm, yet be open minded to others?"

You asked, "You have never considered someone elses opinion or idea, and found it to be better or more useful in some way?" Only after the opinion or idea was founded to be truthful. You answered your own question yet had forgot what it means to be open minded. "Being open to new ideas doesn't mean forfeiting your own ideas, it means listening and evaluating other opinions/ideas with the ability to accept/reject them (to me)." Open mindedness is being having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. Receptiveness being open to receive. It is this openness to receive the new information that humans that have wisdom or truth can not do. One can not receive new ideas without rejecting them or accepting. This is the hypocrisy of open mindedness.

It is in the hypocrisy of open mindedness that makes a strong leader lack open mindedness, for the strong lead has wisdom and truth. This doesn't not mean that the strong leader does not receive new information or hear the ideas of others, but means that the strong leader has truth and wisdom that far exceeds open mindedness. If the strong leader was made to check the fact of ever mind that openly came to him, then he would never accomplish his goals, yet if the leader stands firm in truth and wisdom to obtain his goals, all new ideas that his or her level of truth, or as you put it, their level of acceptance, then they are not openly received but openly applied to the leader goals.

Wisdom and truth are values strong leaders have, open mindedness by definition the receptiveness to new and different ideas are not values. It is the strong leaders wisdom and truth that help define which ideas shall be received and which shall, as you put it, be rejected.

Yehoshua, not only are you making blanket generalizations about humanity (quite a bold endeavor), but you are also completely wrong.

You may be "listen[ing] to someone else speak, [and letting] them talk until they stop", but I can say that personally I don't do that nor does anyone that I consider to be a good leader do that. I would also doubt that many people here on AD would fit into your definition. I can recall many times in my life where I have held some viewpoint or another and I have been confronted with the opposite viewpoint or a differing viewpoint. Sometimes I have decided that I was right and nothing changed, but other times I have been convinced of the opposite argument or something in the argument has caused me to re-examine my position and modify it to take in appropriate information. Only a fool never opens his ears to those around him.

To give you an example, which battlefield commander do you think is going to be more successful? The one you describe that doesn't listen to anything anyone else has to say, no matter how important or the one I describe that will incorporate new information even if it isn't something he wants to hear, and even if it reverses his position?

The concept that open-mindedness is not a quality of a strong leader shows a lack of understanding for what "strong" means. If you take strong to mean "stubborn" then I suppose you are right. If you take strong to mean "powerful", "effective" or "good" then you are wrong.

You can not read the first two paragraphs and decide that you have my whole statement figured out. Not only have you redefined my statement, but you have used yourself as an example.

You and most people at AD have wisdom and truth. These two values help them to decipher whether or not the new information is, as you say, appropriate information, worthy of re-examination of ones viewpoint.

This is not open mindedness. Open mindedness requires you to willing to receive the new ideas as truth. If, through your wisdom, you define the new information as not truth, then you are being a broad-minded judge: not open-minded.

I've never said that a non open minded leader is a narrow minded leader. Maybe that is where you confusion is. I do agree with you that narrow mindedness is not a value.

I think this is not a lack of understanding of strong but of open mindedness. And then the lack of understanding that someone who is opposed to open mindedness does not mean they are pro narrow mindedness. The world isn't that black and white.

From this statement I gather you're a Psychological Egoist. One who believe that people are only capable of desiring or pursuing their own self interests as an end. This is pretty common philosophy but I think it's wrong. Not only do I believe that people do do things that are inherently good that don't are not selfish, but I think there is a great thought experiment that could give PE some problems:

Suppose one day God comes to you and says you have to make a choice about whether or not your family and friends will live in happiness or misery for the rest of their lives; and after you make this choice you will be completely destroyed (no part of you will exist, not mind, body, or soul). Which would you choose? How could one make this choice if every choice they made was only to benefit that person?

NOTE: You are only able to decide between the given choices and, once you decide you are destroyed, thus not being able to have any feelings about the decision you made.

Just wanted to provide that if anyone was contemplating your statement.




This is ultimately true, that people have to eventually accept or reject an idea. But if one is a strong leader in your sense then ideas are not even received, if I understand you correctly. Being open to receiving means that one can evaluate the new idea/information and, using what is available to that person (be it in the wisdom or truth one knows, or elsewhere) can make a decision.

Also, how does one become a strong leader if never being open to receive new ideas? Are they born with all the wisdom and truth needed to be a strong leader? It seems to me that at one point one has to be receptive to new ideas and learn. Are you stating that at some point people stop being receptive, say once they have enough knowledge or truth built up over the years? Has cynicism taken over?

If I choose to live, then I win. If I choose to have my friends and family be happy for the rest of their lives, then I win. You see thanks to me, the will be happy. I did it because of my feelings towards them, which is just a self centered act. Totally based on my emotions toward them. Any choice I make is self centered, due to the fact that I am the one making the choice.

This is the deportation from what I am trying to explain. That a leader is neither open minded nor narrow minded, but makes broad minded judgements. As you said, "being open to receiving means that one can evaluate the new idea/information and, using what is available to that person (be it in the wisdom or truth one knows, or elsewhere) can make a decision." This is broad minded. Open mind means to remove the word 'evaluate' and 'decision.' You accept the statement as truth.

No. I am saying you never received any idea that you did not either accept or reject based upon your own bias judgement.

In open mindedness, you accept the idea.
In narrow mindedness, you reject the idea.
In broad mindedness, you judge whether or not you accept or reject the idea.

I think that you are the one redefining open minded Yehoshua

So, if we must get into a word parsing game, lets at least use the dictionary for the common meaning of the terms (according to Merriam-Webster.com)
Open Minded: receptive to arguments or ideas
Broad Minded: 1. tolerant of varied views 2. inclined to condone minor departures from conventional behavior

I generally hate resorting to breaking out a dictionary to make my arguments, but you are just attributing all kinds of things to being open-minded that simply aren't there. Being open-minded does not mean that you automatically change your mind with every new thing you hear, no thought required. It means exactly what the definition suggests, you are receptive to arguments or ideas. Broad minded means you are tolerant of the views of others, it does not speak to accepting their views as your actions.

To use a famous example, if person B argues that driving 100mph isn't dangerous, it is in fact changes in speed that are dangerous. Then person A considers the arguement and decides that person B is correct and decides they too will drive at 100mph, that is being open-minded.

If person A were to say something like "I still think that speeding is dangerous and I won't engage in it, but I can see your viewpoint and you are welcome to speed", that would be an example of being broad minded.

So what does all of this have to do with the topic again? Being open minded (i.e. having the ability to adopt positions and arguments that are better than yours as long as they fit in with your goals and values) is a characteristic of a strong leader. A strong leader encourages debate and ideas amongst his subordinates and advisors so that he'll have the best information and take the best actions that fit within his goals.

This most certainly does not characterize the leadership style of president Bush. He is the opposite of open-minded, dissent is stifled and indeed if you don't play along you'll find yourself sans job. He is surrounded by yes men (and a few women).

I know just a little something about leadership Yehoshua. In college I was in charge of every aspect of the daily lives of 70 people for two years, I have always held positions of leadership and responsibility and I have consulted and worked with CEOs of fortune 500 companies. I have been exposed to all kinds of leaders. If you get by the fact that you buy into his ideas and vision, if you get by the partisan politics of not giving an inch or ever admitting Bush is fallible and if you put yourself in the shoes of one of his cabinet members I think you'll probably come to the conclusion that you wouldn't want to work for him if you were in constant fear of offending him with your ideas. I would use many words to describe Bush's brand of leadership, none of those words would be "strong". I don't know for a fact that John Kerry will be any better of a leader yet (and I will not hesitate to call him out if he falters), but I am certainly willing to give him a chance given where we are today and the blunders that will likely be made in the next 4 years otherwise.

My favorite of all the elections books is Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill.

One of Suskind’s recurring themes is that the Bush White House lacks what he calls “honest brokers.” “Honest brokers” are advisors who give the President differing views on an issue. Hence, Bush and his administration are shut off from competing ideas. What we have is a President who hears what he wants to hear or hears what advisors want him to hear. There is no weighing and sifting of ideas, just an attitude of I’m right and that settles it. This is hardly the mark of a strong leader.

Suskind describes O’Neill’s impression of another President he served—Richard Nixon: