I shall start with a question - What is a leader?

While the definition of a leader will vary from person to person there are a few common points that seem to be agreed upon by the most liberal and the most conservative.

What a leader is: A leader is a quick thinker. He/she has the ability to think on their feet and respond and adapt to changing situations and unexpected events.

Bush is not a leader: Besides filibustering on nearly every question asked, Bush also showed a lack of an ability to think on his feet.

I quote

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it.

A true leader would not need to be scripted. A true leader would be able to anticipate and respond accordingly to any curveball thrown.


What a leader is: A leader admits mistakes. A true leader realizes a mistake when it is made (SEE: Kennedy's response to the Bay of Pigs fiasco).

Bush is not a leader: Bush has not admitted to a single mistake he has made. Wether the mistake be Iraqi WMDs, misreading pre-9/11 intelligence, or downplaying the difficulty of the Iraqi campaign, Bush has admitted none.

I quote again from his 4/14/04 press conference

I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we'll find out the truth on the weapons. That's why we've sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised at the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons, and their fear of talking about them because they don't want to be killed. There's a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq; they're worried about getting killed, and, therefore, they're not going to talk.

But it will all settle out, John. We'll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered me then. He's a dangerous man. He's a man who actually -- not only had weapons of mass destruction -- the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.

I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Why, exactly, would Bush bring up certain situations (WMDs, Afghanistan) unless he felt there were things he may have made a mistake about. A true leader would say,

My fellow Americans, I come to you today with an apology. I called for an invasion of Iraq due to my belief there were stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. A year has passed now and these have not been found. While there is still a chance WMDs may be discovered, it is looking as if the situation may have not been as we had thought prior to the war. I offer a sincere apology to the families of those who have perished in Iraq and to the American people.

Then, after that, he could go into a whole spiel justifying the war in Iraq without using WMDs (which is doable). What is there to lose in that? If WMDs are found, he apologized for nothing and the reason for going to war was right. If WMDs are never found, he apologized. JFK apologized for the Bay of Pigs fiasco and his approval rating went up

What a leader is: A leader is intelligent. A leader, especially when speaking to his followers, comes across as cool, calm, and intelligent.

Bush is not a leader: We have all seen Bushisms. He is not a good public speaker. His words do not inspire nor do they seem to hold any substance. His "God bless Americas" are the most insincere I have ever heard and it is almost disrespectful the way he says them. I understand we are not all blessed with an ability for public speaking; for inspiring. However, that lack of ability can be covered up to some extent by making sure the point of the speech is truly meant. If you can't inspire by voice alone, inspire by meaning what you say - something that anyone can do.

To continue referring to JFK - JFK was a phenomenal speaker. He motivated, inspired, and was extremely charismatic. His critics argued that there was no substance behind his speeches, yet substance or not, he still accomplished his goals. A leader, in my opinion, MUST have the ability to mean what they say or really SAY what they mean. Without one of those, they are shooting blanks.


The fact of the matter is George W. Bush is not a leader. His father was not a leader. Why should Dubya be elected again for another 4 years though he lacks such obvious quialifications?

I am in no way endorsing Kerry, by the way, as I do not feel he is a leader. From all I have read, the last real American leader was JFK (I am only 17. The earliest administration I remember is Bush Sr.)

Now for the entertain me part - Why should Bush be re-elected when he lacks such obvious leadership qualities?

He's nothing more than Cheney's little puppet. He can't speak extemporaneously about how to pump gas, let alone political economy or foreign policy.

NONE of the examples you give of what a leader is appear in the dictionary.

Perhaps yopu meant to ask, what qualities should a good leader possess?

And will yo be comfortable answering the same about kerry?

Originally posted by CazMedia
NONE of the examples you give of what a leader is appear in the dictionary.

Perhaps yopu meant to ask, what qualities should a good leader possess?

And will yo be comfortable answering the same about kerry?

He said he's not endorsing Kerry so why would he need to be comfortable answering it about Kerry... in fact he said he didnt see Kerry as a leader either...

Why do the conservatives always assume anyone attacking bush is pro-Kerry as well (i would vote Kerry over bush, but i could think of many better presidential candidates)... Democracy should not be a two party system... especially when both parties stand for more or less the same things...

No truer words SAX.

Look, the president is no dummy. I'm starting to think he wants to lose the election so he can bring Kerry in to start the real madness...but, then again maybe not, he refuses to admit that he might have been wrong. Wrong is definately not a word in his vocabulary. Mistake, another word he doesn't know.

Though I hate to admit it, Bush is right. Iraq has to be done now. There is no other choice. If we leave we look weak and then our bones are fit to be picked by those that steal sovereignty. If we don't wanna be Iraq we better win Iraq. I can't see myself living under the UN flag.

Shhhh, ur paranoia is showing. Back into ur hole.

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Saphronia]

Sorry, I meant "What qualities should a leader have?"

If all the Bush supporters can do is attack my wording, or claim I'm endorsing Kerry (though I clearly stated I am not)...

First, let's make one thing clear. I'm not actor, comedian or singer, so I'm not here to entertain you!

Now that we have that out of the way, I'd say by judging your words you are referring to the TV speech followed by reporters' questions. If that be the case, what are you talking about? The speech was good and made the case clearly. The question and answer session was with a man that isn't a rehearsed liar, and dealt with some pretty stupid questions.

His ability to speak to the world and not get uncomfortable has nothing to do with being a good leader. He demonstrates leadership capabilities every day, and has proven to be the best leader we've had since Reagan. Leaders lead, they don't take polls to see what is the right thing to do.

I was not trying to imply that this started in support of kerry, but if we are going to raise this question with one candidate, then it should be asked of all candidates.