not since Harding

by teejay 104 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  DannyBear

  Farkel,

  I really believe that Bush is sincere, when he states that he is a 'facilitator'(sp?) or as Buffalorfree said a 'delegator'. When I saw how almost the entire Texas legislature, give a fond farewell and well wishes to him as the new president, it made an impression. As I remember, many of the speaker's at that occasion where from the democratic party.

  I certainly agree with you, as respects his appointing men/women who may in fact, be more articulate, or smarter than he is, if I can be so simplistic. In the world of business, it certainly works that way. The CEO of most successful corporations, rarely if ever get their hands dirty with mundane everyday affairs of business. They all seem to be of a special breed, people that by just their presence in the room, inspires other's to do their best. Even just a nod from these guys, can perk up the troops, let alone special attention offered. I feel somewhat that way about the President of my company.

  First of all I like the guy, and respect his efforts, but even though I only speak to him once or twice a year, he always makes me feel a part of the team, and goes out of his way to seek my input. So a sense of loyalty and respect developes. I think GB has that ability.

  Enjoyed your comments Farkel.

  Danny
• 

  larc

  As I mentioned, staffing and delegation are to prime requesites of effective management, and Bush has demonstrated his abilities in these areas. It is not the job of the executive in business and government to "know all the details", but to have a vision and see a mission. Carter was one of our brightes, nicest, humane Presidents. He also got lost in detail and did not have a vision he could articulate. By contrast JFK had such a vision and could captivate the country and his own staff. On the Republican side, Reagon had a vision; Ford did not.

  It is too soon to tell whether Bush will be a great President or not. Certainly, the events of this past week have thrust him into a situation that will test his abilities. Time will only tell, if he rises to the occasion. For our sakes, I hope he does, and I do have faith that he has the skills and the values to do so.

  Unfortunately, Bush has inherited 8 years of neglect of our military, our intelligence community, and the security of our military secrets.
• 

  DannyBear

  Greeting larc,

  Man did you make an understatment:

  ***Unfortunately, Bush has inherited 8 years of neglect of our military, our intelligence community, and the security of our military secrets.***

  Believe me I know what truth you speak! We could not at this time launch another Desert Storm, we simply do not have troops or assests. Many responsible world watcher's kept telling the former administration about these terrorists....nobody seemed to want to listen.

  Danny
• 

  Farkel

  larc,

  : Carter was one of our brightes, nicest, humane Presidents. He also got lost in detail and did not have a vision he could articulate.

  Absolutely correct. He was an engineer and that discipline requires, no DEMANDS, all the details. As a result he became nearly impotent as good as he was as a man and humanitarian.

  On the otherhand, Reagan was a visionary, as was JFK. Reagan's brilliance was in coming up with a concept, a vision and getting people to make it so. JFK's brilliance (shared by Reagan) was in making this country feel good even when there could be reasons to not feel good. Both were brilliant leaders, and both were fatally flawed in many areas. Such is life.

  Reagan's "This is morning in America" and and his bold and in-your-face "TEAR DOWN THAT WALL, Mr. Gorbachav," and JFK's words about the Peace Corps and his "Ein Ich Berliner" (or something close to that) were every bit as memorable as Churchill's unbelievably movable and immortal "We Shall Not Give Up" speech or Roosevelt's "A Day of Infamy" speech. Can anyone remember anything from the 8 years of Clinton that even comes close to those inspiring words? (BTW, I still detest JFK's "Ask Not" speech. It was a shameless and pathetic speech which boiled down to "serve your government," IMNSHO.)

  Let us all hope that Dubya rises to the occassion. He is about to embark on a long and costly set of decisions that will define his Presidency and perhaps our own futures. It is an onerous position he faces. He deserves our support and even our prayers.

  Farkel

  "When in doubt, duck!"
• 

  larc

  Farkel,

  Before I returned to teaching, I worked in Personnel in a major corporation. This company noted that there was high turnover among their plant managers, most of which were promoted from the position of Director of Engineering. While they had management experience, many had difficulty moving from the management within engineering to the general management requirenments of the plant environment. I was put on a task force to interview successful plant managers with long tenure. I was asked to interview the plant manager of a microelectronics facility in Ft. Collins. During the course of the interview, I asked him to rank the importance of 10 management functions. He ranked staffing first and creativity 10th. He explained that as an engineer his job required creativity, but not as a general manager. He went on to explain that his job was to surround himself with the most capable people possible. He said that, "if you have out standing people and a good plan, the system will be successful."

  I added this case study as adjunct to what you said about Carter.

  By the way, when the task force members compared our notes, we concluded that we were growing "tall skinny people". What we meant by that is that many of our upper level managers knew a lot about their part of the business (they were tall), but not much about other aspects of the business. They were narrow (skinny) in their thinking and did not see the big picture.

  One other comment. It is very difficult to predict success from one job situation to another. It is hard to know which employees that are promoted to first level supervision will make it. It is also difficult to know the ones who are promoted into supervision that will make it at higher levels because the demands change at successive levels. Farkel, your example of Grant illustrates this. He was a terrible businessman, but an outstanding General, then a mediocre President. Additionally, he had poor grades at West Point, but was outstanding in his military career. By contrast, General McClelland, Grant's predecessor on the eastern campaign had much better grades but was a terrible General.
• 

  larc

  I'm back,

  Since no one else is responding, and I have some time on my hands, I thought I would offer some additional input.

  One distinction that has been made regarding the demands of managers at different organizational levels is as follows: it has been divided into three domains, technical, interpersonal, and conceptual. At entry level management, the technical component is major. Interpersonal, and conceptual are less important. As one rises through the organization, the technical component diminishes in importance, the interpersonal component remains about the same, and the conceptual component increases in importance. Someone who trys to hold on to their technical specialty as they rise in the organization will fail. Another way of explaining that while Carter, as President, was a brilliant man, he failed in his job.
• 

  teejay

  S,

  [i]For a reference for my statement that the US ambassador gave saddam permission to invade kuwait, see here http://www.bigeye.com/012101.htm
  about the 4th ppg down. As well there is some other interesting background. For instance, why do muslim arabs in general hate the USA.

  Thanks for the link. It's something I've been looking for. I know some of the reasons for Palestinian's hatred of the West, but my understanding is not as good as I'd like. Thanks again.

  tj
• 

  DannyBear

  Mornin Tj,

  ***It seems that American leadership made a similar tremendous underestimation of bin Laden, to its peril. And if any live under the idea that eliminating him, even if they find him, will solve the problem of world wide terrorism, they are sadly mistaken. It's going to be ugly for a very long time.***

  Iam afraid your words are true. That is why this country cannot lose its will to go all the way vs Vietnam/Desert Storm.

  Every time a 'bloop on the radar' shows a terrorist training camp, every time a threat of any kind, even the American bimbo terrorists, who for the most part, satisfy their cravings for attention by calling in bomb threats...which are rarely real...should be slammed hard and fast. Every time some 'leader' offer's sympothy to the 'terror' cause, they should be sanctioned or worse.

  In other words zero tolerance, zero procrastination.

  Danny
• 

  teejay

  Farkel,

  Warren G. Harding was a clueless buffoon who was helped into office because he WAS so clueless... Lincoln was a hick lawyer... Grant was a sad, worn-out alcoholic who ran a poor administration... LBJ made fortunes with his construction business...

  If so many U.S. Presidents were also incompetent, how did we manage to emerge as the greatest superpower in modern history?

  I think the foundation of the republic, the real source of it's strength, it's people, might have something to do with it. But I get your point and I agree with it. Generally.

  I admire him greatly for being wise enough to surround himself with people who have broad experience for the jobs they've been selected to do.

  As a panel was discussing my post on MSNBC last night (not actually my post but the exact same topic -- Dubya's density) it was mentioned that he has a rare quality of not wanting the limelight or the credit for the good that's accomplished -- he just wants the job done. I found myself nodding in silent admiration as a little something got caught in my throat.

  I've said my piece about the man and will let the matter rest. I stand behind the President and hope the coming dark hours will tap into latent greatness.

  tj
• 

  DannyBear

  Tj,

  ***it was mentioned that he has a rare quality of not wanting the limelight or the credit for the good that's accomplished -- he just wants the job done. I found myself nodding in silent admiration as a little something got caught in my throat. ***

  You know if we all did a little more of this 'nodding', like Seeker promotes so much, this whole thing about which side of the aisle your on, would not get so ugly as it has.

  If in fact GB does in fact not crave 'the limelight', which would be almost a total reverse of his predecessors, we will see less of his face on the boob tube and more of what he actualy accomplishes.

  Danny