Quinnipiac poll: Santorum leads Ohio by 7

[Grace62]

How much "adversity" is there in a smoke-filled room, as opposed to having to travel around the country with your whole life under a microscope, publicly convincing millions of very diverse people that you are the best leader?
The party boss system breeds cronyism, which is the opposite of leadership, in my opinion.

[August West]

I accept that as your opinion, but I think the dearth of effective leadership that has coincided with the widespread use of modern public opinion polling methods leads to legitimate debate over the validity of that opinion.

In my opinion, leadership is better founded in convictions developed toe to toe than through PR firms.

[Grace62]

Who got their "convictions" from PR firms?

I think you are confusing tools leaders use to understand what the public thinks and wants with the development of character.

[Dennis S]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Dennis S]
I see your point, Grace. Also, to my point, the king-makers in the old days would never have picked a Palin like they did in these days. The caliber of politicians has gone down.

What measure are you using to determine this "caliber" of leaders?

[Grace62]

OK - one of those people was elected President.

One is a half-termer former gov. of Alaska.

Want to put Ike up against Obama? That could be interesting.

[August West]

Who got their "convictions" from PR firms?

A plethora of politicians in the last 30 or so years.

I think you are confusing tools leaders use to understand what the public thinks and wants with the development of character.

I think you are not recognizing that the extensive use of those tools have prevented the exercise of leadership. Really, what is public opinion outside of an interpretation of marginally accurate data that can be shaped by wording, interviewers, question order, and a vast array of other factors.Many people do not consider these the effective tools of leadership, but merely tools for reelection.

[$tevie]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
Actually, assassination gave us Hubert Humphrey. Who I don't think was all that bad compared to a lot of the politicians out there today.

Definitely not all bad, much to admire actually, but the wrong person to run in 1968. LBJ hand-picked him to be the nominee, as a reward for his loyalty to LBJ's policies. Including the ones that made no sense and were anathema to Humphrey, like support of the Vietnam war. Up to that point I would say I greatly admired the man.
With a better choice from Democrats, Nixon might never have become President. And ironically, despite attempting to subvert the Constitution and being an underhanded crook and a liar, Nixon STILL looks better than anyone running for the GOP nomination this year. :wiggle:

[Grace62]

$tevie wrote:

And ironically, despite attempting to subvert the Constitution and being an underhanded crook and a liar, Nixon STILL looks better than anyone running for the GOP nomination this year. :wiggle:

No kidding.