Posted on 11/30/2007 4:33:59 AM PST by davenalle
I didn't say he doesn't have it, I said he wouldn't need it. He'd have unified support from the people, who'll in turn be a check on Congress. So he doesn't need to be a Reagan or a Roosevelt, but he'll surely be more commanding than the Bush-Clinton axis we've enjoyed for 20 years now.
I'll ignore the mandate till it develops, but the contension that a President of the United States doesn't need leadership ability is absurd.
The position of the Presidency itself gives Paul leadership. What do you think being President is?
Paul has no Congressional support, as evidenced by his complete inability to accomplish anything legislatively in his career.
Well, when you're a member of a political party that opposes the very beliefs they supposedly support, opposing legislation that advances the party's ideals but have no problem embracing and voting with the opposition, not getting your legislation passed is bound to happen.
That's additional evidence of his lack of leadership skills. And their importance, because while Paul vegitates, people with names like Kennedy, McCain and Feingold have accomplished all sorts of things.
That's because Paul doesn't "compromise" for the sake of "bipartisanship" like the other spinless, feckless Republicans do.
Of course it is, because wars cost money.
Actually, leadership is an attribute. The Presidency gives the holder a title and authority, but it doesn't create a leader.
Amazing, a candidate whose supporters view a lack of leadership skills as a plus.
Good thing he doesnt need leadership skills. Cause he doesnt have them. Being President is something Ron Paul wont.
Bye
Can I take that as a promise that you won't bitch and moan if Rudy is the nominee and freepers go 3rd-party?
I'm an adult. I don't need a freaking politician to "lead" me. This "leadership" business seems to be the mantra of the Rudy people, since he pretty much sucks on all of the issues.
I don't think that's likely, but if Rudy is nominated the anti-war contingent will need somewhere to go, there are several parties in waiting, the Constitution Party offers an immediate withdrawl, and the LP would work too.
If you're implying a third party Paul run, perhaps with Kucinich, I think that's a probability, and I'm sure his supporters will back him. In general that's a GOP plus, more one issue hate the war hate Bush voters on the left, but will I criticize the 3rd party effort, you bet I will.
Awesome, another voter who thinks leadership skills are irrelevant to an executive position. Congress will take care of leadership domestically, the State Dept overseas. In that context I suppose a candidate with fewer demonstrated leadership skills that Jimmy Carter, he managed to get elected but not much else, would be attractive.
As to Rudy, leadership like the war, the GOP has a talented pool to draw from, excluding Rudy and Paul. Every one superior on those issues. Crime too. I've addressed those topics in detail on several threads back when there were Rudy supporters here to persuade. Go back, read them, then come back and disagree.
I'm implying any third-party run. Or simply sitting things out this time around. Because that's where the majority of freepers are going to be at. This ain't wideawakes.
I actually think that his views on the war are about the only good thing about Rudy. Excuse me while I go wash up. I feel dirty defending him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.