Posted on 01/17/2007 11:56:49 AM PST by JZelle
I disagree with you in part. Of course actions are critical...but part of the mark of a good leader is one who paints a vision and inspires followers to believe in that vision. This requires talk. But in agreement with you...it can't stop there, the talk must be followed by action or they are not truly a leader.
They will be doing good to keep wearing their heads.
In spite of what the msm anc cair says, the rop does not take kind to infidels.
They do as they have been instructed in their book[s]. Cut off their heads.
For a leader, speeches are necessary if you want people to support your position. Without it, most people go with what they hear in the media.
Alexander didn't talk, although he could and on any topic of the day. He didn't sing, although he was the best. His men talked of him as if he were a god and he didn't say anything, so when he was wounded one day he showed the blood and asked if a god would have blood of that color. There are as many styles of leadership as there are leaders.
Well, I dunno, it made perfect sense to me and I thought the context was OK and I didn't ever notice it. But what do I know, it's all Greek to me.
Speaking of, I thought it was dobra-dan, at least that is what those drunken Russian heliocopter pilots used to say in the middle of the afternoon when they got up... Not saying anything perjorative, mind you, I liked the lot of them.
While this is true, it is also true that most leaders tend to utilize words to paint vision and inspire followers. I'm certain there are exceptions as you say Alexander was.
A type of exception would be orators of less than the highest rhetorical skill who nonetheless are very good and have the experience in the field to back it up. Caesar is of this type.
No he hasn't. I support the President 100% on the war, but he hasn't articulated it well enough because a large sector of the populace believe we invaded Iraq SOLELY because we thought he had WMDs and Saddam was involved in 9/11. The media has done its darnest to show neither was true.
You are correct IMHO. Somebody should be 'splainin'. You'd think the White House could afford to pay a professional 'splainer a couple hours time if the Pres himself dosn't have the time or can't say much for reasons of National Security.
It was good for him, but it wasn't great speechmaking. What Pres. Bush does that many professional speechmakers can't do is connect with the people. He just has this connection and the people ignore his inability to be a great communicator. It's part of his charm and personna. And it works, which drives the pundits crazy. He doesn't connect with them so they don't get it. And therefore, they think that Bush supporters are stupid and can't understand what "great" communication is.
Let's blame those responsible: a disloyal and treasonous media and a lazy, easily led public. The President cannot force broadcast and cable stations to carry his speeches or report in a truthful, patriotic manner.
What I do not understand is why there is not a conservative, patriotic cable or broadcast news service. Fox had potential but has slid to the left in the past few years, though they are the only ones to report on Oil for Food and to play the movie Obsession. Also the administration should aggresively prosecute the leaks and publication of classified info in publications such as the nyt.
I wish they would get somebody like Rick Santorum out there, every day confronting these traitors with the truth.
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.