It's quite telling that all these contradictions happened at one venue in front of the same audience during the span of 2 hours.

Not knowing where someone stands because they fail to give detail is one thing, but not knowing where someone stands because they tell you 2 contradicting things is another.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

I'll take a look for it at the bookstore. Pat Buchanan I enjoy as a political commentator, so hopefully she likewise can do so. The fact that she is a conservative GOP person doesn't bother me because I'll expect her to make a good argument. There is a difference between partisan spinning, and an ideological opponent making a case. That is why I put people like Hannity and Rush into the former category seeing what they do, and Pat Buchanan in the latter. I'll give you an opinion once I check it out.

(bolding added for reference of my reply) LBJ wasn't a lawyer, though, to my recollection.

In my experience, what you said in the bold can be true, but it can be true of anyone, such as with non-lawyer LBJ. Having a legal background should, and often is, a help because the government deals with law-making. It just isn't the only thing that matters because it also deals with policy making, and that requires good information and good judgement. Having a law degree doesn't necessarily provide that.

What you described with LBJ involves the trap that I've called 'analysis paralysis.' Sometimes lawyers elected to office can fall into that too, especially if they are the kind that like to debate and argue a case but aren't comfortable with the inherent uncertainty of making difficult decisions and try too hard to 'get it right.' Naturally an elected official wants to get it right, and being half-assed, arrogant in one's instincts and opinions and reckless is no good. That is where Bush goes wrong IMO. Good leaders don't play fast and loose and/or crediting and dismissing with facts so they fit what they already want to be the outcomes and scenarios. You will even find some lawyers who think that way.

But, some fall into 'analysis paralysis.' LBJ wanted such certainty that it paralysed him.

Recently, I felt John Kerry, a lawyer by trade, had the same problem, where he took issues and analysed/cross-analysed them to death--hence leading to the 'flip-flop' label. IMO, that actually wasn't accurate and was unfair, but a person needed a chalk board to navigate his nuances and provisos. He reminded me of the main character in Fiddler on the Roof going through his decision making processes ("On the one hand . . . on the other hand . . .").

Much of this is rooted in the fear of failure which, if one lets it, can often become a self-fulfilling prophecy. One who actually got paralysed was POTUS James Buchanan. He was a great trial lawyer and an esteemed legal mind. He also was a great arbitrator and compromiser when he entered Congress and was liked by everyone across the aisles for those skills. This is why he was elected--the great hope for saving the nation from dissolution. However, when he got into the office, the nation had reached its boiling point on the slavery and secession issue, and he still tried to mend the fence when the fence was finally pulled out at the stakes. He was entirely uncomfortable with not being able to mend the fence. And given the secession disrupted his comfort zone, he muddled back and forth on the legalities of what he could do and not do in the crunch along with the unease at having to offend those he was trying to entice to remain in and/or return to the Union, which led to all sorts of bad decisions. He blamed the abolitionists as the antagonists, and totally failed to mind and/or lived in 'denial' about the nature of the hotbrand secessionists and their actual connivances to sever the nation, even from within his own administration. Today he is regarded amongst the worst POTUSes for his indecisions and betting on the wrong horses under pressure.

His successor, Abraham Lincoln, also a successful lawyer, was the opposite. He was deft with the law, but also knew how to make a decision. He experienced many failures earlier and knew how to overcome the fear of it. He also did not confuse, as Buchanan did, the concepts of leadership and popularity. One big lesson was the following statement: "I don't know the secret of success, but I do know the secret of failure - try to please everybody." That out of the way, he did whatever he felt he had to do, based on the best information he had--which was not always good and did lead to setbacks--and ultimately prevailed, which was all that mattered. And not only was he hated by a large number of people and eventually killed by one, what he accomplished in the end was undeniably fantastic and has made him the one of the top if not the top POTUS in US history in general public opinion.

Did you ever see the movie U-571? There is a great scene in there explaining that critical difference. The main character is an officer aspiring to be a submarine captain. He is denied the position by his own captain, who did not recommend him. This annoyed the aspiring officer, who eventually confronted his commanding officer. It was admitted between them that the aspiring officer was brave, popular and capable. However, when asked if he would sacrifice his friends on the boat for a decision, he hesitated for a moment. The captain then made his point:

“You see, you hesitate. As a captain you can’t. You have to act. If you don’t you put the entire crew at risk. Now that’s the job. It’s not a science. You have to be able to make the hard decisions based on imperfect information, asking men to carry out orders that may result in their deaths. And if you’re wrong, you suffer the consequences. If you are not prepared to make those decisions, without pause, without reflection, then you’ve got no business being a submarine captain.”

Later in the movie, the aspiring officer winds up in charge due to a calamity of events fit for a Hollywood picture, but you see how he learns that reality and finally develops what it takes to be a captain.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

From what I read, I think we mostly agree. Being a lawyer does not disqualify someone from a senior level executive position such as president. In fact, for government purposes it can be helpful, because as you point out, government is about making laws and regulations. So understanding the process gives someone a leg up.

Having said that I think we also understand that being president requires a lot of leadership ability. And that requires a lot of critical thinking skills. As we both noted LBJ was lacking in this regard. I went back and checked his bio and did not find anything that said he graduated from law school. The closest thing I saw was that he attended Georgetown Law school for a few month. Regardless, his lack of executive ability is now very apparent.

LBJ had some noble ideas. But good ideas, even noble ideas, are a dime-a-dozen in Washington, DC. Any think tank, any planning commission, any Senator or Congressman can show us a problem and tell us a way to fix it. And this is where Hillary fails. Hillary's style is to listen to all these think tanks and planning commissions and then write rules and regulations to implement their ideas. For a simple problem, such as how much chlorine to put in the public water system, she could do well. For the large national level problems though, such as where to get our future energy needs and Social Security solvency, I don't think she has what it takes to tackle these problems. Confiscating the profits of oil companies to fund a study group on alternate energy is not the answer.

RJ

The reason they stay in the shadows is because they don't want to be deported.

The reason they are here is because they can find jobs with companies that want cheap labor.

The Driver's License deal was just a trick to get more votes. Anyone with a picture I.D. with a fake address on it can vote in some states, which is why Democrats wanted the Amnesty Bill and kept a low profile like the cowards they are because they didn't want to take the heat when it was moving through Congress, and why they want to keep illegals here without doing anything about them. They want another large block of ignorant and misinformed voters that can easily be fooled. Once illegals voted it would be next to impossible to weed those bogus votes out.

__________________


"We're not going to be bullied, we're not going to be smeared, we're not going to be lied about.....

.....I don't believe in coming in second." - Barack Obama

Common-sense is more important.

The problem with America today is the lawyers messing everything up with their critical thinking.

They take common-sense out of the decision making process.

Not every issue should be approached from a legal aspect. Even uneducated people can cut through the BS and get to the heart of an issue faster then the most accomplished Harvard Law Grad can simply because they're thinking processes don't deal with the minutia lawyers often do and just take into account the big picture instead.

__________________


"We're not going to be bullied, we're not going to be smeared, we're not going to be lied about.....

.....I don't believe in coming in second." - Barack Obama

What you call "common sense" is just another name for the ability that comes from experience to apply "critical thinking". I think the best example of a president who had good critical thinking skills was Eisenhower. America had to build up an army and transport it across oceans and then deposit it on hostile shores. Amphibious warfare was a new concept and Eisenhower mastered it brilliantly. Eisenhower was also able to analyze risks and not afraid to take a gamble if the the reward justified it.

Good examples of critical thinking include questions like:

• What if I do nothing?
• Do I know all the facts or at least enough to make a decision?
• How much do I trust the information I have?
• What is the likely outcome as opposed to the desired outcome?
• What is the best and worst that can happen?
• How will the opposition forces react to my efforts?
• How will this effect my ability to proceed in other areas?

We are talking about Hillary's demonstrated abilities. Let's use her failed healthcare attempt to analyze her critical thinking. From what I've read she had some the top experts on healthcare to advise her. But she didn't think the problem through. This is an example of her inability to apply critical thinking to a problem. As a lawyer she focused on the legal portion of writing the law. She just assumed that everyone else would also. As a result, the plan never saw the light of day.

RJ

Hillary was never a good lawyer. Eisenhower was a lousy President. He wasn't the best military tactician. He was more a politician then a General. He was a good administrator and he was good at logistics. He was not the best man for the job which history proved out.

Presidents have to have convictions and show leadership. They have to decide what is best for the country and not be afraid to act on it. Many times unfortunately perceptions are more important then reality.

Lawyers are poison to this country. They complicate everything that to the common-man finds quite simple. Lawyers use our laws against us to fight a war here at home. They want to give rights to our enemies they don't deserve and take our citizen's right to live peacefully away. Truth and honesty are abstract terms to them because the first thing you learn in law school is that evidence is always subjective. Money rules their lives and is the basis for most of their decisions. President Lincoln had to suspend Habius Corpus because of lawyers during the Civil War.

In other words, Lawyers suck.

I have met too many of them that talked to me like I was beneath them. I have much more respect for doctors because it only takes 3 yrs of law school to get a degree but a doctor has to study for 12 yrs before he can open his own practice.

__________________


"We're not going to be bullied, we're not going to be smeared, we're not going to be lied about.....

.....I don't believe in coming in second." - Barack Obama

We agree about lawyers but we'll have to agree to disagree about Eisenhower. However, when it comes to Hillary I am convinced she does not have the capacity to be a chief executive.

RJ

Many of Eisenhower's political decisions helped the Soviets gain the power they once had over Eastern Europe. I think he thought more in terms of the present then the future. It took an idealist like Ronald Reagan to end the threat. Now that the Dems are back in power their way of thinking is helping Russia make a comeback.

Eisenhower played it safe when taking a risk could have ended a growing threat. He had a policy of reacting to threats rather then stopping them in their tracks. Economically we were in good shape during his two terms but many of his policies helped keep the Cold War going.

__________________


"We're not going to be bullied, we're not going to be smeared, we're not going to be lied about.....

.....I don't believe in coming in second." - Barack Obama

Looks like Hillary is getting desperate.

Now she's using planted questioners in her town hall meetings to make her look like she knows what she's talking about:

It's this kind of dishonesty that cannot be tolerated........

......and I don't want to hear the usual excuse "They all do it!"

__________________


"We're not going to be bullied, we're not going to be smeared, we're not going to be lied about.....

.....I don't believe in coming in second." - Barack Obama

Did you see this from Scrappleface?



RJ

thats a classic....and wheres the dyslexic front to take umbrage, I fear they have lost that lobby's vote...

and this is classic...I mean, is this staffer an idiot, why would you say such a thing out loud?..sortta blows the point doens't it? well, maybe, its the truth? Thsi sinthe Hill version of honesty.....seem less disingenuous? well god luck with that....

The Clinton campaign pledged that “from now on, we’ll let carefully-selected town hall participants ask their own totally spontaneous questions, and we’ll focus on prepping Hillary with answers that seem less disingenuous and more presidential.”

__________________
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile....

There are different types of lawyers, and they bring different attributes to the job.