Why do some people define "leadership" as being loud, in your face and radical?

If you follow the Obama administrations response effort to this oil spill, its been extremely strong. Over 22,000 people have been deployed, science and engineering teams have been formed, a million feet of boom has been deployed, thousands of coast guard ships are working around the clock. Yet President Obama has seen to all of this without making a lot of noise about it. He isn't standing on the blown up oil platform, with his sleeves rolled up, yelling orders into a megaphone. He isn't attempting what would be perceived by most as radical political moves such as nationalizing BP America, seizing all their American assets and forcing their trained employees to become servants of the federal government. It seems to me that a lot of the complaining would be silenced if he was making this into an opportunity to flex his muscle and show everyone what a "badass President" he can be.

Personally, I'm glad that President Obama isn't the chest beating type that feels like he needs to over-politicize a catastrophe in order to score political capital from it. Unfortunately, it does seem like thats the kind of thing that would have made many critics happy. Instead of looking at the truth, that there has in fact been a massive response to the oil spill, many are disappointed that the President isn't keeping them entertained with grand political optics and policy maneuver thrill rides. It shows just how shallow certain sects of the electorate are, on both the right and the left. Where we always like this or is this just how the Bush years taught us how to behave?

now.

Why do you think we have so many shitty bosses?

Thank-You phleshdef !!

@#$% 'em. :thumbsup:

See my post below.

People think that the more animated and loud a coach is, the better that he/she is doing the job. When in reality, coaches that remain calm and focus on the overall goal out perform the yellers and the screamers. See Bill Walsh, Bill Belichick, Joe Torre, Tony Dungy, Chuck Knoll, Joe Gibbs, etc.

Like you said, the best, most legendary coaches aren't the screamers. They're the guys who make pointed remarks here and there and only yell when absolutely necessary (like Belichick or Phil Jackson). I actually can't think of a coach off the top of my head - a Hall of Fame caliber coach - that was a true screamer.

Actually, I think it comes from parents, frankly. Growing up, most people had parents that got through to you by yelling and dominating - basically, scaring their kids into proper behavior. As parents are our first leaders, really, I think that's where the notion comes from.

Thats their JOB.

...in order to qualify as having illustrated leadership.

What people want is for our president to be more out front during this tragedy. And it's not too much to ask. Those suffering under the immediate weight of the oil crushing their livelihood could use a large dose of reassurance from the president. And I won't blame them or anyone wanting to see more of Obama during this time.

Perhaps some links from you that bolster your interpretation would help.

I believe that people want to see more of him on this right now because they trust him.

democraticunderground.com

Surely something must have been posted recently that prompted you to write your OP. Remember, you asserted "loud, in your face and radical leadership". Prove it.

I don't care if you discount my post because I'm not willing to coddle you with links to arguments you know damn well have been made here while this whole thing is going down. I simply refuse to give you my time to enable you to play stupid for arguments sake. I know your game. I'm not playing it.

You will live.

It is amazing to see a poster on this board omit support for his or her arguments and quotations. It is as if he or she cannot understand that the burden of proof falls to the person who makes the claim. It is not "coddling". In a discussion, if I claim that the moon is made of green cheese, I had better be able to back it up with links to reputable, specific sources: otherwise, the argument that I am propounding is worthless.

Here is an example dialog:

Poster A: "Why is it that so many people on this board cannot understand the need to provide links?"

Poster B: "So many!? Who? Please be specific."

Poster A: "Well, you know. I am not about to waste my time coddling you with links to specific discussions. It is clear who the culprits are."

Poster B: "But...without defending your argument...."

Poster A: "That's enough already. What are you? A Moran? Are you to lazy to use 'The Google'? C'mon, quit being so lazy! I'm series!111!!!111"

Poster B: "That which you said is a generalization, and you have not even supported your argument with evidence. It is not valid."

Poster A: "Whatever...like I said...you are just too lazy to use 'The Google'. Find your own links. I don't have the time to waste playing games with a MORAN who cannot understand my argument!"

Many people want that despite the fact that we say we don't. When some feel helpless and out of control, they seem to want Daddy figures to soothe us and look like they are "taking control" and everything will be okay. Some need to be told that the President cares about us with the slick use of PR. It is very psychological. I think I can survive without the BS, thank you. The relief well may be all we got. The Gulf Coast will be hurting for a long time. I think we just need to face that instead of yelling at Obama to "fix" it. It is not that fixable. An oil spill that deep below the ocean is not an easy fix, nor will the cleanup be from something that massive.

We have an ecological disaster unfolding at a rate that is absolutely terrifying and we have doubts over who is in charge.

Seems to me to be a typical question of who is running things.

based on your perception that "he's not doing anything". That perception being based on just what this OP is about.

Would you be happier with an aircraft carrier, a stuffed flightsuit, and a banner?

I know very well that most likely nothing can be done except a relief well or a nuclear warhead.

Politically this has to play out before any administration can go in and castrate a few people.

I'm being noisy because I want to make sure castrations happen.

Looking at a map of all the oil lines that exist all over that area of the gulf, there are definately some reasons to believe using a warhead could have consequences that are worse than what we are currently dealing with. The shockwave could cause more blowouts or even worse.

I use the example of having unprotected sex with someone who has a non-curable STD to explain people the situation that exists.

You might know how it happened, doesn't mean you can stop the burning when you pee.

Probably could have been prevented with a 50 cent rubber too.

That is my analogy for the oil spill.

If Obama can assert that control calmly and quietly, I'm all for it.

But the problem is that BP is doing what it wants to as far as their choice in chemicals, and their control over the area.

It's not a loud, boisterous Obama we want to see. We just want to know that corporations don't rule our military, media, and government.

But do tell, with your vast knowledge of petroleum engineering and the military's supposed ability to undertake a petroleum engineering based task, what exactly is the military going to do that doesn't involve some risky explosion based solution?

I use the example of an STD others have used the example of trying to cork a champagne bottle after shaking it and opening it and expecting champagne to be still in it.

They (Entities drilling) fucked up big time. Now is a waiting game for impact and punishment.

...but if you insist. I don't really know that BP is literally controlling media access. I know of the one story we've all heard where the coast guard told CBS they couldn't come into the area they were attempting to come to. But aside from that, I don't feel uninformed at all about whats going on. It seems to me we know plenty about the nature of this spill, we know that its really, really bad, like planet threatening bad. We know of everything BP has been doing to try to plug it up. And we do have some independent estimates of how much oil is seeping out and we know thats its a very scary amount. We also know that BP could have prevented this from happening and failed to do so. Considering that we know all of that, any attempt by BP to control the story in the media failed a long time ago, if there was an attempt at all. So I'm not really sure what else they could be hiding or if it even matters at this point. A catastrophic disaster is a catastrophic disaster and we know this very well may be a catastrophic disaster. The media knows this. We know this. The administration knows this. BP knows this. And all of the above have basically acknowledged it.

Aside from that, I definately could see many reasons for keeping the media and other non-military and non-BP personnel away from certain areas of the oil spill. This is a toxic mess that no human being should probably be around without special gear. There are stories in Louisiana all ready of how the toxins in this oil is starting to kill all the life in certain areas of wet lands.

I can think of an ABC news anchor who was nearly killed in Iraq for starters or a Wall Street Journalist who lost his head in Pakistan.

If the media is willing to take personal risks and wishes to report on an area, unless it is an issue of national security (Enemy learning information from reporting) I see no reason why media would be denied access to public lands during an oil spill.

...that would compound the issue even more. So whether or not the media wants to charge into that toxic mess is neither here nor there. I can fully understand if the people working on trying to contain this thing don't want to deal with being responsible for their safety and naturally they would be expected to take that responsibility. Don't get me wrong, I'm definately for an open, free media and all that good stuff. I'm just saying I can see legitimate reasons to discourage anyone unrequired from being in the middle of all that.

I see no legit reason other than not allowing footage of some really bad damage to be seen by the public.

I view it as a cover-up operation by BP with support of the US Government as neither is ready to deal with the backlash they are about to face from the public.

Which is the point I made earlier. How exactly can you claim there is a coverup when it seems that everyone KNOWS that this is catastrophically horrible? That doesn't make any sense.

The worst areas are not allowed to be photographed.

I can write about how awful torture is and how badly we are treating prisoners



This makes things a little clearer for people.

Do you seriously feel like the media has not been able to tell us how bad this is?

I think when the impact of this is fully realized...it will literally shape political debate for the next 4 years.

I know that you do of course. But really, this media blackout theory seems pretty mythical considering that I know I've seen plenty of accurate portrayal on the news as far as the actual disaster itself and the scope of it goes.

Outside the military, there is no "rank." :wtf:

That kind of obsession with hierarchy should be reserved to freepers.

And I was talking about the military specifically.

There is one in most every workplace, organization, and even families. You can't go into a McDonald's without running into a hierarchy, there are team leaders, shift managers, asst. managers, managers, General Managers, Regional Managers, Vice Presidents, President, CEO, CFO, and a Board.

Our government should have final command and control because this is by no means a "private" concern. It is a national, regional (folks bitching about unauthorized migrants forget this may help starve more folks out and up past the border), and even a global concern since the oil could eventually enter currents that take it to other shores, not to mention that wildlife and food stocks may spawn here but live their lives elsewhere. There is also the straight up problems of further toxifying the waters.

Our national prosperity, security, food supply, habitat, wildlife, and general health are on the line here and the circumstances demand at least the same focus of an invading army.

Getting boom deployed to the areas where the oil seems to be heading at the time, looking into all the options for cleaning up the area once a cleanup effort can actually be undertaken without facing futility (cleanup is going to be fairly futile until they stop the gusher), yadda, yadda. BP is still tasked with the responsibility of plugging this thing and unfortunately I think thats necessary because they are better equipped to pull that off than the military is. Short of attempting to blow something up and hope it doesn't cause even bigger problems, there isn't much else the federal government seems to be realistically capable of doing.

ten times.

Are the first ones up in arms when he's not out in front... then he gets out in front and he's... well, you know the game.

I don't listen, helps me better understand what he was saying past the delivery. He gives an excellent speech, I want to make sure I know what he said.

I don't listen, helps me better understand what he was saying past the delivery. He gives an excellent speech, I want to make sure I know what he said.

One would never guess constructive action trumps yelling and screaming from progressive sites

No action possible.

There is a hole in the ocean floor that cannot be plugged and it will take another 80 days before the first attempt at a relief well can be done, and even there we have no idea of knowing whether it would be succesful, at least the first try.

Any other actions are hail Mary passes designed to keep the populace believing somthing is being done.

Figuring out what happens if something goes wrong is something that should probably be done before you drill...not after.

Deepest well ever. Terrible layers to drill through. Hurricane season coming.

It doesn't sound good.

Well we are all fucked, but they are fucked as far as who takes blame and they know it.

Right now is the delaying of the outrage and the pitchforks as much as possible.

The President is actually being kind of politically wise letting BP lead the efforts because they are the "experts".

He has no resources to fix it and he's learned that helping these people too much leaves him on the hook when they fuck up.

Like I said up thread, castrations are coming...I'm noisy because I want them, not because I think anything can be done.

;-)

and are simply too damn lazy to do a little research on their own.

I mean, it's as if they expect Obama to personally call them or email them every 5 minutes informing them of what he's doing.

If they don't hear anything about Obama and his administrations efforts reported on CNN or FOX, which seems to be the new "news" channel of choice for many on DU, they assume he's doing nothing.

I say get off your asses and go to the news, don't wait for the news to come to you!

Also, I suspect many people here don't want to hear what Obama is doing because it would interrupt their daily cycle of complaining. They choose to stay uninformed so they'll have something to bitch about, and sadly, they don't care how stupid it makes them look!

Being proactive with the media narrative is almost expected. Whether we like that or not is not an issue.

Hell, during the campaign. Why do we tell our story. So someone else doesn't tell it for us was actually in the training. So I know he's well aware of that issue or at least two people close to him are.

The fact that the media chooses not to report everything he says or does is out of his control.

I, and others, have posted links that show how involved Obama and this administration has been from day one of this disaster. The information is out there, sometimes you have to look for it yourself instead of relying on the news media to tell you about it.

It's not Obama's fault the news media would rather spend more air time on Lindsey Lohan than the oil spill and what's being done about it.

I think the ones who need to be more proactive are the ones who spend all day complaining.

because I know nothing can really be done other than to convince idiots they can do something, I think I figured that out with the Golf ball scheme and I stopped hearing probabilities of success.

Nope, my concerns are more focused on punishement, re-regulation, and clean-up.

On those issues I think it is a good idea to be really, really, really noisy.

and when it was clear BP was in CYA mode and lying about the flow this immediately became something they could not be trusted with and so it is crucial to know that folks concerned only with stopping the leak, cleaning up and repairing the damage, and the general welfare of our citizens and habitat has the reins rather than the self serving and demonstrably inept BP.

He came on in relation to his health care plan many times and this is many factors more important and much less correctable.

He's doing the work.

And if he were loud and in-your-face the media would attack him for that!

we just don't get enough of those

just in this situation...when they take them through tours of active war zones it is "different"

but I think the Vietnam war is a great example of why a non-embedded press is the best way to achieve a higher percentage of "truth" in the long run.

:rofl:

the first casualty is truth, and I daresay it aint getting up on the operating table anymore.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thought so.

This is the real question we need to be asking.

which should give the rest of us some serious pause.

...no bid contracts, etc- unless they all get together and fix this mess & get it cleaned up w/i a reasonable time- say 3 months or so.

In fact, I think the majoritiy of Americans could be convinced that it is even fair, just- even a CONSERVATIVE thing to do.

And I dont think he has to yell or get red-faced while he does it either.

As far as the perception that our current Government is more responsive to it's corporate donors than it is to the DEM base- If Obama wants to give back all of the money BP gave him- or better yet- give it to a clean up effort, then that would be one way to prove the doubters wrong.

He could also pledge to never accept one single penny from them again.

I know, I know- none of the above will ever happen b/c "that's far left, radical, crazy stuff- dont you know America is a center right country?"

Carry on.

I thought Obama criticism was verboten - but just try to say anything bad about BP and watch what happens. Sheesh. The world is upside down.

which should give the rest of us some serious pause.

because you view it as the same thing.. you do.

8 years of posturing and BS is enough.

Calling him an "empty suit" instead of a "Jim Dandy" isn't fooling anyone. Neither does calling Obama "all talk, no work" (and its many variants) hide the underlying stereotype of "Shuck and Jive".

Just FYI.

A certain percentage of the population responds, in a very primal (heh) way, to the primate that is screaming loudly, throwing poo, and beating their chest.

It's not that people who respond in positive ways to such simplistic antics are beyond rational thought, it's that human rational thought is over-ridden (in many people) by emotional responses driven by deeper primal instincts.

We aren't so different from our other primate cousins, and sometimes, it shows.

screw the wage earners to pay for the Corporatists' mistakes. :grr: :puke:

Or "quietly and covertly" insert legislation targeting gas guzzlers, the net effect is the same.

The OP (as I understood it) was about why people respond to podium thumpers.

sins and greed, i.e., risky investment bank strategies.

Yes, quietly and covertly accomplishing what BushCo couldn't finish with bravado, i.e., eradicating the Middle Class through socialized risk and privatized profits.

People who pay into corporate greed schemes, and then complain about corporate greed schemes, tend to confuse me.

Don't like them?

STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.

It's like listening to people whine about how wealthy African princes keep sending out offers about money, and hearing demands that wealthy princes should be regulated....

...Totally missing the point.

as well as this upcoming gas TAX for the gulf clean up that's going to be voted on as early as today, I'd say that our Congress is truly socializing RISK and privatizing PROFITS.

There's no second guessing involved - the American taxpayer is being fleeced until the Super-rich eradicates the middle class. Then they'll quietly remain behind their gated communities and continue to call the shots for Congress, the Executive Branch and SCOTUS.

Until you understand this basic concept, expect to be confused, and beating your chest, and flinging poo.

to include this GAS TAX that will be voted out today. What are the odds that BP will ever pay us back? NIL!

Privatize the risk and socialize the profits ... pragmatic or not, this Administration and Congress is serving the super-rich and their corporate interest FIRST and FOREMOST. It is destroying the middle class.

Yes, I've learned to loathe the term "pragmatism" = they're calmly and quietly enriching the corporations off of the backs of the American taxpayer.

My blood boils = shamelessly. :grr:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

...don't expect the discourse to elevate.

My favorite (right now) is "oligarch", it's another sad, sad, "label word" to use in ad hominem attacks when the debate has lost ideas.

Yes, it's the large Corporations who for the past decade have had first choice - more equal than the average American.

It's not a code word: Corporatism Rules the USA and we need to re-assert the right of the Middle Class to benefit before the bloated super-wealthy gut our nation and turn us into a third world nation.

Unregulated Capitalism is ruining our nation.

Fuck that

I think he's as much of a coward whether he's not yelling or when he is.

Barack does his fair share of rabble raising speeches. I've been to a few in 2008.

Well, that fits in with my primal theme, how is he "a coward"?

What does he do that makes him "a coward"?

and does the opposite under pressure.

Now, I guess I could go and call him a liar, but I think that is a little harsh don't you?

Screaming "fight, fight, fight" like children in a schoolyard could also accomplish...

Nothing.

than take a stab at the pot. Mostly because a guy with a 2 and a 7 off suit is bragging about what a great hand he has even though Barack has pocket bullets.

Are we talking poker today or chess, which analogy do we want.

When you count people with badly spelled signs whining about socialism when they can't define the word and claiming they want the government to stay out of their medicare as serious political opposition you must face...well forgive me when I laugh a little bit in comparison to a man who had to deal with a powerful Klu Klux Klan, real Nazis having real meetings in America, and an interparty war with Huey Long.

FDR is always the Gold Standard of political courage. Always will be.

This President can't even get his own party to behave itself.

This is a big fucking wake-up call.

I am not critical of Obama's emergency response. But, if there is no change in policy, which I have seen no evidence of, then Obama is saying business as usual is acceptable.

This could be a huge turning point, but will he be a leader in that regard? I am not holding my breath, with new drilling permits already being approved for the deep sea.

that kind of policy decision ties you in to the status quo and says that if he had been in charge ten years ago we'd come to the same pass. Maintaining the status quo when given the chance to push in a new direction means you have bought in.

Hell, he's been given a second chance and still is pushing the status quo instead of reason. More off shore drilling is batshit insane at this point. Better we revert to the stone age and have good fish to eat and clean water than surfing on a death wave.

meme and I guess people think if someone isn't blowing horns and whistles nothing is getting done. They're "shell-shocked" from Bush...

Personally, I like the calm approach;)