Saturday, December 10, 2005

Transformational

Condoleezza Rice has an excellent piece in... um, tomorrow's Washington Post (it is Saturday, isn't it?) about why promoting freedom is the only realistic path to security (as the sub-headline says). (TFHT: Crazy Politico)

Transfomational leadership does not always come easily, as the Bush Administration has demonstrated over the past five years. People are resistant to change, and the White House has been working on a major paradigm shift, if I may borrow from Dr. Covey. The world has not seen the likes of this since Ronald Reagan, and he had just as much trouble convincing people that his lofty goals were possible. President Bush is not Reagan, obviously, but they have a similar leadership style, which makes one want to draw a comparison.

Dr. Rice writes:
Like the ambitious policies of Truman and Reagan, our statecraft will succeed not simply because it is optimistic and idealistic but also because it is premised on sound strategic logic and a proper understanding of the new realities we face.


As always, Dr. Rice is worthy of your attention. It would be nice if she'd consider a presidential run in 2008, she'd be a shoe-in, but the word from her has been that it won't be happening. Imagine the cognitive dissonance of a Rice vs. H. R. Clinton election? Moonbats' heads would explode.

Previous:
Failure: When Your Best Just Isn't Good Enough

5 Comments:

Blogger Crazy Politico bloody well said...

You are right on Bush not being Reagan, the biggest difference, though is in speaking ability. If Bush had half of Ron's charm and presentation ability, I think he'd be up in the mid 60's in his approval ratings.

Good ideas poorly communicated are a problem for him.

Thanks for the link!

10 December, 2005 13:48  
Blogger Gayle bloody well said...

CP makes a good point, although I think Bush is getting better as of late.

Yes, Rice vs Clinton would be wonderful. The Dem's wouldn't know what hit them.

10 December, 2005 18:18  
Blogger Uranttilly bloody well said...

Rice? Good candidate.

I don't put much stock in Hilly. Most people hate her guts, even in her own party. She's trying to position herself as a Moderate/hawk on the war, but most of America knows she's lying.

Lieberman is my prediction if the Dem's have the sense to nominate him.

Hillary's out of gas, big donors have evaporated, and she's just flat out
disagreeable to look at and shrill to listen to. Plus, she is a CLINTON with not enough self respect to ditch Bill over his philandering. In other words, a political whore of the worst stripe.

11 December, 2005 09:51  
Blogger Robosquirrel bloody well said...

As I told Rebekah, I doubt she will run, much as I would like it to be so.

"I will not run for president of the United States. How is that? I don't know how many ways to say 'no' in this town."

We can always hope she changes her mind.

11 December, 2005 10:02  
Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox bloody well said...

I'm reading Dick Morris's book on Condi vs. Hillary right now. He thinks that if there is enough grassroots support Condi would run. And I think Hillary will get the nomination because she has paid all the right people off and the Clinton crew is like the mafia. And I will guarantee that Lieberman will NEVER get the nomination. The democrats aren't smart enough, he'll be lucky to get re-elected senator after his comments supporting the war.

12 December, 2005 20:31  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home