http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/best-leaders/2009/10/23/david-gergen-the-national-deficitof-leadership.html

That the leadership deficit now seems so chronic suggests that the problem goes deeper than the quality of the individuals who come to power. There is something in the culture that makes leadership even tougher and more perilous than it should be. Why, asked Thomas Jefferson, did the American Revolution create a budding democracy while the French Revolution—coming at virtually the same time and with similar values—ended in tyranny? The answer, he thought, could be traced as much to the quality of the followers as to that of the leaders: American citizens were more accustomed than the French to responsible self-government.

The best point in the article, though he was quoting Thomas Jefferson (a “so called” founding father as Obama would put it). Burke came to a similar conclusion when studying the French Revolution. It is no secret that throughout this country’s history we have produced some incredible leaders who navigated us through the worst of storms. A responsible people produces responsible leadership, I can’t argue with this.

Our leaders today are discovering, with a vengeance, how much followers matter. When the economic bubble burst last year, a powerful, angry uprising swept the country and moved into Washington. Obama privately told bank CEOs, “My administration is the only thing that stands between you and the pitchforks.” Obama himself was the target of a second populist uprising that came in tea parties, town halls, and public marches. Hatred hung in the air, and some worried about violence.

Of course this is David Gergen I am reading so what was a decent read quickly deteriorates into the same old blithering. People were rightfully upset after the bank bailouts, but those who marched on AIG and other intitutions were astroturfed ACORN folk. Obama used them as a threat to get corporate America to bend to his will. Don’t blame the people on this one. The tea parties were peaceful and certainly tame compared to past protests dating back to the revolutionary era Gergen romanticizes, there was no threat of violence here. The town halls were again peaceful. Sure they got raucous but there was no threat of violence until left wing Acorn and SEIU thugs started to show up for counter protests. The people were not being listened to when it came to their worries on healthcare and the deficit, Washington was acting as if Obamacare was a done deal and the people, many in their 60s, practiced their constitutional right to expression and assembly. They were being responsible, not hateful or violent. The only people who worried about violence were the ignorant and the dishonest partisans who supported the President’s agenda. It was not hatred that hung in the air, it was frustration spawned by a lack of leadership. Nice job missing the point of your own article Gergen.

The president and his supporters have tended to blame the blogosphere and 24-hour news channels that feature extreme voices and manufacture artificial controversies. They have a point. There was a time in the lives of many today when the culture and the media environment were more civil and the country was more united. The 1940s, ’50s, and early ’60s had ugly moments—remember McCarthy? And Dallas?—but the overall tone was more positive. Was it any accident that those years also spawned Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Kennedy?

Maybe I am wrong to jump to this conclusion but it sounds to me like Gergen is taking a shot at Glenn Beck. It’s all his fault. There are certainly extreme voices on the blogosphere but there are plenty of responsible ones as well. There are certainly extreme voices on cable but some of the most extreme reside at MSNBC and have the Presidents ear in secret meetings. Perhaps if the people felt they could trust the old media institutions to give them the truth instead of spinning, we might not have seen the rise of cable or the blogs. What does Gergin mean of “Manufactured controversies”? If he is talking of Beck he might as well call him out by name and state exactly what he is talking about. It is precisely this type of vague finger pointing which has lead to the people’s frustration.

Gergen complains how we are less civil than we were in the past. He sounds like a guy in his 30’s complaining to a teenager about how music in his day was so much better when it is today. Time naturally creates a sense of nostalgia but Gergen needs to clear his head. In complaining about protests and possible violence he forgets about the many riots and bloodshed that took place in his precious past before the 1950s. FDR relied on class warfare to redirect the frustration of the people and the many labor protests which took place in the same time. Woodrow Wilson passed the Alien and Sedition Act of 1918 which terrorized dissenters of his own administration. Before Kennedy we had three other Presidents assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley) and plenty of attempted assassinations as well (Jackson, Lincoln, Ted Roosevelt, FDR, Truman), we fought a Civil War which killed more Americans than any of our other wars and our own independence was founded after a bloody Revolution.

As for Civil discourse, are you kidding me? Lets go all the way back to Gergen’s Golden Age when Jefferson challenged Adams for the Presidency. This was one seriously dirty and personal campaign where at one time Jefferson called Adams a “hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman“. This is from one of our founding fathers to another! Even Michael Savage and Olbermann would blush at this.

We do seem to have a drought when it comes to true leadership in this country but it’s not because of the lack of civility or because of Glenn Beck on cable news. Try looking at our schools and their revisionist curriculums, the welfare state, the celebrity narcissism which is celebrated, the deterioration of Judeo-Christian values and the growing sense of entitlement and complacency in our population over self reliance and self determination. The less responsiblity we pass along to the government to take care of us, the less frustration we will feel towards them.

I saw no mention of Reagan in Gergen’s article. Reagan is easily one of the best Presidents we saw in the 20th century and he did it by cutting back on his own powers and giving more responsibility back to the people themselves. Reagan also put forth an incredibly positive tone which Gergin says is missing these days, so why did he leave out the fierce optimism of Reagan who took on the cynicism of the media and academia (a left wing cynicism which prevails to this day and which was ignored by Gergin).

Charlton Heston once stated that we are by nature a violent country, founded in violence, and he was correct. Perhaps this propensity for violence is also what has kept us free from tyranny and less likely to bow down to the demands of the state. Gergen baby, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Overall I thought the interview was decent.  Sarah Palin did look nervous, at least compared to her composure at other events.  She also looked nervous in the beginning of her convention speech but grew more comfortable as time went on.  I sensed this same increase in comfort level as the interview went on.  This is a big interview for her and she is a newcomer but it seems like she was easing up as she realized Charlie Gibson is just some dolt in a sweater vest.  I liked how She pushed back when Gibson was sweeping aside her emphasis on the importance of a leaders will to reform government.

I thought her answer as to whether she was ready to be Vice President was well worded, but her body language suggested nervousness and may lead some to believe there are conflicting messages there.  Her line about "not blinking" was well delivered however and impressed me personally.  His accusation of Hubris was a bit of a cheap shot but she handled it well.

Her emphasis on energy, an area of obvious expertise for her, strengthened her image when it comes to foreign policy.  Whatever lack of knowledge she may have in other areas, energy and American dependence on foreign oil is absolutely one of the most important aspects of foreign policy and national security.  Charlie Gibson seemed like he tried to brush this aside but she pressed back and good for her, energy is directly related to alot of the vulnerabilities America has to hostile regimes.  Sorry Gibson, it's not climate change. 

Her response to Israel was a disciplined response.  When talking about a potential nuclear war, you need to stick to a rigid stance and not say anything during a campaign which could ignite further tensions.  Gibson pressed her on this, she stood strong.

Gibson pressed her hard on Pakistan and again, she was disciplined in her answer.  She can't say too much on such a fragile issue.  She didn't take any options off the table but did not give anything away either.  Good answer, though Gibson seemed unsatisfied he couldn't bait her into contradicting McCains stance on not invading our ally.

Her remarks about defending Georgia against Russia are already being taken out of context by blogs.  Ukraine and Georgia should be in NATO, that is her stance and under Article V of the NATO treaty if any member is attacked the others must come to its defense.  Putting countries like Georgia and Ukraine in NATO would be meant to deter Russia from reasserting their influence over them.  If Russia did attack one of the countries and a war started as a reult, that would be Russias fault.  In no way was Sarah Palin war mongering or suggesting we should invade Russia.  Perhaps some people just don't know exactly how NATO works or how dangerous Putin is.

The Bush Doctrine question will most likely be the one the blogs pick up on but I saw it as a gotcha question.  I follow politics and world affairs pretty closely and I didn't even know what the Bush doctrine was exactly.  I thought it had to do with zero tolerance for nations who harbored terrorists but Gibson is under the belief it is a promotion of pre-emptive strikes and war.  He could have just told her that when she first asked, but he went for the gotcha moment.  He wasn't looking for a true answer at that point and came across rather condescending.  I personally don't think it was a big deal, i doubt the regular voter will give a damn, she gave her answer and the real issue here is how she would approach foreign policy.

The question about her statements in church about Gods Will was misleading.  They cut out what she said and made her sound like some kind of holy warrior, a term Gibson even referred to which was unfair I thought.  She explained herself well, especially with the reference to Lincoln but Gibson seemed relentless in trying to get her to admit that God said to her in a dream that we must go around invading countries.  He was looking for another Gotcha moment.  I believe he failed, especially since he took her original words completely out of context.  Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and so many other leaders have referenced God's will in a similar way, that God is not on our side but that we be on Gods side.

her exact words were:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

I got the impression that Charlie Gibson was a professor giving an oral exam to a student he expected to fail.  He came across as condescending and smug.  Palin did look initially nervous but seemed to ease up as the interview went on, I look forward to the next two parts.  Overall Gibson gave a decent interview, I want Palin to face tough interviews, but his attitude and dishonest and inaccurate mis-quote of her speech in church gave hints of a hatchet job.  Tough but fair is what I want.

Is there a way we can just divide the nation up? Once the red states are torn into poverty and debt since the blue states control 75% of the GDP, they'll come begging back. They'll miss our entertainment too, left to consume hours upon hours of country and christian music.

The above text was posted in response to an article on Politico.  I have heard this sentiment quite a bit from those on the left, especially those in well off liberal areas normally located in Northern California.  Though some in my area of New England have mused similar thoughts.  If their candidates can't win in our Democratic system (which must be broken or corrupt!) and their judges can't legislate from the bench (to bypass the "flawed" democratic system) then perhaps the more enlightened Blue States of America should dump the excess baggage that are the Red States and go at it on their own.  I take it these people are not fans of Obama's 2004 Convention speech.  You know, the one about one nation, no Red or Blue States but the United States?

These people seriously undervalue and underestimate the importance of Red State USA.  The economies in the Red States are easily outpacing the Blue States and the cost of living is much more reasonable.  I reside in Connecticut and if it wasn't for my family I would get the heck out of here in a heartbeat.  We have two Sanctuary cities in this small state and a Puerto Rican friend of mine told me the other day that written on the walls of bathrooms in San Juan are messages urging people to go to Connecticut for a "free ride".  The social services in this state are easily abused and it's killing us.  I love New England, and I would miss this historical area of the country, but at the same time I would not look back if I left.

So some want to divide the country?  Ok lets work this out then, I'll speak directly to the Blue State secessionists on this plan.  You can have the Northeast which includes New York and New England (poor New Hampshire) and you can also have Maryland, Delaware, D.C. and part of Pennsylvania such as the Eastern part.  You can also have the Rustbelt states of Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and I'll even throw in Iowa for you.  Hands off Ohio and Indiana, those are our babies.  You can also have the left coast, except for southern California.  All California territory south of L.A. will belong to the newly founded Red Faction since they will need access to a pacific port.  Washington State and Oregon are yours though.  Maybe Northern Virginia as well can go your way, they've been acting strange lately with all the Carpetbaggers moving in.

The Bible Belt, the Sun Belt, Rocky Mountain States, Midwest, Deep South and Sotheast will all go to the Red Faction.  The Canadian Provinces of Alberta and possibly Saskatchewan may want to join in as well because the good people of The Red States would not want to limit their energy and oil production like the elitists in Ontario, plus they share alot of the same social values as the Red voters.  Alberta especially clings to guns and religion.

Taxes will be low, cost of living will be reasonable and free market businesses will flourish.  Foreign companies such as Toyota and Subaru are already building massive factories in Red States such as Indiana and Alabama to avoid the stranglehold of unions such as the UAW and with out the Rockefeller Wallstreet Republicans calling the shots from Manhattan, true conservatives in the Red States can end this obsession with large corporations and unmonitored free trade and focus on small business and fair trade.  Some states will be socialy conservative while others will take a more libertine approach to these matters, either way it will be their decision without some unelected, unaccountable activist judge writing fairy tales into law and calling it constitutional.

Soooo, if you really think seceding from America is in the Blue States' best interest, take a closer look at your folly.  The Blue Faction would be divided up into three sections, only accessible by air while the Red Faction would be a powerhouse controlling all of North America's Natural Gas, Coal, Oil and Oil shale Reserves.  The majority of the American Armed Forces is made up of Red Staters and the citizens happen to own all the guns as well.  As for entertainment, the South has produced Blues, Jazz, Rock, incredible food, don't limit Casinos to Indian reservations (not every Red stater is a fundamentalist who hates gambling) and a new Hollywood could be formed with movies focusing on action and guns instead of gay cowboys, white guilt and self hating Americans.  John Wayne and Steve McQueen were Conservatives and it would be nice to see actors like this return to the Big Screen and replace the likes of Ben Afflek and Matt Damon. 

Go ahead and secede though, maybe Ontario will join you?

Or maybe you can just learn to love your country unconditionaly, no matter how "stupid" you might think the people are.  I am no Obama fan and personally feel he would be a disaster as President but if he were to be President I would take a cue from John Wayne and say, "well I didn't vote for the guy, but he is still my President and I hope he does a good job."  Sure I would be frustrated if my candidate of choice didn't get in, I might blame the liberal media and all the liberal academic hacks indoctrinating our youth, but I still trust the American people to do what they in their hearts feel is right.  America has faced tremendous challenges throughout its history and the only thing other than the resolve and spirit of the American people that got us through these challenges were truly exceptional leaders.  Distinctly American leaders.  Elected leaders such as Washington and Lincoln as well as Civil leaders who spoke under the protection of the first amendment.  All the troubles we have faced and all the progress we have made and yet I hear people not so jokingly talk about secession?  Because their guy didn't win?  Absurd.