Past their prime...

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I've often wondered if it's better to vote for a candidate who is likable and a strong leader, even if I disagree with them, or if I should vote for an unlikable person who matches my own beliefs.

Neither. It is about someone who can see a bigger picture.

For example Curtis LeMay was a brilliant General. When it came to tactical military decisions, he was among the best. But he could not see the bigger picture. He viewed war in terms of 'them vs us'. And not about the bigger picture of how we all coexist after the fact.

Kennedy was clearly a superb example of a leader. In an administration chock full of brilliant men, Kennedy saw things even they did not see.

Johnson was probably one of the best power brokers in office. If ever it came to getting political solutions, nobody was better. However he did not see the big picture overseas. He could not understand why he created the quagmire and why others would not negotiate with what to him was a sweetheart deal. He could see the big picture in domestic politics. But could not see the big picture worldwide.

Nixon is the classic example of a superb politician incapable of understanding that his job (and not his legacy) was more important. Much of what he did domestically and internationally was shrewd but undermined by what he wanted. Nixon saw big pictures, but was subverted by his own personal needs.

It is far more complex than strength vs charisma. The ability to see big pictures and to act upon them is critical. Kennedy's weakness was domestic politics. But he was the perfect leader for that time. In fact, most other men in that position probably would mean none of us exist.

Having said all that, can anyone say anything good about George Jr - other than he finally stopped listening to Cheney?