Really more a stub for your own comments, if so desired :- )
As I understand it, Donald Trump was recently asked "Are you going to get rid of the Muslims?" To which he responded, LOL, "We'll be looking at that and other issues."
His rival, Ben Carson, graciously pointed out that "He probably didn't process the question. Next time he'll rebuff the suggestion," or somesuch. I'm not a Trump supporter, but that's how I would look at it for either side. We are talking about real-time reactions here with no preparation. I don't judge a man by an instant-reaction that he later regrets.
Still, there was a great Hey Bill today:
Re: Fiorina. What is strange is what makes her stand out. She seems to have studied the issues, real and campaign/media manufactured and formulated positions and short, snappy answers. She can therefore talk intelligently off the cuff in response to almost any question. In other words, she has prepared for the questions that she is likely to get. While that would seem to be basic, like a shortstop learning to field grounders, it seems to be rather unpopular among our current crop of candidates, on both sides, who often seem unprepared or surprised or otherwise winging it on very obvious questions.
Asked by: raincheck
That's exactly right. There was one discussion in the CNN debate in which Fiorina started rattling off the numbers of divisions that were needed and the numbers of aircraft carriers that were needed and other such. I thought it sounded silly, frankly; it was canned research being force-fed into the middle of the debate for the obvious purpose of making her appear to be well-informed on an issue about which she is not likely all that well-informed.
But then I saw other commentators who were just wowed by this, that she "knew" the number of infantry divisions that would be needed in some situation. I was not impressed by this in the sense that I actually believe she is knowledgeable about military preparedness, but it was a step ahead of most of the other debaters, who generally didn't seem to have done anything to get ready for the debate.
CEO's tend to vote left as a group. Dr. D is not a starry-eyed sycophant here. And he is not necessarily a Carly supporter.
Also, it is people on the left who disproportionately admire intelligence over character. So again this is not a Dr. D hobby horse.
But high-powered CEO's of companies like Hewlett-Packard tend to be this way. They are used to being breathtakingly well-informed on an astonishing number of issues. This is the only 2% of Bill's perspective where Dr. D might go another direction; Bill suspects an artificial bit of info memorized for the debate - a manipulation, basically. It was probably memorized for the debate; no CEO needs to be that granular. Or maybe she's got a razor-sharp memory. But some CEO's like Fiorina are maniacal about having info about anything she's going to talk about; that's just being a CEO. It's authentic for a good CEO to be like this.
Intelligence as such is not impressive to Dr. D. But when it is applied with this level of incisiveness, when a woman disciplines her mind to be ruthlessly well-informed and logical, that's a different thing. Dr. D does not admire Bill James for his natural-born IQ; that is a birthright, like being tall or short. James is interesting for his broadness of mind and his interest in facts-and-research over baloney. James doesn't first decide what he prefers, and then analyze the issue. IN THAT CONTEXT his stunning intelligence is nourishing to the rest of us.
There are billionaires around, like Trump 2016 and Ross Perot in 1992; that's one thing. But don't kid yourself about CEO's in the mold of Bill Gates, Carly Fiorina and their ilk. We'd be lucky to even get an audience with them, in OUR OWN specialties, and there are good reasons for that. You have to be top-flight, super top-flight, to get anywhere near their circles.
Ever read the Bill Gates Rolling Stone interview? I thought it was one whale of a read. Gates is a true moderate politically, by the way. So notice the tone of the Rolling Stone reporter, from scoffing and condescending at the start into humbled and inquisitive at the end. With a Rolling Stone reporter that ain't easy to do.
It was a hoot for me because it WAS like an Ordinary Joe getting an hour with the CEO of Microsoft. (Gates quit Microsoft a good 15 years ago, because Microsoft doesn't matter enough to be his priority in life. A warming thought for Dr. D as he blogs away.)
OKDan pointed out this Barack Obama rebuff of culture war run amok. In 2015, I don't think you can BE President -- or Governor of any state -- without the ability to sit down in a room with diverse opinions, and to really listen to everybody. But Pres. Obama put it better than I did.
Dan implicitly wanted to know if this statement changed my view of Obama. It did. There were many things he said during the 2007 campaign that I ASSUMED were only said to win over the moderates. Bill Clinton was the greatest there ever was at this manipulation. But I never really caught Obama in a blatant lie, and the more time goes on, the more I understand his sincerity and thoughtfulness. His willingness to make this statement about Universities -- really at his own initiative -- sort of confirmed for me that he is a reasonable man.
And that's huge. People on the left and right assume that EVERYBODY on the other side is unreasonable. It may only take a few Big Examples of this to get us talking again.