Both Planning AND Experience

Those who are enamored with "good ideas" and "noble motives" are to be applauded for their high thinking.  We all want to create "good" for our fellow man, to varying degrees of course.

AND we need to bridge the gap when it comes to actually implementing what works, toward those higher objectives.

It appears that this President, plus some of the government staff, have allowed the noble ideas to rule ABOVE the practicality and probability of good results that effectively move us toward those objectives.  Or they just haven't done their homework, staying in a form of "fantasyland" and of "meaning well". 

The objective of benefitting mankind by saving the environment through the use of "green" technology is a good objective, of course.  But the benefits of what we actually can produce must be considered AND we must have a plan on how to do it, one that suggests a very good chance of success. 

Solyndra is a classic example, where we sought to support green technology by guaranteeing a loan of more than a half a billion dollars and touted it (with no less than televised attendance there by Biden and then by Obama).  Without going through the whole story, this quote tells the tale:  "But the company has since filed for bankruptcy and laid off 1,100 workers, saying it couldn't compete with foreign manufacturers of solar panels."   (Its total capitalization, including venture capital was a billion and a half. - alot to lose in about two years.)

This was an easily seeable fact (the great conditions for manufacturing in China).   It was an ill-considered business proposition.  It appeared to be amateurish, wishful thinking.

We must, instead, look at where we can get the most short and long term effect for the dollar and use thinking that would be expert-business-like, where we shoot for the good for the environment but are practical.  Bjorn Lomberg, "the skeptical environmentalist", provides a well-considered approach.  His website  and/or a video at TED (plus some on YouTube).

We need a leader who is able to think analytically in a practical context, which requires experience in forms of business and economic management - and with good values and character.  A trade-off that we must also consider is the ability of the leader to get results in the political arena, which suggests that the leader should have some governing experience.  Being only a politician is not sufficient as well as being only an experienced businessman not being suffient.  On this basis, Cain would be excluded (very likable, very capable fellow) as would Santorum and Bachmann.  Only two candidates meet those criteria.

This may have been the mistake that occurred with Obama, who has had to go through OJT (on the job training), which is not a good idea when there is such a short period plus not a good idea to have a low experience person thrust into one of the most difficult jobs.  No company would throw any inexperience person, no matter how smart, into a high level position - all of us have to go through the levels, building our knowledge and experience.  Obama is admirable in his motives for the good of the people, but he appears not able to garner sufficient wisdom to be effective in this job - I voted for him myself in order to "shake things up", knowing that he was the least experienced of the eight candidates at the time, plus the alternative choice was not logical at all.

When you are selecting a candidate to vote for, whether for President or other elected offices, you should use practical ability and comprehension about what works as an essential quality.

The Rational Non-Politician

See also the draft on the site called Rating The Politicians, where we are formulating specific criteria beyond promises, posturing, and rhetoric for selecting someone to vote for.  Rating The Politicians.