I would like to know if others have seen the same thing I have...

Most of the conservs, and I mean the real hard core ones, never rise in rank or position above what could be called middle management. They are too rigid in their thinking and have trouble adapting to changing conditions.

Some of the wealthest people in the US today call them selves conservitaves, but the really rich ones, when there are no reporters around, will be the first to tell you they made their money because they were lucky and not smart. When market conditions change they just retire as they cannot adapt to changing markets.

Most of the real leaders, and by that I mean people that must make decisions on which fortunes rise and fall or who have life and death responsibilities, are more liberal in their thinking. They have to be because they have to see all sides of an event or set of circumstances and pick the best one. When the difference between life and death can be measured in seconds if is best to have someone who can think quickly and improvise if necessary.

The Commander in Chief during WWII was FDR, and our war effort then went well. The only atomic weapons ever used were used by Truman, a Democrat, and that, by many estimates, shortened the war with Japan by seven years.

Hitler, by the way, was considered to be very conservative. His knowledge of war was, according to his own Generals, on par with a Corporals' as that was the highest rank he ever rose to. When things did not go his way he was without the resources to change course. His thinking was just too rigid.

I have, over the years, known a number of higher ranking military people, business people, Communist leaders and even a Royal or two and I have found them all to be well rounded people. The world is a small place, and a decision by OPEC can take down a nation if the leader does not know how to cope, so a well rounded leader will be successful and a rigid one will not.

Contrary to popular thought the military people, or at least the ones I knpw, had no trouble with who was Commander in Chief. Be it Bush or Clinton, if the CoC said go these people were ready to walk barefoot through hell if they had to in order to defend the US. I once asked a US Navy leader his opinion on gays in the service and he was against them coming out. He did not mind them serving, but if they came out it caused a problem with the other saliors. He was fully behind, "Don't ask, don't tell," and he knew of a number of gays under his command, all of which he had no problem with.

He put gays in the same catagory as drunks, drug users, slackers or broken equipment... He did not care about how you lived your life, but he would not allow anyone or anything to interfer with his mission which was to have his fleet ready for duty at all times. Anything that detracted from mission readiness would not be tolerated. If you were a drunk but could overhaul a two-cycle engine then you were all righ with him, but when you could not do your job, for whatever reason, you were out.

He also instruced his Captains to watch out for anyone under their command that was too religious. There was only one God in his fleet, and He was it. I think anyone who has been in the Navy will know what i am talking about here. Gen. Patton said it best: "They can lose their fear of God, but they better never lose their fear of me."

We will not know if Obama will be a leader until a few years have passed. Then the world can compare him with Bush and decide: Which type of person makes the better leader when there is real responsibility on the line? The lucky or the smart?

Pooka