Governor Jindal talks about Gay Marriage

Gov. Bobby Jindal, front, with his family during a prayer at the opening session of the Louisiana State Legislature in April. Credit Pool photo by Gerald Herbert

Governor Bobby Jindal staked his position on the Gay Marriage debate. He stands firm on the rights of businesses to choose not to serve potential customers whose views they find abhorrent.
A lot of people compare this to Woolworths refusing to serve black customers in the 1960's. This is a poor comparison. In the 1960's the vast majority of southern businesses refused to serve blacks, leaving a large group disenfranchised with nowhere to eat, sleep or use public restrooms.
The Gay Marriage push is quite different. In this case we have a small group of people who are being overwhelmingly embraced businesses keen for their money. The few religious business owners who object to their behavior are not preventing them for getting their wedding cakes or flowers from someone else. These potential brides and grooms need to stop pushing their views on others and find the businesses who are happy to serve them. They are not hard to find.
Weak state governments are forcing these business owners to choose between violating their religious beliefs and going out of business. I'm glad to see one governor standing up for religious freedom.

Here's Jindal's full text:

BATON ROUGE, La. — THE debate over religious liberty in America presents conservatives and business leaders with a crucial choice.

In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into breaking away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.

Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?

That is what Indiana and Arkansas sought to do. That political leaders in both states quickly cowered amid the shrieks of big business and the radical left should alarm us all.

As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath.In 2010, Louisiana adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person’s exercise of religion. However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts, I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me. As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses. That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.

The bill does not, as opponents assert, create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians. The bill does not change anything as it relates to the law in terms of discrimination suits between private parties. It merely makes our constitutional freedom so well defined that no judge can miss it.

I hold the view that has been the consensus in our country for over two centuries: that marriage is between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion.

A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us. That’s why religious freedom laws matter — and why it is critical for conservatives and business leaders to unite in this debate.

If we, as conservatives, are to succeed in advancing the cause of freedom and free enterprise, the business community must stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for religious liberty. The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly. The fight against this misguided, government-dictating ideology is one fight, not two. Conservative leaders cannot sit idly by and allow large corporations to rip our coalition in half.

Since I became governor in 2008, Louisiana has become one of the best places to do business in America. I made it a priority to cut taxes, reform our ethics laws, invigorate our schools with bold merit-based changes and parental choice, and completely revamp work-force training to better suit businesses.

Our reforms worked because they were driven by our belief in freedom. We know that a nation in which individuals, and companies, are protected from the onerous impulses of government is one that will thrive and grow. That’s the intellectual underpinning of America, and in Louisiana we defend it relentlessly.

Conservatism faces many challenges in today’s America. Hollywood and the media elite are hostile to our values and they tip the scales to our liberal opponents at every opportunity. Yet the left has lost repeatedly in state elections all over America. Republicans control 31 governorships. We control nearly 70 percent of state legislative chambers, the highest proportion since at least 1900.

Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom. It’s a deliberate strategy. And it’s time for corporate America to make a decision.

Those who believe in freedom must stick together: If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all. This strategy requires populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters. This is the grand bargain that makes freedom’s defense possible.

Columbian Leadership

A hilarious article in today's NY Times detailed a story over 250 years in the making. A story of leadership, arrogance and come-uppance. I encourage you all to read the full article.

Colombians dressed up for Independence Day, including one as the one-legged military hero Blas de Lezo.
                        Credit Andrea Bruce for The New York Times       

In 1741, a 186 British warships and 26,000 men, including 4,000 American colonists, tried to conquer Cartegena, protected by 6 warships and 6,000 men. The Columbian leader, Blas de Lezo, repulsed the men, losing an eye and a leg in the battle. His statue marks the site of the battle, incorrectly portrayed as missing an arm as well.

All was as it should be until October 31 of this year when Prince Charles of England visited and unveiled a black granite plaque hailing “the valor and suffering of all those who died in combat whilst seeking to take the city” was placed at the colonial fort where British troops were repulsed nearly three centuries ago.

This display of arrogance was not lost on the Columbians. “In London, why don’t they put up a tribute to the Nazi pilots that bombed the city during World War II?” asked Juan Carlos Gossaín, the governor of Bolívar, according to local news media.

On November 5th, Jaime Rendon, a local animal rights activist and gadfly took matters, and a small sledgehammer, into his own hands. He smashed the plaque, was arrested, quickly released and is now a national hero.

“You don’t play around with history here,” Mr. Rendón said. “You’re not going to put up a plaque in New York in honor of the people who knocked down the twin towers, isn’t that right? For us it’s the same thing.”

Now the pedestal on which the broken plaque stood has become a tourist attraction and source of national pride.

Photographing the pedestal that held the plaque honoring British attackers.
                        Credit Andrea Bruce for The New York Times

Election Graphics

The New York Times did a great job with a lot of data, showing the swings from Democrat to Republican in the House and Senate over the years from 1944 to this last election. With a very simple graphic and a few words, they show the weight towards Democratic and the shifts over the years as representatives clutched on presidential coat-tails or were ousted as their presidents lost popularity.

I'll let the graphs speak for themselves below.

Lithuania declares energy independence from Russia

What do you do when you are a small, former Soviet Republic, trying to make it on your own but tied to Russia's gas monopoly? Lithuania has figured out a way to break this strangle-hold that Russia has used to freeze out Ukraine and threaten to do so to other former Eastern Bloc countries.

The floating natural gas terminal Independence arriving in Klaipeda, Lithuania, on Monday.CreditPetras Malukas/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

This article explains how the Lithuanians have brought in a mobile factory for converting Norwegian Liquified Petroleum Gas to Natural Gas and parked it just off-shore. It may cost more than Russian gas but this independence comes at a price that the Baltic states are willing to pay.

The Reasonable Polish Woman

I enjoyed reading the words of Poland's incoming Prime Minister in today's NY Times. Ewa Kopacz likened her country to a 'Reasonable Polish Woman.'

Here she explains:

“You know, I’m a woman,” she said. “I can imagine what I would do if I saw a person waving a sharp tool or holding a gun. My first thought would be: Right behind me, there is my house and my children. So I’d rush back and protect my children.”

A man, she said, would react differently.

“He would think: I don’t have a decent stick at hand, but so what? Am I not going to stand up and beat them up just because they dared to come here and threaten my family?” she said.

This attitude has put her country in good stead with the Ukrainian crisis going on next door. 

Why Democrats can't win the House

Very interesting analysis by Nate Cohn in last week's New York Times that showed why Democrats are unlikely to win a majority in the House of Representatives while winning statewide majorities for Democrats.

Democratic voters are clustered in cities giving huge margins of victory to Democrats while leaving many more slim Republican majorities in more rural districts. Look at the voting pattern of a few states to see the situation:

So while Pennsylvania and Ohio will vote Democratic as a state, handing their electoral votes to the Presidential candidate and putting Democrats in the Senate, they will send more Republicans to the House than Democrats. Same goes for many other states, enough to hand the House to Republicans for many years to come.

Dutch tolerance led to New York's greatness

Great op-ed by Russell Shorto in today's Times showing that the secret to New York's success lay in the roots of the Dutch 17th century tolerance for others. Here is the full essay but I'd like to pull some excerpts here:

 In founding New Amsterdam in the 1620s, the Dutch planted the seeds for the city’s remarkable flowering. Specifically, the Dutch brought two concepts that became part of New York’s foundation: tolerance of religious differences and an entrepreneurial, free-trading culture.

In the 17th century, when it was universally held elsewhere in Europe that a strong society required intolerance as official policy, the Dutch Republic was a melting pot. The Dutch codified the concept of tolerance of religious differences, built a vast commercial empire and spawned a golden age of science and art in part by turning the “problem” of their mixed society into an advantage. Dutch tolerance was transplanted to Manhattan: They were so welcoming that a reported 18 languages were spoken in New Amsterdam at a time when its population was only about 500.

While many economies elsewhere in Europe were still feudal, the Dutch pioneered an economic system based on individual ownership of real estate. That came about because the Dutch provinces occupied a vast river delta, in which land was at or below sea level and therefore constantly under threat. People in those communities banded together to build dams and dikes and reclaim land. The new land was not owned by a king or a church. Instead, the people who had created it divided it and began buying and selling parcels. That incentivized a whole society, fueled the growth of an empire, turned the Dutch into entrepreneurs and made them the envy of other Europeans.

McCain challenges Obama on Russia's invasion of Ukraine

For those are curious what John McCain would have been like as president rather than Barack Obama, here's a chance to see what the old war hawk would do in today's Crimean crisis.

In a recent Op-Ed, McCain criticizes Obama in his lead up to and handling of the crisis. He says Obama lacked resolve in Afghanistan and Iraq and allowed Bashar-al-Assad to cross his 'Red Line' without repercussions. He claims that Putin sees this lack of resolve as weakness to exploit.

McCain doesn't recommend military action other than NATO exercises, but he strongly insists on sanctions, removing Russia from the G8 and refusing Russian oligarchs places in the West to "park their ill-gotten proceeds."

It's a rare occasion to see how two leaders would deal with a crisis. Let's see what Obama does.

Chinese Army hacking US infrastructure

The Chinese are becoming more aggressive in their computer attacks on the US. With attacks on major newspapers uncovered and power grids being pinged by the Chinese military we are looking vulnerable.

From a recent NY Times article: 

It makes me wonder why we allow computers to control the power grid to the extent that they do now. If we want to make our country less vulnerable, wouldn't it be smarter to dumb down these grids? After all, didn't we have power grids fifty years ago? Maybe they weren't as efficient as they are now with the networking. Still, how about a back-up system that takes the grids off-line and allows them to run, albeit slightly less efficiently when they perceive they are under cyber-attack?

Seems like a way to stay a little safer in a dangerous world.

Are drones worthy of the US?

Being an immigrant to this country, I really bought into the metaphor of America being the 'Shining City on a Hill.' that the persistent strove to reach. America was the greatest country on earth. It was a hero to all struggling democracies. When I read Tolkien's stories where the eagles always came in at the last minute to save the world, I saw them as the American army rescuing Britain in World Wars I and II.

But look at us now. The eagles are crapping on the citizens of the plains. These drone strikes, while safer for US military personnel and more surgical than boots on the ground or aerial bombing attacks, make us look bad. We are flying above sovereign countries and zapping their citizens at will. The strikes are being made by members of the CIA with little oversight by other members of our government.

Is it just my bad memory or wasn't there a time when we used to say that the CIA didn't have the authority to assassinate people overseas?

It's tough for an old hawk like me to admit it but I don't like the way these drone strikes make our country look bad. I cannot imagine a kid in Yemen or Pakistan looking with pride and envy at America after a building next door explodes and some of his school-mates are killed just because they happen to be near an alleged terrorist.

The whole thing seems like Hercules' hydra to me. For every terrorist we 'surgically remove' three more are encouraged to take up arms against our country to avenge the insult to his pride.

The topic is becoming big news now with Brennan's confirmation. The Times recently ran an article about a Yemeni sheik who had just given a speech against Al Qaeda and was meeting them for talks when he was wiped out by a drone targeting the terrorists. Would have been nice to have his tribe on our side.

David Brooks wrote a nice editorial analyzing the Machiavellian thinking Obama is going through on this issue.

The Huffington Post has an emotional video showing the number of children killed by these drones on this post.

What do you think?

How's that Arab Spring working out?

Two years ago when I first posted about the Arab Spring, I was dubious of its chances for success. The choices I laid out were a crushing by the dictatorships or a switch-over to the Muslim theocracies like Iran. I had doubts that a true democracy would come to pass.  I think we can see that my prediction was correct. Egypt has converted to a theocracy that is sponsoring Muslim uprisings around the region. They have been implicated in the Benghazi embassy attack, the Algerian oil refinery massacre and the Malian takeover.

Syrians are still fighting off their dictator with mixed success. Algeria and Tunisia are playing with Muslim theocracies. Will there ever be such a thing as an Arab democracy? I don't think I'll see one in my lifetime.

No great African leaders again this year

For the third time in four years, the five million dollar Ibrahim prize for good governance in Africa was not awarded. The requirements are not too stringent:

1. Be democratically elected
2. Leave office in the last three years
3. Demonstrate excellence in office

Why is this so hard a prize to award? Let's look at some African leaders who left office in the last few years: The Arab Spring saw many dictators leave but they miss criteria # 1.

Ivory Coast's Gbagbo challenged his democratic defeat and sparked a civil war. Senegal's Wade ignored term limits and ran for a third term. Neither demonstrated excellence.

On the other hand, those leaders who missed all three criteria are making billions of dollars a year in government corruption so the prize is probably little incentive.

Is financial aid to Egypt a good idea anymore?

A debate is going on in congress around the awarding of $450 Million in emergency financial aid to Egypt. The aid, designed to assist the emerging 'democracies' from the Arab Spring is being revisited in light of the recent attacks on US embassies after the anti-Muslim video.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider all this aid to countries that are becoming stridently anti-American. We provide $1.3 Billion to the Egyptian military every year. True, most of it comes back in weapons purchases but is that smart? Why are we arming countries run by people who consider the US their worst enemy. They despise our values and live to eradicate Israel. We've been doing this in many other countries with similar values: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Jordan to name a few. Only the aid to Israel seems to be fostering a democracy and values similar to our own.

During the days of the cold war, we were in a financial arms race with the Soviet Union, providing aid to 'our' countries while they supported 'theirs'. But with the cold war over, what are we doing arming countries that seek our destruction?

Egypt threatens to relook at the Camp David treaty with Israel every time we threaten to cut off aid. But that's just blackmail. I really don't see the Egyptian army having any success against Israel. It's time to call that bluff.

Financial aid should be directed towards the building of schools and infrastructure, not the buying of weapons. Right now, the split is $1.30 Billion to the military and $0.25 Billion to other purposes. I'd prefer to see a Greg Mortenson-type using the aid to make real progress in these countries. Educate the women and change the country for the better for good.

Nobody wants a 'Perfect' leader

A little humility goes a long way in our leaders but it appears that Obama lacks this virtue. A great article in yesterday's NY Times shows his arrogance in cringe-inducing detail.

Some of his claims:

1. He cooks “a really mean chili.”
2. He has impressive musical pitch, he told an Iowa audience.
3. He is “a surprisingly good pool player,” he informed an interviewer
4. not to mention (though he does) a doodler of unusual skill
5. All in all, he joked at a recent New York fund-raiser with several famous basketball players in attendance, “it is very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth or sixth most interesting person.”
6. His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score.
7. “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director,
8. In 2010, he began by announcing that he would perform “the best rendition ever” of “Green Eggs and Ham,” ripping into his Sam-I-Ams with unusual conviction. 

At  least he agrees with the rest of the world that he isn't the best president the US has ever had. Though he only goes as far down as # 4 in his book:

This superiority complex comes from a long way back and was evident when he played high school basketball:

What is it like for the children having such a competitive father?
“When you all have kids, it’s important to let them win,” he said with a smile. “Until they’re a year old. Then start winning.”

Wow! I must be a loser for still letting my kids win sometimes.
Mr. Dowd, the former Bush adviser, said he admired Mr. Obama, but added, “Nobody likes to be in the room with someone who thinks they’re the smartest person in the room.”

And nobody likes to follow someone who thinks he's the absolute best...in everything. There is nothing wrong with self-confidence: it's a must for any successful leader but who needs someone who is constantly grading everyone's effort and with a different scale than he himself uses. That kind of leader sets himself up for people watching for him to fail...and loving it.

Oh, and before 'Em' and the rest of my liberal readers jerk their knees too hard, I'll be reviewing Romney's deficits on Friday.

How democratic do we want Egypt to be?

A woman voted at a polling station in Cairo on Saturday. By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

When the Egyptian military dissolved Parliament this week, just before the presidential runoff that will likely result the candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood winning, what was that huge sigh of relief I heard? We stand here, that shining city on the hill, espousing Democracy to the world but we get nervous when the likely winners of the democratic process will be a party who wants to see a return to Shariah law. Is that fair?

If we consider that Shariah law in Egypt will likely result in less freedoms than the people enjoyed under Mubarak's dictatorship, maybe that is fair. We have Iran as a perfect example of what can happen. Are women better off in Iran now or under the Shah? How about political protesters?

Northern Africa has consistently resorted to military coups to repress the emergence of an Islamic party so it's no surprise to see it happening again. While an Islamist may win the presidency, with a dissolved parliament, the generals will hold the real power in the country.

Politics makes strange bedfellows and I see the American leaders bedding down with the Egyptian generals to head off an Islamist-led Egypt. But it makes me a little ill to see it. What happened to the passion we saw in Tahrir square last spring? Why did all these people choose to support a party that will take away their freedom? Why couldn't there be a moderate leader who could lead from a secular angle, bringing Egypt into the 21st century and putting it in the forefront of the region?

Leadership on the Bounty

I just finished reading the Bounty trilogy and was struck by the many leadership lessons to be found within. Most know the story of 'Mutiny on the Bounty.' Captain Bligh was the petty dictator. Fletcher Christian the calm leader who, when he'd had enough, mutinied and cast Bligh adrift and returned to Tahiti. But what happened after that was the more interesting part of the story. The trilogy is made up of three books:

The full 'Bounty' trilogy by Nordhoff and Hall.

1. Mutiny on the Bounty, which we just discussed.
2. 'Men against the sea.' The story of Bligh's return to civilization with almost all of the 18 men cast adrift with him
3. 'Pitcairn's Island.' The story of the mutineer's life on their island refuge.

Let's first discuss the different leadership styles of Bligh versus Christian.  Any good book has opposition and this book focused on the two leaders.
Bligh, the petty tyrant, who's only power came from his position as captain and the weight of British Admiralty law. Bligh dominated his crew on their voyage to Tahiti, making unfair demands and obnoxious complaints. He handed out harsh lashings to anyone who he suspected of opposing him. When the ship landed in Tahiti and the men made friends with the natives who wanted to gift them with fresh meat and produce, Bligh commandeered everything for ship's stores. The men didn't trust Bligh because they suspected him of cheating them of their fair rations when the ship left England and pocketing the profits.

Fletcher Christian's leadership style was to trust the men under his command and treat them with the respect they deserved as men and sailors. Christian stood up to Bligh's bullying until his honor as a gentleman was challenged. At that point he chose to make a raft and abandon ship, only deciding to mutiny at an opportune moment. When he mutinied, most of the crew jumped to his side, knowing him to be a fair man. The only men who refused to side with him were some of the officers who well knew the punishment awaiting any British mutineers.

The story is simple and can be seen many times in every organization. Petty tyrants get themselves in positions of power and abuse that power but they always seem to get their's in the end. At least in my experience. Good leaders find followers who will stick their necks out for them when crisis strikes and lead their companies or projects to victory.

Book two offered a different contrast.

Egyptian Election Shenanigans



Banned from the upcoming election: Omar Suleiman, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, Khairat el-Shater

Citing narrow technical reasons, the Egyptian Electoral Commission barred from the upcoming elections the three most polarizing candidates: Omar Suleiman, the former spy chief under Hosni Mubarak; Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, an ultraconservative Islamist; and Khairat el-Shater, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Seems like the military is still firmly in charge of the country.

While this allows me to breathe a sigh of relief, what does it mean to the budding Democracy in this land?

Kony

After seeing mentions of this video in the news, I was somewhat curious. But then my eleven year-old son was looking over my shoulder as I posted on Sunday and asked where I got my ideas for posts. I told him I read things in the paper, saw them on TV or the Internet. He then asked why I hadn't posted about Kony yet. So I watched the video and decided I also should take action.

Watch the video and try to keep a dry eye.

Sub-Saharan Africa is such a big mess with warlords and religious wars, failed states and piracy, rebels and armies committing atrocities, that it makes me just want to throw up my arms and wash my hands of the entire continent. After all, "What can I do?"

Well, this video answers that question quite succinctly. Force the US government to assist in the arrest of the number one war criminal at large. By the end of 2012. And he outlines the specific steps to achieve this end. They are steps that my children are willing to make. Why shouldn't I make them also?

Now there has been some negative publicity about this movement so let's spend a little time addressing it.
Sure, one of the founders was caught running around naked in San Diego but that was attributed to exhaustion and stress from the criticism. (And it did look like a nice, sunny day...)
There have been complaints that his approach is too simplistic for this complicated region and that the government Kony is fighting uses similar tactics. That's OK by me. Start at the top, capture criminal # 1 and then work our way down the list. DO NOT get involved in African politics.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing what the world looks like on the morning of April 21, 2012. Who's with me?

Polls define leadership style nowadays



Obama aides in Chicago
Daniel Borris NY Times

 According to a recent article Obama has a 'Chief Scientist' who specializes in consumer behavior, and an “Analytics Department” monitoring voter trends. All in an attempt to get a few extra percentage points in the upcoming election. They sift through Facebook, test various messages sent to different profiles of Internet users to see which get the best responses in terms of commitments of money or time. Seems like they do everything but what used to matter in an election.

Remember when leaders used to stand up for what they believed and gather a following based on them and move into elections based on those beliefs? Then the people would vote and we'd get a referendum on what really matters in America. Freeing slaves, Prohibition, Civil Rights, Supply-side economics. Whatever happened to those days?

The Republicans are not much better, with Romney switching his views on abortion to match the voter's wishes. I'm sure he'll exit the Republican primaries becoming more moderate again.

Who out there has the courage to stand by his/her convictions and put them to the test in front of the electorate? If there are any, they seem to be encouraged by their aides to take the weasely way out. Too bad. Elections are getting to be a lot less fun nowadays.

Two different leaders on this season of 'Survivor'

Two very different leaders have emerged on this season of Survivor. On the men's team, the biggest misfit of them all, Colton, self-described gay, country-club Republican, has banded together the rest of the 'misfits' (his description of those who were not muscle-bound) into a strong alliance of five.

Look at the way Colton introduces himself:

At first, it seemed that Colton would be the first voted out. When the teams found out it would be men vs. women, he was devastated and kept on wandering over to the women's camp to chat and whine about needing the immunity idol. Shortly after Sabrina gave him one, he became so annoying the ladies had to ask him to leave. But Colton used the power of this idol to forge his alliance and proceeded to lord it over the rest of the men's tribe.

He would sit on his throne and summon his boys, casting judgement on them and wielding his power with impunity. Click on the link to this video to see the way he acts in camp and at tribal council. It makes me sick.

Meanwhile, Sabrina, a 33 year-old teacher, was elevated by the rest of her women's team to the leadership position. Look at her intro:

Her leadership style is much calmer. When two of her tribe argue, she intervenes, calms them down and gets them to move on and focus on their common enemy. Rather than voting to get rid of whoever she doesn't like, she moves to get rid of the one who is causing the most havoc in camp.

The big surprise is the way Colton's tribe follows this jerk. Even to the point of giving up tribal immunity so that he can vote off someone he doesn't like. It helps that you have nuts like Tarzan on there who wants to vote off Lief because he told Bill he was off next (even though this was perfectly obvious). And Lief decides to go meekly to a tribal council where he could be voted off rather than standing up for himself. Why?

The only possible reason is that a winning Survivor strategy is to align yourself with someone totally evil who gets rid of everyone else for you, then allows you to defeat them in the final vote. We can call that the Russell Hantz strategy. Unfortunately there is no correlation to this in real life. Aligning yourself with a dictator until democracy comes around only results in you going down with the dictator at the end.

I'll leave you with this scene from the first episode: