320 Years of History
Gold Member
When evaluating political candidates, there are countless dimensions one can consider and assign weighting to in the process of choosing among them. For me, a candidate's observed integrity and indications of it sit far ahead of all other considerations, even those driven by the candidate's specific policy positions. That's because I the U.S. is a republic and I have neither the time nor desire to continually wonder whether, once elected, the individual is acting in good faith on behalf of the American people overall, or acting for their own or their friends' and associates personal gain.
Now it's rare that I have found a politician who's of what I consider to be highest integrity, but that's a function of the kind of folks who seek political office, and perhaps my having set the bar too high, though I doubt the latter is actually possible. We all have to choose from among the folks who make themselves available to be chosen for political office.
Following on the idea of integrity, one of the things I absolutely abhor about anyone, not the least of whom are political candidates, is one painting oneself as a victim. That whole "woe is me for 'so and so' did me wrong" line is little more than puerile, pathetic and hardly what I see as a quality of a person worthy of leading the U.S., nor is it a stance of integrity. I've certainly had things that didn't go in my favor over the years of my adult life. For every one of those things, what I would say about them is that "such and such" is what I did wrong or poorly, and that is why things didn't go my way. I'd never claim that I'm a victim of something or someone else. Others might assert that I was a victim of "whatever," and that's something they are free to say and think, but I'm not going to encourage them to do so because that's beneath me. I know damn well that everything that's happened in my life resulted from choices I made, not choices others made, or made on my behalf.
Another key dimension that matters a lot to me is having a comprehensive picture -- the good, bad and in between -- of the persons running for office and using that picture to make a choice. In that regard, the American people have been disserved by the political press. I ask you, have you seen a credible and objective documentary about any of the three remaining candidates? I haven't. So far, almost everything we know about the candidates has largely come from the candidates themselves. I'm aware of one documentary level (as opposed to a biased "perfume piece" or a "smear piece") work pertaining to any of the three, and given the average American's reticence to read more than 140 characters, I doubt most folks have even perused it, much less actually read it.
Why is that important? Well, look at the recent Trump interview on CNN by Chris Cuomo. In that interview, Trump blamed Mrs. Clinton for NAFTA. I don't care what one thinks about NAFTA; the fact is that Mrs. Clinton can't be blamed for it at all. Her husband signed the treaty and so did President Bush. Some folks might say, "But Bill Clinton is her husband." Those folks are either stupid, ignorant, inexperienced in life, some of those, or all three.
I can live with trying "this way" before trying "that way;" however, I can only do so if I am convinced the persons leading and advocating for whichever way have the integrity to say, "Okay, we we went 'whole hog' in trying this and we can see it doesn't/didn't work. Let's try the other way now." Unfortunately, few of the jerks who get elected exhibit that level of integrity. Indeed, what we've observed is the "politics of no" rather than the politics of "Okay, in spite of what I would have wanted, the people elected him/her, let's give it the old college try." In pursuit of the "politics of no," what we get is watered down approaches, or worse, nothing done at all.
With that as the context for the discussion in this thread, I ask again:
Now it's rare that I have found a politician who's of what I consider to be highest integrity, but that's a function of the kind of folks who seek political office, and perhaps my having set the bar too high, though I doubt the latter is actually possible. We all have to choose from among the folks who make themselves available to be chosen for political office.
Following on the idea of integrity, one of the things I absolutely abhor about anyone, not the least of whom are political candidates, is one painting oneself as a victim. That whole "woe is me for 'so and so' did me wrong" line is little more than puerile, pathetic and hardly what I see as a quality of a person worthy of leading the U.S., nor is it a stance of integrity. I've certainly had things that didn't go in my favor over the years of my adult life. For every one of those things, what I would say about them is that "such and such" is what I did wrong or poorly, and that is why things didn't go my way. I'd never claim that I'm a victim of something or someone else. Others might assert that I was a victim of "whatever," and that's something they are free to say and think, but I'm not going to encourage them to do so because that's beneath me. I know damn well that everything that's happened in my life resulted from choices I made, not choices others made, or made on my behalf.
Another key dimension that matters a lot to me is having a comprehensive picture -- the good, bad and in between -- of the persons running for office and using that picture to make a choice. In that regard, the American people have been disserved by the political press. I ask you, have you seen a credible and objective documentary about any of the three remaining candidates? I haven't. So far, almost everything we know about the candidates has largely come from the candidates themselves. I'm aware of one documentary level (as opposed to a biased "perfume piece" or a "smear piece") work pertaining to any of the three, and given the average American's reticence to read more than 140 characters, I doubt most folks have even perused it, much less actually read it.
Why is that important? Well, look at the recent Trump interview on CNN by Chris Cuomo. In that interview, Trump blamed Mrs. Clinton for NAFTA. I don't care what one thinks about NAFTA; the fact is that Mrs. Clinton can't be blamed for it at all. Her husband signed the treaty and so did President Bush. Some folks might say, "But Bill Clinton is her husband." Those folks are either stupid, ignorant, inexperienced in life, some of those, or all three.
- If you've been married, would you want to be defined, without exception or qualification (without context), by your spouse's choices? I sure wouldn't. She was born and raised in Europe and I in the U.S. There are myriad political matters one which we differ greatly, yet we get along all the same. In that way we are somewhat like James Carville and Mary Matalin, or they like us, seeing as our marriage predated theirs.
- If you've been married, are there no important decisions on which you have differed or of which you deferred to your spouse no matter what you thought about the issue? I know one big thing that my ex wife and I differed strongly on was which house we'd buy in which to raise our family. We ended up with the house she wanted, and I've come to like it, but it's not at all the house I'd have chosen. On another occasion, she wanted our kids to go to school in Europe; I wasn't having that, and she deferred to my decisions in that regard.
I can live with trying "this way" before trying "that way;" however, I can only do so if I am convinced the persons leading and advocating for whichever way have the integrity to say, "Okay, we we went 'whole hog' in trying this and we can see it doesn't/didn't work. Let's try the other way now." Unfortunately, few of the jerks who get elected exhibit that level of integrity. Indeed, what we've observed is the "politics of no" rather than the politics of "Okay, in spite of what I would have wanted, the people elected him/her, let's give it the old college try." In pursuit of the "politics of no," what we get is watered down approaches, or worse, nothing done at all.
With that as the context for the discussion in this thread, I ask again:
- What standard do you use assess candidates?
- Just what seems to make sense to you?
- What you've found through objectively researching the candidate and their stated positions/approaches?
- The fact that they are in the same party you are, but little else?
- What you are told by others -- be they folks whom you know personally or not?
- What matters to you enough that you have far more than a passing awareness of the facts pertaining to the topic and that topic rises to the level of being a critical decision making factor?
