Tuesday, November 29, 2011

How a candidate should be

I think we all have a sense of what we would really like a candidate should be. This is especially true of a presidential candidate. The problem is that it has been so long since we have seen anything resembling it that we have pushed it to the back of our minds as a legend, a fantasy, and a fairy tale.

I, however still believe that we need to strive for ideals, even if we know that they cannot be achieved. It just does not work when every competitor is given 10s, there has to be something to stretch for, not the Jerry Springer view of the world.

Here are some of my bullet posts for my ideal candidate for president, or really any office.

  • Honest - first and foremost a candidate should be honest in all things, as much as humanly possible. It is sad that we almost assume a politician is dishonest yet seem to believe all the campaign material of "our" candidate.
  • Morals - I am not going to go into what morals the person should have, but they should have a moral core that will not be compromised, should specify what those core values are, and hold themselves to that standard as much as is humanly possible.
  • Firm - not wishy-washy. I do not have a problem with a candidate or elected official changing their mind as they think about a topic, or they learn more. They should be able to articulate what changed their mind and why they changed it, however.
  • Leadership - the individual should demonstrate qualities of a leader. Not necessarily one who debates well, we call those debate champions. Simply one who has vision, sets direction, and can inspire others to follow.
  • Communicator - not necessarily a great speech giver or one who never stutters.  Simply one who can relate to people, and communicate their ideas and vision clearly to the American people.
Those are my top 5 requirements.  What are yours?

Monday, November 28, 2011

More Electable

I am really tired of this claim of a candidate being more electable during the primaries. What do they really mean by that? In my voting life it seems to be shorthand for someone that is going to lean middle of the road, drum up a lot of support in the primaries, and then not quite make it in a general election. Then, those that supported the candidate will claim that it was he best we could have gotten and any other candidate would be worse. That is of course followed by a series of blame games generally directed at the candidate's own party members.

Haven't we seen this all before? It seems the more candidates we have, the sicker I feel in my stomach.

It is said best in the Bible: "I wish that you were hot or cold but because you are luke-warm, I will spew you from my mouth" (my paraphrase). In other words, those that are not on fire or fridgid make God sick.

I think this is how a lot of Americans are feeling about politicians these days. Just take a stand and come out strong. This political positioning etc. Just makes us sick.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Locked out

Since I am here locked out of my car, I might as well post! Yes, I locked myself out. Still can not believe I did that, but it happens to all of us.

I have decided to just post about what is on my mind from now on. Simply post my experiences And what I am thinking. I realized that no one is perfect and my posts do not need to be either. Even when I put a lot of time into them, they do not turn kit much better than otherwise. Now is the time for all good men to rise to the aid of their country - not sit on the sidelines pondering how exactly to word something and not offend people. Life is too short for that.

It seems that people put pressure on others when they think people might be offended. This seems to me to be more ridiculous every day. The only purpose this serves is to lock up the dialog; to lock out ideas. Ingenious, really. Make certain topic areas so taboo to talk about that you can push your viewpoint in it's absence. Even more than that, you end up with others preventing the dialog without them even realizing what they are doing - just put it in the name of sensitivity or preventing hate.

Here is a better idea: let people talk. The first amendment to the US Constitution was designed to do just that - encourage dialog and prevent viewpoints from being locked out. It is no accident that the freedoms of speech, press, and religion are put together in the same amendment. This is not three seperate "rights", but one basic one - the right to express ones views and beliefs in spoken and print forms.

I am going to continue in that great tradition - just in an electronic form. Otherwise, if we to let the pressure prevail, this county is going to need a good locksmith.