|
Not to name any names, but...
In general, I'm not sure we should elect a president based on what he did or didn't do in the military thirty years ago, but I'd probably vote for a guy who served honorably enough to be decorated over one who shirked his duty by walking away (and decades later lied about both his own service record and his opponent's).
As a matter of principle, I don't believe in IQ tests and I don't claim to have seen any results, but I'd have more faith in a candidate who speaks in complete sentences (and real words) over one who mangles syntax and often gets lost somewhere between the subject and the predicate, and who doesn't show that he knows the meaning of "statesmanship" and "demagoguery," much less the difference.
In a perfect world, I'd like to see an independent press scrutinize and analyze the statements, actions and positions of politicians, instead of allowing public debate to be engineered by planners, handlers and spin doctors. In this imperfect world, I'll listen to the side that criticizes the other's policy before I'll pay any attention to the one who attacks character.
All other things being equal, I'm looking for a candidate who didn't mislead us into an unwinnable money-pit of a war, turn a hard-won national surplus into a colossal deficit, or turn over the defense of the constitution to those who believe in the second amendment but not the first. I'd choose someone with no record over one with that record. | 
