I am in full agreement with your “(Long sigh.....)” comment. I am not advocating a litmus test for or against any candidate. All I am saying is that your priorities for character issues are just as valid to support a candidate as mine are to me. There are so many posts against candidates and so few posts for.
All of these negative posts are too reminiscent of one of the foremost tactics from the democrat playbook. That is where they try to lower the accomplishments of others to make them look better; rather than seek to excel and join the doers. Their goal seems to lower the playing field to meet the average than to raise the average.
That is what is missing in the dialog and rhetoric. Ronald Reagan always spoke in the bright future and the positive. He never had to build himself up on the weaknesses and the backs of his opponents. He was a visionary who saw greatness in the future. None of these RR wannabes has that component in their soul that Reagan had – heart/soul. They can say all the words they may want to and try to sound like him, but without the character to have the words come from their souls, they will come across just as much aa phony as Ms. Clinton.
Point taken. My first choice is Duncan Hunter, but I don't realistically think he's going to win at this point, so I have to make some compromises on who I will end up voting for in the primaries - it will narrow down to 2 or 3 choices by that time. We all have to have that dialogue in our hearts on what we are willing to accept and what we can't.
I agree with you that it plays into the dems hands when we fight among ourselves - we should build up the good points in our candidates and try to come to some sort of civil agreement in the end on who we can all vote for. At the end of the day, even though we've all had our disagreements with each other, we will have to join together to win and we will have to look forward rather than backward.