All of you are making the same mistake and passing judgement that shows you are not up to speed. No one here is arguing against virtue in government. What we are saying, and with almost 100% agreement among the posters, is that Matalin’s droning on about how voters should try and search out only virtuous people to vote for is incredibly naive, it is incredibly boring and cumbersome and very preachy and almost elitist. What we need to do first is to limit government which does not require us being able to divine who is and who is not virtuous and who will and who will not stay virtuous.
I recommend you understand what is actually being discussed before jumping in next time. Just sayin....
Maybe I should rephrase my point. It seems to be regarded as false by those who say nothing to refute it. Adding small government mention to it is superfluous. Remember that stuff about “governs least”, about “enumerated powers” and such?
Okay, I think I know how to word it now: “The Founders designed a government that would work well when populated by virtuous men.” Oh, that's exactly the same. It is the same because it is correct and complete.
None of us who emphasized virtue were denying small government. You see virtuous men do not violate the oaths of office, step on the Constitution or act for self-gain against the good of the country. We are where we are because unvirtuous men have at too many times led an unvirtuous populous.