Replies

I am sorry if that was not clear.
Here is what I was getting at in my first post to you:

What we are seeing here now at this site, among our community, is analysis and circumspection... We are looking at our candidates with our analysis (intellect, facts, issues, actions - our brains) AND our circumspection (concern, consideration, even suspicion - our hearts). Shouldn’t we? If we truly respect the position of The United States of America, we need to know about our candidates, and we need to feel confident in them. Both our minds and our hearts need to feel at ease.

We don’t know if Hillary is going to end with a “sad story” or not; the ending has yet to be written, but we are at least fortunate enough to know who she is (as much as possible) and how she stands up to things. Fortunately for us, she has been vetted ruthlessly. Fortunately for her, she has proven herself a fighter, and she has proven herself to be strong. (She may not be honest or ethical or a number of other things you might list, but she has not backed down through it all).

If we pamper ANY of our candidates, we’ll never know their skills, abilities, character, strength, fight, problems, or issues, and more importantly we won’t know if they are worthy of a position I would think we all want to still believe should only be loaned to the most worthy.

Vetting is a good process! It allows us the opportunity to discuss, question, and yes, even be concerned. If we were missing any of those components, we may not be able to see which candidates have what it takes.

And... as I mentioned in my last post to you, I want the same standards to apply whether they are a man or a woman. I think since the job requires a certain strength, we need to have that same strength from our candidate... whether their first name is Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms. :) After all, we’ll be handing that person that 280 pound woman to carry down a ladder. He / She needs to be able to stand the heat.

I think where we differ is that I am not seeing the uneven levels of vetting I think you seem to feel there is. Perhaps you are just going to certain threads that lend themselves to vetting of those women???? I go to a lot of Perry threads since I have decided to support him as our candidate should he be fortunate enough to receive that nomination, but I also go to a lot of Sarah Palin threads since I like her very much too. I have seen a lot of vetting for Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann. Perhaps I’m just not noticing it, but I feel like there seem to be enough criticisms to go around for them all, and they all get them! LOL I just don’t see the discrepancies you have noted in several of your posts here.

I guess where I would like to end up is asking you to consider this... consider that vetting your candidates is not bad at all but a good thing. If your candidate or candidates (as I could say I have several I like) is competent enough to settle our analysis of their lives and strong enough to settle the circumspection of our hearts, then they should be ready and able to handle the brutality of the general election and the awesome responsibilities of being the leader for the greatest nation on this earth.

OK, miss marmelstein, it’s getting late and hey, is it really a full moon tonight? Oh gosh, watch out! LOL I may not have made sense here, either out of being tired or from the influence of a full moon, but I just wanted to let you know from one woman to another that I think we women need to be strong enough to accept the tough vetting of this process and to be open to that vetting being just as brutal for a woman as it is for a man. After all, this process leads to the exact same place.

I hope I made more sense this time around.

Blessings to you, Yetta Tessye! :)