That makes much more sense.

What I understand you to be asking then is this: is the candidate of good character?

Back ground checks won’t reveal that. Probing journalism will.

I remember years ago Mike Royko presented three questions for candidates. I can’t recall all three (and a cursory check on the web didn’t turn up the article, maybe John Ettorre will recall the piece), but one was:

You are in a remote town in Montana, it is late at night, the weather is clear and there’s not another car on the 55 mph highway. You have 60 minutes to get to your next appearance 60 miles away.

Will you be late.

That’s a character question.

B’shalom,

Jeff

Things like whether someone’s committed a felony or not are decided by laws you and I never really made. We abide by them because we live in a democracy with certain systems that provide for what we’re supposed to all support, but of course we don’t all agree.

No – I mean, think about the things in the past, in regard to any candidate for anything – job or elected office or spouse – and what were the dealbreakers for you?

Those are the things I’d be more interested in knowing.

I’m surprised you would write this:

“What could that be? A subscription to Guns & Ammo? A habit of frequenting strip clubs? A grandfather censored by the Joseph McCarthy?
A brother-in-law arrested for DUI?”

None of those things would concern me or be anywhere in my imagination about people. No – I have to think specifically, but it’s easier probably to say what wouldn’t influence me than what would.

Hypocrisy. Does the person have a habit of being hypocritical? That would be important to me to consider.

Making promises they don’t keep. That’s a problem.

Overblowing expectations – which is connected to making promises they can’t keep.

Making promises that have no meaning – like saying we will win a war on terror. That’s never going to happen unless people decide that they can live with a certain amount of terror and it’s been reduced to that amount – but even then, I’m not really sure.

Anyway – I hope that’s more helpful. No – those concrete things you were saying – that’s not at all what I have/had in mind. Sorry to give you the wrong impression.

I got FBI clearance too in the 1980s to work at DOJ and attend some private dinner party with some Dems I don’t even remember!

Whoa!

If that’s what you’re asking, then I’m even more against tax dollars paying for it.

What you’re asking for would go even deeper than the FBI background check I had in 1975 as part of my security clearance to work with nuclear weapons.

It’s more about – what would bother me if I knew it about a person that would make me feel that he or she really should not be in the position of making legislative decisions?

What could that be? A subscription to Guns & Ammo? A habit of frequenting strip clubs? A grandfather censored by the Joseph McCarthy?
A brother-in-law arrested for DUI?

Once you start such a list there is no end of events and associations that are guaranteed to bother at least some people.

Don’t open that door.

B’shalom,

Jeff

I agree with you completely. I would say the one caveat revolves around trust: trust that people won’t overblow indiscretions, depending on the circumstances. There’s a reason we are mortal and saying that “we’re only human” means that we make mistakes. But we need to follow that belief too and figure out which mistakes matter and what behavior following the mistakes should look like.

I hope you’re having a great holiday season Dorothy and thanks again for chiming in.

Dorothy from grammology
remember to call gram