What Can We Expect From Our Leaders?

May 4, 2008 | mmp813

[mmp813]

There is currently a pervasive feeling in this country that says, “We the People have no right to demand high standards from our political leaders.” I think we do! These are the people to whom we will entrust the welfare of our country, the future of our children and our freedom. I think that morals and integrity not only count but that they are everything. I don't think they are out of reach. These standards are the baseline from which we have a right to expect our leaders to make their decisions regarding the complex issues of our world. Our leaders should start with good morals, be persons of integrity and work up from there.

Currently, the only way one can these make judgments when picking the candidate is by information made available through the media. Most of what the candidates say on the campaign trail is insignificant and changes with the crowd. Their promises are meaningless. Voting decisions should be based on information obtained thorough an investigation by an independent nonpartisan examiner. It should be the same investigation that anyone who would be handling top level security information would endure. This would reveal all the necessary information for the voter to make an educated decision of who this person really is. I want to know, for example, what organizations the candidates belonged to while they were in college. However, more importantly, I want to know if they continued with those associations or denounced them and when. In addition, these investigations should be updated for every election. Some members of Congress, like Chuck Schumer, have never had a real job except with the government. I want to know who his business associates and friends are. All candidates must be totally accountable and transparent if they want to be deemed worthy of a leadership position in our government. Before believing it is too invasive to ask these questions of our prospective leaders, it should be understood that almost every prospective Civil Service employee has to pass a security check at some level before being hired. Why should we expect less of our leaders who have access to more classified information and more power to do irreversible harm?

This does not mean that we will expect our leaders to be perfect. It does mean that there will be less chance of having sex in the Oval Office in the future. It means no more bribes as with Rep. William Jefferson (D LA). No more Congressional Page sex scandals like we had in 1983 involving Rep. Dan Crane (R IL) and Rep Gerry Studds (D MA). Or how about the ABSCAM, of the late 1970's and early 1980's, that ultimately led to the conviction of one United States Senator and five members of the United States House of Representatives. Congressman John Murtha (D PA) was involved in that FBI sting operation but, luckily for him, was never indicted and still holds office. Of course, then there was the Post Office Scandal which ran from 1991 to 1995 and the Keating Five of 1989 which involved current Presidential Candidate John McCain. The list of corruption and dishonesty goes on. In 2006, there were 18 federal investigations of members of the 109th Congress!

What is it that causes voters to have such low standards for their “leaders”. How can we expect deferential regard for our government from the rest of the world when our leaders have no dignity or are afraid of exposure? How can we expect our children to respect authority when they are not respectable? We will never regain the quality of government we want until the seats are filled by people high morals and standards. Quit looking the other way and making excuses for them.

[humblegunner]

What is it that causes voters to have such low standards for their “leaders”.

The same mentality that causes them to omit question marks.

[do not press 2 for spanish]

In a word: nothing.

[mmp813]

Humblegunner,

If you can read this article and only come up with a weak response about a punctuation omission you are probably one of our problem voters. The issue here is about the standards we have for the leaders of our country. It is about those who make the decisions for our country. You know, the serious stuff like war, taxes, the economy and so on. Do you get it yet?

[humblegunner]

Do you get it yet?

Yes.

If voters are so ignorant as to be unaware of proper punctuation,
they can't really be expected to grasp larger issues.

[gulfcoast6]

Soooo right!

[Bowtie52]

humblegunner

Doesn’t the Bible mention something about missing the plank while making an issue about a speck?

If you look hard enough to find a problem, you will but it says something about the finder, and their value.

Folks with nothing better to do than point out mistakes in others are probably not in high demand.

[mmp813]

I can see that proper punctuation is the most important thing in your life. However, can we agree that National Security, and maybe the context of this article, holds a little interest for you? I agree that finding punctuation errors is an irritant. However, I would hardly put it in the same category with the scandalous activity and lack of faith the American pubic has with our Congress.

[humblegunner]

Folks with nothing better to do than point out mistakes in others are probably not in high demand.

While on the other hand, folks who can't write properly are all the rage, huh?

[going hot]

I may be wrong here, but it seems you must not have been delving into politics long.

All the information you seek, or wish to know, about a politician or candidate, is already out there.

Your wishing to know it simply means you have not seen it.

So, who do you expect to show it to you, after they have done the research. The media?? The national newspaperes of record?? TV stations?? Cable??

realize this one thing, and one thing only, and the remainder will be very clear:

----->The media cares less what you think, or what is the trvth (with a V), their sole and only purpose is to help elect a liberal socialist to every post they can influence, from the top down.<----

Once you understand that, the rest becomes clear.

It is up to the informed voter (dichotomy?) to seek information elsewhere on a particular candidate.

[mmp813]

I understand what you are saying, however, it leads to a much more serious question. I am going to put myself on the chopping block and risk sounding, as you said, "not have been delving into politics long". Why do we bother with the primaries and elections? Not all the information about the candidates is out there. You said it correctly when you said of the media, "their sole and only purpose is to help elect a liberal socialist to every post they can influence, from the top down".

The information necessary to become an informed voter is protected from the public. That was my whole point of the article. The big money backers, like George Soros, are not going to allow anything really detrimental to be revealed about their investment. Hillary Clinton, who has committed a plethora of offenses in the public eye, is never held accountable.

It is really a joke to have the primaries. As far as the Democrats are concerned the Super Delegates are going to decide it anyway. A lot of time and money has been wasted. The voters still don't really know who these people are or what they stand for. They could have had a few debates on TV and donated the money to charity.