Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do We Elect People Who So Clearly Lack Character?
American Thinker ^ | 06/08/2012 | Patricia McCarthy

Posted on 06/08/2012 6:29:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

By now, nearly everyone paying attention knows that Barack Obama has lied countless times over the years in order to further his academic and political career. He is, in fact, a "composite." And what we do know is just a hint of what there is yet to know, given that all his academic records are sealed.

Our president lied about his mother's lack of health insurance. He lied about his father's early life. His publisher's brochure described him as "born in Kenya" for years, until he began running for president. There are countless other examples of his prevarications that fluff out his phony résumé. It is almost certain that he did not write Dreams from My Father by himself and that his relationship with Jeremiah Wright was cultivated to serve his political future...until it didn't. And now, even Michelle is unable to keep the fabricated facts of her husband's life straight.

And then there is Elizabeth Warren, the darling of the Boston/Harvard left, the self-described Cherokee without a shred of evidence to prove her claims of Native American heritage. Her claim made her a diversity hire at two prestigious schools. She even submitted a couple of recipes to a Native American cookbook, Pow Wow Chow, that she borrowed from Pierre Frainey. She chose those recipes poorly; Oklahoma Cherokees probably did not dine on cold omelets with crabmeat!

Bill Clinton's moral lapses and crimes against women are legendary and too numerous to list, yet he still has adoring fans who would vote for him in a minute if he was on a ballot -- any ballot. Hillary does not score much better on the truth and morality scale: Whitewater, managing her husband's "bimbo eruptions," her fabricated helicopter landing in Bosnia amid sniper fire, etc.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: character; politicians
Let's count the others:

* The Kennedy men...they have always been, and remain, despicable cads who have used and abused women habitually. Still, people support them for public office. Jack was a hound. Ted was expelled from Harvard for cheating ( Mary Jo has no comment on this ).

* Then there is the odious John Edwards, who got too close to the White House for comfort.

* Eliot Spitzer got his own television show after being outed as a regular patron of prostitutes.

* And then there is the noted exhibitionist Anthony Weiner, who still has a dedicated fan club. Its members are convinced that he was framed! How is that for critical thinking?

Who's next? Elizabeth Warren?

1 posted on 06/08/2012 6:29:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

People, due to their sinful nature, prefer to be lied to and told that their unhappiness and dissatisfaction is not due to their own choices, but due to their environment,

and the politician who promises to fix that environment will receive the most votes.


2 posted on 06/08/2012 6:31:02 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

And in this case, incompetent and dishonest. I place a lot of the blame on the media and its’ lack of investigation along with collaberation pushing their own agenda. We here do our own leg work, but the majority of the population are lazy.


3 posted on 06/08/2012 6:35:34 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So how and why has our culture failed to inculcate in our citizenry the critical thinking skills necessary to assess character? To recognize right from wrong?

Spoken like an innocent.

Democrats KNOW the difference between right and wrong - they CHOOSE wrong. They like men who are bullies, liars and cheats. Clinton doesn't 'fool' his party they wallow in his abuse of young interns. Obama lies? They smirk at each other - stuck it to those Republicans again...

Poster boys for Democrats: John Edwards, Larry Flynt, Teddy Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

4 posted on 06/08/2012 6:38:05 AM PDT by GOPJ (Take your little hammer, little sickle and your scary red signs with a fist on it, and go home...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Because a segment of the voters have a deep desire to be slaves and controlled. Most of the time, they team up with the traitors, freeloaders, and fools.

This union usually results in the election of individuals that have no principles and bad character.A/k/a as Democrats.

I intentionally omitted Republicans from the above because Republicans that fit the no principles and bad character gategory have a deep desire to be and are controlled and whipped by the Democrats. The Republican Party abounds with them.

5 posted on 06/08/2012 6:38:25 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why Do We Elect People Who So Clearly Lack Character?

Hint, hint.

Maybe not the total reason, but female love of bad boys is part of what gives immoral leftist pols such an edge.

6 posted on 06/08/2012 6:41:13 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo (Support hate crime laws: Because some victims are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
You're right... American voters have become fat, lazy cattle.

“Character” has been all but bred out of American culture and society.

“Character” is certainly something that is becoming a more and more unknown (and thanks to the NEA, unknowable) attribute.

We can't expect voters who do not know or possess character to recognize much less, demand it from political hopefuls.

7 posted on 06/08/2012 6:43:36 AM PDT by SMARTY ("The man who has no inner-life is a slave to his surroundings. "Henri Frederic Amiel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
female love of bad boys

8 posted on 06/08/2012 6:46:23 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Because most people lack character themselves.


9 posted on 06/08/2012 6:47:31 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Yup. We get the government we deserve.

We can cry about the democrats all we want but we don’t elect them, we elect plenty of our own bottom feeders.


10 posted on 06/08/2012 6:53:17 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“We have met the enemy and he is us.” - Pogo


11 posted on 06/08/2012 6:54:31 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

——Because most people lack character themselves.-——

Simple as that.

Even around here, character often rates low on the checklist.

Indifference is a very dangerous place to be.
http://bible.cc/revelation/3-16.htm


12 posted on 06/08/2012 6:56:27 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How can Al Gore be ignored?


13 posted on 06/08/2012 6:59:52 AM PDT by seton89 (Forward! to despotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sport

If you were prone to lying, you would assume that it’s perfectly normal for people to be untruthful. If you were narcissistic, you would assume most people only care about themselves the same way.
What bothers me is that most people view lying, cheating, low life scum bag politician’s they elect as having the same attributes that they possess. In their eyes this makes these politician’s normal people, therefore acceptable for office.
How many of these people are voting? Is it 50% of the public.


14 posted on 06/08/2012 7:01:26 AM PDT by Captain PJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Our politicians are a DIRECT Reflection of our SICK “Culture” and US!


15 posted on 06/08/2012 7:09:35 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Obama isn’t “Obama”.

He really is a shallow minded composite - a blank slate molded into a modern day Manchurian Candidate.

No one knows his history or true identity - well, perhaps a few of his handlers and programmers do.

I think so much of his life is fabricated and fantasy that he himself no longer knows what is real and what is fiction.

But when he reads those words on the teleprompter or quotes from his ghost-written biographies it doen’t matter to him if his words are true or not. He believes what he is saying and in his mind it is truth - at least for that moment in time.

The next day, when he speaks the exact opposite, that will be the truth for him.


16 posted on 06/08/2012 7:11:32 AM PDT by Iron Munro (John Adams: 'Two ways to enslave a country. One is by the sword, the other is by debt')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why Do We Elect People Who So Clearly Lack Character?

The next question we need to ask ourselves, if we are to be thorough on this issue, is why do we also continue to NOMINATE people who so clearly lack character like Romney and McCain?
17 posted on 06/08/2012 7:14:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

All the lies are told to shape “the package,” which is what is sold to the electorate. Obama’s a genius. Obama’s a change agent. Obama’s fresh and new and uncontaminated. Bill Clinton is a genius. The Kennedy’s are American royalty. And on and on.

Just as in selling any product to an uncritical consumer, the package is all that’s important. Slap a “New and Improved!” label on a box of laundry detergent and sales increase. The detergent is the same old stuff but the BOX is new and improved.

Barack Obama was elected because his handlers successfully created a package that resonated with the Bush-hating crowd. Obama was never competent, had nowhere near the experience the job called for, was extreme in many of his views, and was a relative unknown, do-nothing cipher before he ran for president. But he was packaged better than crusty, temperamental old insider John McCain, and he won handily, especially among people who tend to view the presidency as little more than a popularity contest.

Now they are finding what we’ve known all along: the package is pretty, but open it up and it’s empty inside.


18 posted on 06/08/2012 7:24:50 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
When the Democrats nominate Obama for a second term, that will be six Presidential elections in a row where they have nominated someone with serious character deficiencies, going back to Clinton in 1992.

Mondale and Dukakis would probably have been mediocre Presidents, at best not quite as bad as Jimmy Carter, but they appear to be decent human beings. After the 1988 loss the Democrats decided to retire that model for their nominees.

19 posted on 06/08/2012 7:33:28 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We don’t.


20 posted on 06/08/2012 7:37:00 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The reason why “we” (speakiing collectively) elect people of low character is that becasue it can be assumed they will give those who elect them what they want, whilst an honorable man will be bound by honor and not by cronyistic exchange of mammon....

Honorable men (and women) look to the rule of law and not to the rule of men, so they are less desireable to thsoe who elect them, unless “they” indeed are of equally strong character.


21 posted on 06/08/2012 7:45:18 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
People of good moral character do not often run for public office, they have better things to do than "soil" themselves, although there have been some stellar exceptions.

The voting public is offered a choice, vote for this guy, or that guy.

They are not asked, "name somebody you wish to have represent you in office."

Therefore, most of the time, we simply elect the (what we believe to be) lesser of the odorous.

I do not see the politicians' character faults being laid at the feet of the voter.

22 posted on 06/08/2012 7:59:22 AM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Because the American people’s character is reflected in who they elect. If all we care about is that we get ours, we will elect politicians that make false promises, and politicians of low character will take advantage of the low character of the American people.


23 posted on 06/08/2012 8:07:01 AM PDT by qman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: going hot

Sure you do, the MSM do it all the time when it’s a Republican.


24 posted on 06/08/2012 8:16:06 AM PDT by greyfox (If I were a Democrat I'd be pushing for the fairness doctrine too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: greyfox
LOL

Anything from the msm always initially goes into my "do not believe anything stated by unbelievable characters" basket until thoroughly vetted, then it usually goes into the round file.

25 posted on 06/08/2012 8:21:23 AM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
It's not all simply about the low moral character of the electorate. The fact is you can be a moral person and have unreasonable expectations.

One of the key problems is that we want the impossible and not everyone recognizes that the impossible is indeed impossible. Therefor, the only people who can get elected are people who promise the impossible.

There are only two types who promise the impossible, those who don't know and those that do. The first group is smaller and consists of the likes of the ignorant, Cynthia McKinney, and the naive, Dennis Kucinich. The latter group are the liars and they consist of all the rest of the politicians save the tiny minority who are mostly honest but terribly unpopular outside their districts.

26 posted on 06/08/2012 9:21:14 AM PDT by douginthearmy (Obamagebra: 1 job + 1 hope + 1 change = 0 jobs + 0 hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson