Replies

I disagree. Character only counts when you don't like the guy in the other party. I think the proof is in the bashing of Wes Clark. You may not think he'd be a good president, but he served his country well, is about as honorable as they come, and might be a good leader for us, just like Powell. But what do I read on these forums about him? Trash about how he "almost started WW3" and related garbage. He deserves on honest hearing if for no other reason than he served us all with bravery and distinction. But no, he is bashed. It's not about character, it's about his joining the democrats.

Why do you think the accusations about almost starting WWIII are about character? Seems to me they are about judgment. He ordered troops into Pristina Airpart, where an armed confrontation with Russian troops was almost inevitable.

Then you speak about the 'honor' with which he served his country. Seems to me you are raising the character issue. That is, he has honor (you claim) so he would be a good president.

Seems to me character is as important as judgment. Based on what I have seen, Bill and Hill have execrable character. The disasters of their presidency directly resulted from their character defects. So why should character be off the table?

The nearest historic comparison is Nixon. Like Clinton, a real smart guy with deep and serious character problems. Those problems convulsed our nation as much or even more than did Clinton's.

The difference in the historic comparison lies in the reaction of Clinton and Nixon's respective supporters. When Nixon's lies and obstruction of justice were exposed, Republicans stopped supporting him. When Clinton's were exposed, Democrats just clung to Clinton harder.

Seems to me one real dividing line is between Conservatives and Liberal supporters here. Conservatives think character counts and will abandon their president when he is exposed. Liberals think character doesn't count and will defend their president no matter how execrable his behavior.

Seems to me the other is between the moral relativists and absolutists. After the 60's, most folks who bought into the moral relativism of the 60's became democrats. Thus the stock of potential candidates for the dems is comprised of folks who think there are only shades of gray. And thus, the democrats have more 'character challenged' candidates than the republicans.

So taking character off the table would help the democrats.

Is it possible you don't like assessing character type issues because you are a liberal and understand, correctly I think, that since the breakdown in morals in the 60's, character is more often a problem for Democrat presidential candidates than it is for Republicans?

Here's a little history. Nixon won once and then won the presidency a second time and that by a landslide. Then the Democrats went into action by demonizing Nixon at every turn. The tactic, honed by experience in the destruction of Senator McCarthy, was used again and again, on Gingrich, Bork, Lott, Starre, and with not much success against Reagan. Now Bush is in their sights.

It's sad that Republicans cave so easily and turn on their own. Nixon, bless his heart, should go down as one of the greats.

To base your whole post on the premise that Nixon was crook is sad and indicates gross ignorance on your part.