Keane observations about life, politics and sports.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

A Vigorous Examination of Candidates During a Primary is a Good Thing

Recently, I've heard a lot of comments on Twitter and at various blogs that run along the lines of condemning any criticism of someone else's preferred candidate as a sin of Republicans eating their own. There is some element of validity to that sentiment. It would be nonsensical for me to call anyone not 100% in agreement with me on the issues a RINO. I also think there are lines that shouldn't be crossed and things that shouldn't be said in an attempt to run down someone in your own party to bolster your preferred candidate. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with an open, honest fight for the nomination. You are not trashing Gov. Rick Perry by bringing up his stance on immigration as shown by the Texas version of the DREAM Act. You are not unfairly trashing Mitt Romney by bringing up the similarity of his health care plan to Obama-care. A candidates voting record is fair game. If that makes things difficult for people with long legislative careers, so be it.

There are some things that should not be regular parts of your case against a candidate. A candidate's religion or ethnicity should be off limits. I'd also say lay off Huntsman's service as Ambassador to China in Obama's administration. If the president asks you to serve our country and you can do so without compromising your values you should answer that call. A candidate's weight or appearance shouldn't be a disqualification and obsessing on it reflects poorly on those who do. For the most part the candidate's family shouldn't be fair game.

The better informed the electorate is about the candidates hopefully the better outcome we will get from elections. Let the people decide at the ballot box how relevant things are to fulfilling the duties of the office. Some may believe Perry's college grades are a big deal. Personally, if I'm hiring a 60 year old man for a job I'm looking at his accomplishments not his college grades from decades ago. Every knock on a candidate should be weighed in that manner. Each voter has to decide for themselves what matters most to them and vote accordingly. After the primary season is over the differences must be forgotten.

Please use the comment box to elaborate on this subject. What is appropriate or inappropriate in your opinion?

Labels: , , , ,


Blogger bob said...

Bill, for the most part I would agree with you on what should be off limits. However I think if a candidates religion is so far outside the norm that it reflects on judgement it becomes fair game.

August 14, 2011 at 4:20 AM

Blogger LargeBill said...


Understand your concern and thought about including that caveat. However, couldn't come up with a way to phrase it that didn't water the exclusion down too much.

August 14, 2011 at 6:51 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A candidate's religion or ethnicity should be off limits."

Besides the fact that it's lame, that kind of strategy feels very much like a liberal race-obsessed bean counter to me.

Romney is a lame country club RINO that the GOP establishment would love to nominate. That right there is all I need to vote against him. Huntsman is worse than Romney. I don't care about their religious faith; their politics suck. And what are we voting for again? A politician, not a preacher.

August 20, 2011 at 5:55 AM

Blogger LargeBill said...


Maybe I was unclear. My point is we should not attack someone for being Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, Quaker, etc. Our overriding concern should be the policies they are espousing. Neither Romney nor Huntsman are candidates I am supporting, but my decision not to support them has nothing to do with their religion but rather on their liberal positions on a some issues.

August 20, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Blogger Starsifter said...

Here is a map of Ohio's congressional candidates:

December 28, 2011 at 12:26 PM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


View My Stats