Pick me please

With the presidential campaign in full swing, I have two thoughts. I'm glad we don't run campaigns like some do around the world. Picture if you will this headline; radical supporters of Hillary Clinton bombed a public gathering injuring dozens today. Her campaign headquarters endorsed the action, saying vote for Hillary or we'll bomb you too. But I'm a little, ok a lot, worried about how we do it here. We tend to fall off the other side of the horse and be to casual about it and not give it much thought. How did the people in Iowa and New Hampshire decide so quickly? Which brings me to my point. What is it that we should look for in a candidate? Some would argue that it is their position on a particular issue. Others would say that it is what the candidate promises they will do or not do once in office. But I and others would say it is something else. I don't think those first two options are good for several reasons. Let's use Obama and Ron Paul as examples here. Both men are on opposite ends of the spectrum here, but appeal to the same thing; promise. One promises what he will do, solve all our problems by government intervention, Obama. The other promises that he will solve all our problems by limiting government, Paul. So what is wrong with promises? One word, Congress. You may have all the good intentions in the world but you have to work with other people who disagree with you. And these people probably don't think your idea is a good one. Which is the beauty of our government. So basing your decision on promises that most likely will not see the light of day is not a good plan. And what's wrong with issues or values? same thing. Ideally our government works on the art of persuasion, the best idea wins, as opposed to coercion. It is a system of checks and balances designed to keep all parties in check. We have a plethora of agendas and ideas in the political field and all are competing for a place at the table. So we have to make it fair for all parties involved, equal under the law. That is the American way. However, that is not to say all ideas or agendas are equally valid. A mistake that is to easily made. We must debate the ideas and views and let the best idea win. Which is why I and others look for character in a candidate. I like to put myself across the table, if you will, and imagine what it would be like to negotiate with this person. How would they come across and would I be able to work with them. Is it their way or the highway? If I was a foreign leader, how would the exchange be? would it be like working with Homer Simpson? The fact is we all have to work with people and the better we do it, the better results we get. We need someone who is a statesman, a diplomat and a leader. Someone who knows the limits of his office and works within them. A candidate like this is more likely to actually accomplish something. What about the issues and values? These things naturally flow from a good character. So a candidate who has good character will get their job done and be right on the main issues. However, this is a little harder to judge than promises or issues. I can look at a candidates claims but I can't see their heart. This requires that I actually know the person and have worked with them. Voting records give us a limited view in this area. I think the best measure we have is what their colleagues say about them. Which takes work and time. Here is a great article I came across this morning on townhall.com that sheds some light on this. Click here to read it .