2007-10-10 12:39:18 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
EDIT - not "all" people --- just the majority in Y!A.
2007-10-10 12:39:36 · update #1
You all make great points.. I guess they're both equally as important.. I'm more concerned about individuals who would rather vote for (example only - no offense intended) a Republican with bad character just because they didn't like Liberals.
2007-10-10 12:54:24 · update #2
It's all about posturing. When it comes down to it. When you ask people so many have not a clue about any administration beyond GW Bush. Then all they have heard is how awful Bush is. The war is he fault alone. And it goes on. Even some very educated people have done so little political research it's revolting. The expectation that everything is clear Black or just White is an ignorant stance. Once you establish the true character the colors of the individual usually come thru. And only then can we know what to expect. But who cares about foundation anymore. When there is a man on a cross and a Savior waiting in the wings. You are correct.
I understand it is all subject to interpretation. Yet, in this fast food society of rapid information and reality TV who bothers to read the details anyway. Easier to blame the current President. He , incidental, is not running for anything for those who seem to forget that.
2007-10-10 12:52:39 · answer #1 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, to me, the political stance is far more important than character. Everyone has skeletons in their closets but as long as it doesn't interfere with the proper running of the country, it's their business. Clinton had a serious personality flaw when it came to philandering but ran the country well. Arnold in California has a very tainted past with philandering and possible steroid use but he's doing OK in Sacramento. That's what I look at.
And while I'm thinking about it, Jimmy Carter is a fine, upstanding, moral man but a lousy president. That's why I voted for Anderson in 1980. (The Ron Paul of the 1980 election.)
2007-10-10 19:47:16 · answer #2 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I am caught up in both. A person with character could still be a horrible leader with poor judgment. Look at Jimmy Carter.
In my view, character and good judgment on political issues are both extremely important.
The past four presidents have been void of character. Each one did something criminal from Iran/Contra to perjury, to fabricating lies to invade a country.
2007-10-10 19:42:29 · answer #3 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes Country Gal I agree.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"
MLK
2007-10-10 19:45:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think political stance is more important than character.
I think all of the candidates running for President are characters.
2007-10-10 19:42:50 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
people have that need to belong and hate the person on the other side of the fence. It makes them feel good about themselves. It makes them feel like they have purpose and strength
2007-10-10 19:58:57 · answer #6 · answered by Ryan the wizard 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Their character can be a good indicator of whether they will stick to their political stance.
Both to me are important.
2007-10-10 19:48:44 · answer #7 · answered by kevin s 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
because people love to stereotype.
I see Y!A as being some people's ways of holding onto their childhood, what with all their name-calling.
2007-10-10 19:50:44 · answer #8 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have to look at both. I can respect someones perspective and disagree with their politics.
2007-10-10 19:43:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you like Hilary you need to read her thesis so you can get an insight into her views on America.
2007-10-10 19:49:34 · answer #10 · answered by ULTRA150 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋