Candidates -- Pure and Perfect in Every Way

And then there are those who insist that candidates for President be pure and perfect in every position they have taken since leaving the crib. You cannot take one position 40 years ago and get away with changing it today. Nosirree! That won’t do. And while you’re at it, you best be aware of every social, cultural and legal change that is likely to take place in the future. Decisions you make today must be consistent with any future domestic and international developments, or you’ll be toast. In other words, to be good enough for our support you must be a cross between a Benedictine monk and the Oracle of Delphi.

Above all, the record of your life must not reflect a lapse in judgment or a mistake of any kind. Not one. As one watches the news, listens to special interest groups, or reads the political blogs, one is led to conclude neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is qualified to lead this nation.

It’s silly…and every one of us is to blame if we accept the view that persons cannot change, cannot mature, cannot reevaluate positions, cannot learn from life experiences and become better for it.

In modern times, very few members of Congress have been successful in pursuing office of President of the United States. Each one always brings a legislative record ripe for the picking. Richard Nixon and John Kennedy are the notable exceptions in the past half century. Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush 43 were all governors and thus had no legislative record to pick apart.

But for a member of Congress, here’s what you might face –

“Well, I see you voted to confirm __x___ for the Supreme Court. (Now comes the social issues list) "You must be against the right to bear arms,” or “You must favor abortion rights?”

“Well, you voted to raise taxes ___x ___ times," or "You voted to raise the national debt ___x ___ times. You must be one of those 'tax and spend' liberals.”

“Well, you voted against the war before you were for it. What, you don’t know your position or are you trying to have it both ways?”

This year, the person elected President will be a member of the United States Senate…so an exception is in the works. But to be safe, when John McCain and Barack Obama pick their running mates, both are likely to pick someone not in any legislative body anywhere. In other words, they are likely to pick a governor like Charlie Crist of Florida, or Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota for McCain. For Obama, it’s likely to be a governor like Ted Strickland of Ohio or Tim Kaine of Virginia – to name a few. That way, the media and special interests will not be able to spend the fall combing the voting record of their running mate, thus distracting voters from the issues important to the race.

But this is not the way it should be. In the record of every man and woman offering his life in the service of the nation, mistakes will be found. Sometimes major mistakes will be found. We have to find a way to get over throwing the candidate out who has ever stumbled. The question we should ask candidates is not “Have you ever made a mistake,” rather it should be, “Have you learned from your mistakes and what have you learned?” The answer to that question should be the only thing that is weighed in the balance.

We should be very afraid of the candidate – or officeholder – who says he has not made a mistake. Remember when Bush 43 told a press conference at The White House he could not think of a single mistake he had made in his Presidency? Bush 43 likes to compare himself to George Washington. Well, Washington made plenty of mistakes, and he admitted to most of them. The difference is George Washington learned from his mistakes and the record shows he worked diligently never to repeat them.

The father of our country was a great man, a great leader, and like all fathers, flawed. That’s the candidate I want to support for office. I want a candidate not afraid to make mistakes, confident enough to admit to his mistakes and wise enough to apply the lessons learned to strengthen this republic.