Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

underthematrix

(5,811 posts)
3. This a great OP. As you said it's a thinking piece and I like that.
Mon Dec 11, 2017, 06:59 PM
Dec 2017

Me and my husband started a tradition when we first got married. We would review all candidates for three factors - educational background, pubic service history and ethical history.

From our perspective the most decisive factor is the candidate's ethical history. In the US Senate race for Boxer's seat. One candidate had a strong ethical history with no drama while the other candidate had a history of ethical challenges. For example, a staff was charged with embezzlement which left the candidate with no funds to pay office staff. There was an ethics investigation into a the staff sharing arrangement she and her sister, a fellow House member established to cover staffing costs. There were some issues with failure to provide full disclosure of financial history. And there were rumors about transitioning from the first to the second husband. Then there was the racial slur mocking Native Americans which I saw as a lack of self control and inability to modulate her speech to reflect the difference between running for a district versus running for a statewide office.

Why do these sort of issues matter? They matter because they can interfere with the candidate's capacity to serve the public interest. I won't vote for someone who is ethically challenged. They would just create a lot more drama once they took office.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What is "Moral Character"...»Reply #3