Categorized | Commentary/Editorial

How to Vet Candidates – General Principles





Guest Submission by Ron Devito

So, people – the voters – [have] a lot of responsibility on their shoulders. They need to do their homework. They need to study a candidate’s record – see what they have done in the past to give you a glimpse into the window of where they intend to bring this country in the future. -Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin Freedom Watch, September 29, 2011

It is incumbent upon us to properly vet candidates running for all elective offices so that we can make informed decisions based on facts. In less than 60 days, Gov. Palin taught us – her supporters – some hard but valuable lessons in politics and life. Gov. Palin has often said that our support of her was not so much about her per sé but about her common-sense Constitutional Conservative message. With her decision to not seek the 2012 GOP nomination, Gov. Palin taught us that no person alive is indispensable – not even the best the person for the job – and not even once-in-a-lifetime leaders. She taught us that we cannot always get what we want and we need to adapt to changing circumstances. As much as she asked us to trust her vis-á-vis her decision, Gov. Palin asked of us something even more difficult: to think for ourselves, to make informed decisions, and to trust in ourselves. If Gov. Palin is the Mamma Grizzly and we are her cubs, consider this as the Mamma Grizzly teaching her cubs how to hunt and survive.

Due Diligence

 

In the business world, investors go through a procedure known as "due diligence" to determine if a corporation or a project is worthy of investment and worth putting their money to risk. The principals in a venture or the officers of company seeking financing are also personally vetted to give investors some assurance that nothing untoward will happen with their money.

Vetting candidates is our conduct of due diligence, and even in this era of heightened political awareness, involvement and activism, few voters actually do it. Ignorance of how to vet, and voter apathy are the two most likely reasons. When voters believe that there is no fundamental difference between any set of candidates in a race, many will simply not bother voting, much less vetting. Voter apathy leads to the election of precisely the kind of people we don’t want in office and it becomes a vicious cycle.

"People get the kind of government they deserve." If we don’t vet candidates and a flawed candidate gets the job, we have no one else to blame but ourselves. If we sit on the sidelines out of disgust and the candidate we don’t want gets elected, whose fault is it? Our actions in elections at all levels of government have consequences.

Voter Vetting vs. Professional Vetting

 

Voter vetting is nowhere near as exhaustive as the professional vetting that candidates seeking endorsements or campaign support undergo. The vetting of Gov. Palin by the McCain campaign cost over $50,000. Candidates seeking Gov. Palin’s endorsement also undergo professional vetting, which costs thousands of dollars. Gov. Palin’s careful and disciplined approach to endorsements was responsible at least in part for the 68% success rate in her 81 endorsements of 2010 with an astounding 90% for the Take Back the 20 subset.

The average voter will probably never vet any candidate to this level, but several free tools are available to help voters make a more informed decision and we’ll discuss them in the next installment.

Beefs and Endorsements

 

Speaking of endorsements, be aware that personal beefs may influence a politician’s endorsement decisions. For instance, a co-worker told me that my former Borough President Guy Molinari has a running feud with Newt Gingrich that is over two decades old. Molinari recently referred to Gingrich as being "evil" and likely will not be at Staten Island Gingrich event December 3 so as to avoid a confrontation that could reflect on the Romney campaign. Molinari endorsed Mitt Romney and will have a leadership role in Romney’s New York primary campaign. My Congressman, Michael Grimm is a long-time friend of Molinari’s and looks to him as his mentor. Grimm endorsed Romney, much to the consternation and dismay of his conservative base.

Voters outside Staten Island may be unaware of the animosity between Molinari and Gingrich, but it may be a factor in local voters’ decisions, and it could ripple down to other well-known local politicians’ endorsements of a 2012 POTUS candidate.

Poor Vetting Practices

 

Having campaigned for two Congressional candidates and the McCain-Palin campaign, I have come face-to-face with some of the most shallow and ridiculous reasons why people choose a candidate, with the top three being: physical attractiveness, the sound of the candidate’s voice, and the candidate living in the same neighborhood/city as the voter. Some people pick candidates just on hunches. Some people are completely ignorant as to which candidate has which platform and vote based on what they don’t know. Shock jock Howard Stern went into a Manhattan neighborhood and recited the McCain-Palin campaign platform to people on the street. To a one, the interviewees thought the platform was Obama’s! Other people pick candidates based on sound-bites they hear on radio and TV, YouTube videos, or juicy one-liners in the paper or on the web. Some will take the time to read campaign materials, but go no further.

If we are to improve our government at all levels, we as voters need to do much better than this!

Campaign Materials Are the Starting Point – Not the End

 

Many voters go to a campaign website or brochure and if they like what they see, vote on that basis. Campaign materials are always self-serving for the candidate – any candidate – for any office. Reading campaign materials exclusively to form a decision is a poor voting practice.

As a voter, what you want to get from campaign materials is the candidate’s stated position on various issues. Knowing the stated position, if the candidate has served in office prior, you will want to examine the candidate’s voting record and we’ll examine how to do that in the next installment.

Be Careful with Special Interest Groups

 

When vetting candidates, you want to rely on non-partisan, official, unbiased, and authoritative sources. Be careful with special interest groups or political organizations including Tea Party Groups. Remember, there is no political party on any ballot called "Tea Party." The Tea Party is a grassroots effort and many organizations use the name "Tea Party." Some Tea Party organizations have aligned themselves with one candidate and will smear all others in an effort to help their chosen candidate win. Other Tea Party organizations may prefer a different candidate. Special interest groups who have chosen to back a candidate will also do what they need to do to benefit their chosen candidate. It’s human nature.

Do your own vetting and draw your own conclusion!

WikiPedia

 

WikiPedia is not authoritative, because anyone with a computer can change any entry. WikiPedia is generally not acceptable for academic papers. That said, the reference lists on WikiPedia’s entries may point to more authoritative sources. In other words, use WikiPedia as a springboard to reach authoritative sources, but don’t use it as the source of your information.



Tags: ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • Betsey_Ross

    Thanks so much Ron.  I’m eagerly waiting for the next installments.  This is exactly what is needed here.  All of us have other races besides the POTUS in our states that need attention.  I especially liked your sub heading of Beefs and Endorsements.  Buyer beware.  It’s good to know of these things.  You won’t ever know if you don’t pay attention. 

  • susiepuma

    Thanks Ron – I linked this to my FB page – good info……………………….

  • pipam12

     I vetted them I’ll take Sarah

    • Brit4Sarah

      So would I but she’s not running and she’s told you to pick another.

      Do you think Sarah will stay at home and vote for no-one?

      I’m disappointed with all the those who whined when the pro-Gingrich post was made the other day  because they are waiting for Sarah to make a pick since they appear to be incapable of doing their own thinking.  I bet they really dislike this post since it calls for them to get out there and make their own determinations as to who they will vote for – much like Sarah has been telling us to do since October 5th.

      For the record, I am looking seriously at Newt, I have been since since Sarah declined to run - yes he has baggage, sits on a couch with Nancy P-lousy and has done many other things I don’t like but when I cast that vote here in Florida, I want to make sure I’m doing the best I can for my kids and, right now, I think Newt Gingrich is the best of the worst.

      I’m a Brit for Sarah – I share her vision for this country – that does not mean I wait for her to move before I at least consider the possibilities.

      • HiramHawk

        Gingrich grossly fails vetting.  I know, he talks real good and he is smart, but so are some others that could be compared (but such comparison would likely offend many).  Gingrich is bad juju.  If elected, he will be right back on the couch with Pelosi and enforcing liberal causes, as he has done in the past when he previously gained power.  Why would THIS time around be any different?

        • lanahi

          Do your own vetting, Hiram, don’t tell us who to vote for or not.  And don’t tell us what you think a candidate will do and state it as a FACT that that’s what they’d do.  Or what a candidate has done without vetting their FULL record.
          That’s not vetting, that’s bashing. It’s what we excoriate the media for doing against Sarah…then why would we do it to others?
          Vetting is the pros and cons of a candidate…not just the cons, not just the pros, but a whole balanced review.

          • HiramHawk

            Don’t like hearing another opinion do ya?

            • lanahi

              I don’t want to hear the bashing, period.  That is not a conservative practice.  It is what Paul supporters and leftists do.  Maybe you are a Paul supporter?

              • HiramHawk

                Oh I get it now.  Since I am not a Newt supporter, I am a Ron Paul supporter (who’s really "bashing" here)?  No, I lean toward Santorum and Bachmann these days.  I am pro Israel and never been a truther.

                Speaking of conservative practice, since you brought it up and consider yourself THE authority regarding such things; you might consider getting off your high horse for a minute and taking a closer look at Newt’s liberal record.

                Oh, I know, Newt’s apologized for his affairs and backing for destructive numerous liberal policies through the years, but he’s rehabilitated now.  Right?

                I am really getting tired of being told that I have to support Newt, now that Gov. Palin is not running.  That will never happen.

                • lanahi

                   I didn’t say you had to vote for Newt, and I don’t think most of us who feel we may have to settle on Newt have said that here.  I said that bashing is not a conservative mindset, it is what Ron Paul supporters and the liberals rabidly and unreasonably do, but conservatives are mostly more fair in their vetting..

                  Vetting= considering the pros and cons of a candidate and making your decisions based on the facts or evidence for both.

                  Bashing= totally ignoring all pros from a candidate’s record and focusing only on the cons and painting the candidate as totally "bad", maybe even evil.

                  There’s a difference that you appear to not understand.

      • pipam12

        i didnt say i wasn’t going  to vote for someone else , i just said I vetted them and I pick Sarah , I will wait a long time to see how this plays out before I decide which one is left to vote for , I was going to help with Sarahs campaign but now I have no desire to help anyone else

        • Brit4Sarah

          Not sure if you’ve heard but Sarah IS NOT RUNNING.

          You might as well pick Ronald Reagan.

          People, I understand your love for Sarah and your desire to see her in the White House – i’d like to see her there as well BUT SHE HAS CHOSEN TO NOT RUN THIS TIME.

          She has told her supporters to look elsewhere.

          I’ve thought about writing her name in here in Florida but, other than as a symbolic gesture, it would be a waste to do so.

          • lanahi

            I don’t think she’s told her supporters to look elsewhere yet, and maybe she won’t.  She just says to completely vet all candidates. 

            • Brit4Sarah

              And why would she tell us to vet the other candidates if not to vote for one of them?

              Come on people – you can deny that Sarah is not running all day long but if you do not participate you have no right to complain when things don’t go your way.

              • lanahi

                She’s talking to the entire electorate, not just her supporters.  Vet them all. Then you can more intelligently discuss the candidates…including maybe her…with others who may be going for Mitt or Obama for instance.

                She says on Hannity:  "The wisdom of the people. The American voter, doing their own homework, knowing who these candidates are, what they represent, what their experience provides them. They will be making up their own mind, and I honestly don’t think that a pundit at this point, and their personal endorsement, again, really amounts to a hill of beans."

                The vetting already done has made her look even better in comparison. And, if she decides not to run, the people still have an informed choice because they’ve "done their homework".

                She doesn’t want to make up anyone else’s mind for them. That’s too much of a burden to ask of anyone.

                • Brit4Sarah

                  SHE HAS DECIDED TO NOT RUN.

                  • lanahi

                    And what insider knowledge do you have?

                  • goldenprez

                    Brit …. What happened to you?

                    You used to be so calm and collected, and now ITS ALL CAPS!

                    Perhaps you need a valium. But whatever it is, you really NEED TO GET A GRIP.

                    Sarah Palin has decided "not to seek the GOP nomination." If you have evidence of anything else, please bring it forth.

                    The last time I looked, the GOP primaries were not, repeat, not, the election for President of The United States. They are a series of elections used by the GOP to pick a nominee to run in the election for President of The United States.

                    All the CAPITALS in the world will not change that simple fact.

                    If you are convinced that, because Mrs. Palin is not "running" for the "establishment" GOP nomination to run for President, it follows that she will not run for President, that is certainly your prerogative.

                    There are many of us out here in Palin Nation who are not so convinced.

                    Now, Mrs. Palin may disavow a run for the Presidency in the coming weeks and months, but as of this moment she has done no such thing. Before committing to any candidate for the Presidency, in the election to be held in November 2012 (which is still 11 months away), some of us will take Mrs. Palin’s advice and examine the candidates who are seeking the "establishment" GOP nomination, and any other candidates who may decide to throw their hat into the ring.

                    Are you sure there will be no other candidates other than the "establishment" GOP nominee, and Obamao? Besides Mrs. Palin, there are still a number of wild-card possibilities.

                    Again, we will not know the answer to that question until after the formal conventions of the two morally corrupt and bankrupt Parties

                    Till then, I suggest, to all, that they …

                    Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

                    Illegitimi non carborundum.

                    Barracudas Maximus.

                • alien4palin

                  Totally agree!!!

              • alien4palin

                Sarah has faith in We,The People and that we have the smart to decide for ourselves. What is lacking is basic understanding of the electoral process and a coherent method or know-how for reliable vetting of candidates.

                Human beings have an inherent propensity to reflect our own experience/capability and project the same to others. On the rare occasions, I have been guilty of that because of consideration of giving the benefits of the doubt to others. There are other reasons people do this, such as arrogance or ignorance.

                Sarah has repeatedly said she is going to wake up America and guide us through the process. She is taking us through a real live educational exercise of how to properly and reliably vet candidates. That is what she has been doing.She is not going to make our decision for us. It would be futile and defeat the object of the exercise of educating the nation’s voters and future voters.

                Ron Devito had provided excellent general principles for vetting a
                candidate here with future installments to come. Ron’s project here is working with Sarah to fulfill the goal. Educating the voters are long
                overdue.

                Folks here in C4P might be very capable of doing their own vetting and decision process but millions and millions of voters would learn and benefit for this election cycle and all elections in the future According to statistic in 2010, there’s 235,809,266 voting age population in the USA. In Canada, we have a total population of approx. 35 millions and apparently only 1% are fully engage, actively participate in politics and knowledgeable about our election process and system of governance. I do not have the percentage for America.

          • pipam12

            i didnt say i was voting for sarah i said i wasn’t going to jump in and help someone else with their campaign

  • Brit4Sarah

    Thanks for broaching the subject so that those who are waiting for Sarah to tell them who to vote for will, hopefully, wake up and start doing their own "due diligence" as Sarah has been telling us to do for some time now.

    Supporting Sarah does not mean we follow and copy everything she does – we agree on a majority (perhaps even a vast majority) of Sarah’s vision and I agree that no-one in the current mix of candidates comes close to her.  However, we know who is the farthest from her - Obama - and we need to get rid of him and elect the candidate who has the best chance of stopping us from heading over the waterfall until Sarah is ready (and the Lord willing) to take us back upstream.

    We can almost all agree that Romney it ain’t (that was for you Meghan) so which of the remaining candidates is the least worst?  Not who is the pure Conservative cut from the Sarah cloth, but which can prevent further deterioration and begin the process of turning the ship around or, at least, holding it in place until help arrives.

    This nation (me included) has become so addicted to instant gratification – the new President must fix everything in the first two years or he/she is toast.  This economic problem is worldwide and, whereas Obama has tried to accelerate our predicament and needs to go, I believe Sarah realizes that she will need a solid House and Senate in order for her to do her work so that will be here focus for a while.

    It took many years to get into this mess and will take a long time, and many good people, to fix it.

    • goldenprez

      Brit4Sarah … While you are perfectly free, for the time being, to vote for any of "the best of the worst," I suggest that it makes absolutely no difference which of "the worst" you vote for.

      None of them are going to take even the first steps to restore America to its constitutional roots. None of the declared candidates is going to stop us "from heading over the waterfall." They may slow the approach, but they are just as determined to go "over" as the socialist in the White House.

      It is their creed. Big government. They do not want to stop the corruption, they want to be the distributor of the corruption.

      Anyone who doubts this, is just kidding themselves.

      I have never seen a statement from Mrs. Palin’s whereby she has endorsed the "establishment" GOP primaries nominating process. I have seen no statement declaring it is anyone’s "duty" to vote in the GOP primaries. She continually talks about vetting, but not in regard to the primaries. Her statements are always about the Presidency.

      I have taken many opportunities on this site to point out that, while Mrs. Palin has said, and I believe her, that she is not going to seek the "GOP nomination," she has made no definitive statement about not seeking the Presidency.

      Until she does, I will view the candidates for the GOP nomination, to fracture Shakespeare, as "poor players that strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then is heard no more."

      And the primaries themselves as "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

      I cannot, for the life of me, understand why people are in such a rush to declare themselves for the "best of the worst."

      There is a reason why they are "the worst."

      It will be quite interesting to wait, and see what tomorrow brings … literally.

      Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

      Illegitimi non carborundum.

      Barracudas Maximus.

      • lanahi

        I think there are several candidates who would govern as conservatives…in fact, anyone except Mitt or Huntsman.  Some would just be stronger influences and more effective for the good than others. Most could not stand against powerful opposition, IMO. Kind of like a conservative version of Boehner.

        • goldenprez

          Ianahi … I doubt that any of the "establishmnent" GOP candidates, including Mr. Romney and Mr. Huntsman, believe that John Boehner is anything but conservative.

          And therein lies the problem.

          If you wish to trust any of these big government GOP candidates, well, it is still a free country. At least for a few more months.

          As Mrs. Palin pointed out in both her interviews with Sean Hannity, anyone who has participated in the U.S. congress, and helped to dig the hole that we are in, really is in no position to call themselves "conservative."

          Of course, it appears that you disagree with her.

          Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

          Illegitimi non carborundum.

          Barracudas Maximus.

          • lanahi

            And which of the present candidates besides Mitt and Perry have not "participated" in Congress?  And are either Mitt and Perry eligible from the standpoint of "crony capitalism"?  That was another of Sarah’s points…she had a few.

            Boehner may or may not be conservative, I wouldn’t know from his record.  What I’m saying is that, if he is, he certainly has not been able to stand up for conservative principles.  Nor would any of the current candidates running for president except maybe Newt…they’d fold under the intense pressure to preserve the status quo.  Like Boehner is doing. 

            It takes more than a conservative standard to change things.  It also takes guts.

            • goldenprez

              Ianahi … It appears that you thought I was disagreeing with you. Not the case.

              I was attempting to elucidate some statements by Mrs. Palin. And the inferences that can be drawn from those statements.

              Her statement about "having served" in the U.S. congress must, I am afraid, include Mr. Gingrich. In fact, Mr. Gingrich, while doing some "conservative" things, also did some "not very conservative" things. As in helping to "grow" government every chance he got.

              These things are all on the record. It doesn’t take much research to find them.

              Much as Sean Hannity attempted, multiple times, to get Mrs. Palin to endorse Mr. Gingrich, she did not. And she made it pretty clear that she would not. It was during those attempts by Mr. Hannity that she made the statement about "having served" in congress. So she was, more than obviously, not issuing Mr. Gingrich "a pass" for his previous actions.

              As to Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry, Mrs. Palin has made it quite clear that she believes them to be crony-capitalists.

              So, you may ask, who does that leave? Weeellllll ….

              It is obvious, as well, that Mrs. Palin is not only not going to run for the "establishment" GOP nomination, but she does not seem willing, or even inclined, to actively participate in any of the campaigns in regard to that specific quest.

              She has neatly side-stepped all attempts to engage her therein. "They are all better than Obamao." Not to beat a dead horse, but every single person on this website, and close to 54% of the voting population knows that already.

              Until Mrs. Palin says she is not going to seek the Presidency, in just those words, I will refrain from backing any of the "establishment" candidates. If she does decide not to run for the Presidency, which I sincerely doubt, there is still plenty of time to decide to support any of the 7 dwarfs who may win the GOP nomination.

              As the election for President is still 11 months away, I do not see the upside of deciding now.

              Only one month ago, there were many on this site who were ready, willing, and able to back "Herb" Cain. Now they all look extremely foolish.

              I can’t remember who said it, but the phrase certainly fits … "flavor of the month."

              I wonder what Mr. Bannon and Mr. Breitbart are going to spring momentarily. Don’t you?

              Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

              Illegitimi non carborundum.

              Barracudas Maximus.

              • lanahi

                I never liked Cain as a presidential candidate,  but probably they don’t look foolish for supporting him.  He just couldn’t take the heat, and most can’t.  He did the best thing he could do in getting out of the race…he should have done it sooner.  He’s right, politics is a dirty game, but didn’t he know that? 

                If he’s innocent, I feel sorry for him and his wife, but he did not handle anything well all along.  It just isn’t right to go from no elected office to the highest office in the land.  He didn’t have what it took, and he made no effort to learn, IMO.  He just can’t leave it to advisors to make the decisions out of knowledge…the president still has to know enough to make sure he’s getting the best advice on an issue.

                I don’t think she will endorse anyone at all, whether she is getting in or not.  That would just be putting her own credibility on the line when none of them are that worth it.

                She did say at one point that she would run if there was no suitable candidate, so I’m still on the reconsideration bandwagon, whether that is a remote probability or not…I don’t think it is so remote.

                We don’t have 11 months to decide on a candidate, though. Five weeks from now is the first caucus in Iowa, and many will have primaries by March, so vetting should be going on now. We will know by then which one will be nominated, probably.

                Yeah, tomorrow will be interesting, if they are on schedule!  I hope it will be as big of a bombshell as they expect…I’m ready for it! Sounds as if Bannon will have a video for us. The timing suggests that it might involve some of the present candidates.

      • Brit4Sarah

        I give up. You only hear from Sarah what you want to hear.

        This website is quickly becoming Dreamers4whatIhopeSarahisSaying. You aren’t supporting Sarah – you are blind to what she says and in waiting for her to run again you are not supporting what she is asking. Remember, she said on Hannity that ANY of the GOP candidates would be better than Obama and for us to vet the candidates. She gave no hint whatsoever that she would be willing to run for President this time around.

        Accept it, live with it and do what is necessary to pick the least worst of what is left.

        • goldenprez

          Brit4Sarah … Of course you give up.

          That is evident by your willingness to vote for the "best of the worst."

          Mrs. Palin has said all along, even when considering running for the "establishment" GOP nomination, that ANY of the GOP candidates would be better than Obamao.

          Hell, YOU would be better than Obamao. Ianahi would be better than Obamao. It is difficult to think of any non-socialist or non-Marxist who would not be better than Obamao.

          Your attitude that anyone who is not involved with the GOP primaries is somehow not supporting Mrs. Palin, is quite amazing on the surface. Did Mrs. Palin urge everyone to vote in those primaries? Did she endorse any of the candidates running in those primaries? Did she not indicate that she will not be endorsing any of them?

          "She gave no hint whatsoever that she would be willing to run for President this time around."

          Did she give any hint that she would NOT be willing to run for President this time around?

          Anyone, and everyone, who is willing to wait and watch events as they unfold, is hardly blind. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. To not wait, is to be impatient as a child.

          In the meantime, with your exasperated, and disrespectful attitude, you try and diminish what I wrote with semi-ad hoc insults, but never once do you address any of the points I, respectfully, made.

          There are many on this site, with whom I have agreed/disagreed in the past, and you were one of the ones I never would have expected to be so raw.

          Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

          Illegitimi non carborundum.

          Barracudas Maximus.

        • lanahi

          She has said quite a lot of things, and people take whatever they like from her quotes.  Not much of what she said conflicts with anything else she has said, but much can be inferred by any of us as to what she is doing.  There are quotes we can use to support her still running, and quotes to support that she isn’t and won’t.  The fact is, no one knows but her and Todd, probably, if even they do.  She is watching closely how it all unfolds, and this might influence her future course.

          I think, instead of a ‘no’, it’s a ‘wait’, and if she can see a clear path, she will still run.

  • wodiej

    good pointers.  Before 2008 I was not as active as I am now.  I am much more informed than I was but can still do better.

  • Wasillaguy1

    Maybe you should send a copy of this to the media. Thank you its a great template.

  • goldenprez

    Ron … As a former resident of Staten Island, 10 years in South Beach, I admire your fortitude.

    In many ways, the Molinaris can be compared to the Murkowskis.

    Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

    Illegitimi non carborundum.

    Barracudas Maximus.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6K6VEPRAR23STTROX3CH46EWDY Rich

    Maybe we could all organize into vetting teams?
     - then publish results on a site somewhere?
     - perhaps here – ?

    This is a really big project – at least 536 posts at the national level – but all judges, cabinet and elected officials require the same scrutiny!

    I have found that I need to beak things down into a step by step procedure, then I always have something to do… and eventually! – it gets done.

    • lanahi

      I’d like to hear what – and who – each state is faced with and how powerful the conservative movement is in that state.  Who is the best candidate for an office, especially in the US Senate and House and state governor, and who do we have to try to remove, etc. Maybe even have a category about state races here and what’s going on all over.  It could be that some here might even want to help fund an important candidate who would put a new face in government.

  • nkthgreek

    Vetting and Obama are mutually exclusive.

  • westernhunter

    Great post, looking forward to next installment.

  • nkthgreek

    Still hoping that the one most vetted will run.

  • alien4palin

    Ron….Most excellent first tutorial!!! Thank you. I was absolutely delighted to have caught up with your constructive article this morning. This is a critical project for moving America forward in the right direction for a better tomorrow. Quoting Sarah…." America can be exceptional again and the best exemplary model for the world"

    Re: Poor vetting practices- all the examples you cited are also far too common in Canada and other Western countries where I had the good fortune to have participated. It is glaringly clear for a long time that voters need to be educated, at the very least, the basic fundamental of how electoral process work, how government are structured and how it operates and the crucial role and empowerment as voters. Many of us are not aware of the power of our one vote per person, collectively could change the world for better or worse with lasting impact in one’s country and the domino effects on the rest of the world. This is an indisputable fact for America as the leader of the free world.

    This has been my utmost concern for the past 3 decades as I have heard all the examples you gave far too often to scare me witless and despair for our future. When I realized very early on that Sarah had long ago understood this as part of the problem in her overview and making it a major part of her mission for America, I gave her the biggest hug in spirit that I could mustered.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets