The skills to do the jobs to which candidates are elected are important but they are not the sole criteria upon which to base the vote cast to elect them. I am aware that I sound like an ideologue when I speak of the differences between the parties and I hope that you are aware of the differences between them.
The criteria apart from job skills are every bit as important and go back to the Founders and their ideas about governance, character, and freedom. Each of the offices held by elected officials except for the party committees operate under a tax-funded budget (the Pike County Republican Committee has no budget and no source of revenue other than unsolicited donations). The input of the elected official is taken into account in setting the budget for that office. The more the official is convinced that the government not only can but should take a more active role in the “welfare” or well being of their constituents the more they are willing to push for more power and authority which means to whatever extent possible a larger budget which means a higher tax burden on we the people, and the more articulate and convincing they are the more successful they can be at increasing the budget and scope of their domain. If their aim is to make it an upwardly mobile career, they will carry this philosophy into every office to which they are elected. The psychology that pushes such an ideology is the same one that underlies the reason our education system is in the shambles it is. Our children shouldn’t have to work and suffer the way we did (the nanny-state ideology). If you have seen the effect of the welfare state (Democrat ideology on full display) on the inner cities and the American Indian living on reservations, you cannot fail to see that throwing money at anything increases graft and corruption and ultimately corrodes and destroys the fabric of the society it is supposedly meant to help. The more the producers are forced to give up the fruits of their labor to those who cannot or will not produce for themselves the less incentive there is for them to produce beyond their own needs.
If you are not in agreement with what the Bible has to say about sin and its various visages, and that character is not affected by it, then by all means we can continue on down the short road to destruction that we are on. But if you believe that character matters–I get that nobody is without sin and that –, then you must also concede that overriding principle must come before personal interest in the way we live our lives and conduct our relationships and treat honestly with all we meet. You wouldn’t buy a car from someone you knew would cheat you if they could, so why on God’s green earth would you elect them to office even if they were hands down the most skillful salesman? How could you trust them to do what they were put there to do without cheating you and enriching themselves if they got the chance? A person of character is not without mistakes and failures, but that is not where they live. Character and integrity are refined in the fire of screw-ups and mistakes. Get burned, learn, and get better.
When trust is an issue character matters. Character is a measurement of moral integrity. When someone is elected to an office of public trust, character and integrity should be at the top of the list of qualifications, not a non-issue because we think they can win the office.
ANY official (elected or hired) who holds a position of public trust and uses their position to punish, silence, impoverish, or otherwise unjustly wield power over those who openly disagree with their political ideology are the lowest form of coward. The have no moral integrity, nor do they display any form of intellectual honesty. If their political ideology is that good for everyone, how could their logic fail to win in open debate? To silence opposition through use of force instead of evident reason is political cowardice and nothing more.