Your question is faulty because it starts as a Yes/No question of morality on whether you would vote for Walker but the biggest factor in your offered choice is between 2 (or more) candidates. His opponent is Warnock has many "flaws", making your question of weighing the negatives and voting for the "least worse". And Warnock has the Senate seat because he beat a Republican who was openly corrupt and reportedly campaigned badly. I know too little about Georgia politics to make a hypothetical choice.

"Walker is now garnering support from lots of Democrats. Suddenly some ask, where are their moral values?"

^ It's called politics as the Democrats have no more moral values than the Republicans.

It is all about controlling both houses of Congress to promote a party line agenda even if it means being duplitious.

Case in point...the now deposed liberal Clare McCaskill (D-Missouri) initiated the novel strategy of promoting extreme right-wing Republican opponents to ensure that she would appear more palatable to independent voters.

The scheme worked during her second term re-election campaign but backfired badly when she ran for re-election against Trump loyalist and challenger Josh Hawley-R who easily ran her out of office the third time around.

In many voting districts around the country Democrat political funds are being used to ostensibly promote hardcore right-wing Republican candidates with the hopes that voters will view them overly extremist.

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't...ask Clare McCaskill.

The 'Party of Lincoln' is now the 'Party of Trump' and the deposed Clare McCaskill (D-MO) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) have been rendered immaterial in terms of any viable fiture political aspirations or relevance.

As far as 'morality' goes, neither party can rightfully wear that crown or pledge a sincere allegiance to such an ephemeral ideal.

The question has to be "do we expect our leaders to be moral and beyond reproach or do we expect them to be good leaders"? Do we actually have to like the leader in order to support him or her? Can a good leader have poor moral values?

Personally, I prefer a good leader regardless of the likeability of the leader. Many good leaders have had suspect morals. JFK and various others were known to have mistresses, some even living in the White House!

When I choose a leader I want someone who can lead and make the difficult decisions that take the country where it needs to go. I am choosing a government leader, not a moral leader. If I want a moral leader I will stay away from politicians.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one.

> Question: How flexible are you in your political thinking?

Question: How flexible is your retirement portfolio?
Question: How flexible are your unemployment checks?
Question: How flexible are your food and heating bills?

Successful leaders prioritize their moral compass.

A truly moral leader would be one that fully adheres to the 10 Commandments as mandated by God.

Recent POTUS violators include Bill Clinton and Donald Trump...party affiliation is irrelevant and immaterial.

With 453 House members and 100 U.S. Senators, the number of 10 Commandments violators rises even higher.

Various religious leaders have also been known to be violators of the 10 Commandments including civil rights leader MLK and countless television evangelists.

The point here is that no one is perfect.

Chicanery and hypocracy are venerable trademarks of American politics.

All I seek in American leaders are those with a strong distaste for Islamic terrorism and despotic Communist regimes.

Everything else is debatable.

Morality issues briefly aside, I don't think we will ever see an openly gay or transgender POTUS in the near future because American voters as a whole are not ready to accept such transgressions.

On the other hand, celebrity candidates tend to attract public attention and often create heightened voter interest regardless of their intelligence, morals, or political platform.

If Kanye West (aka Ye) or Snoop Dog were to toss their hats in the political ring, they would definitely receive added media exposure and a sizable number of votes. Donald Trump in 2016 is a prime example.

Dullards and dark horses need not apply.

In addition to possessing strong leadership qualities, having a sharp and witty demeanor also helps.

Both Trump and Biden lack those characteristics.

And don't even mention Kamala Harris as a potential POTUS as she lacks both dynamic leadership qualities and a colorful persona (aka charisma).

I think the thrust of my game was not realized in most of the above comments. For example, Dug Moran, you said, "Your question is faulty because it starts as a Yes/No question of morality on whether you would vote for Walker but the biggest factor in your offered choice is between 2 (or more) candidates." I INTENDED THIS BLOG AS A GAME AS TO HOW WE THINK AND REASON ABOUT YOUR VOTING CHOICES. And to other responders, I I was NOT looking for which candidates you would vote for (hence, only two candidates offered) nor was this a poll of any sort about who you would vote for in November. I probably should have said the candidate was Tweedledum. I was asking you why you are changing to support him (because of his change of party, or consideration of how you would vote if democracy was at issue. I was also talking about where morals come into play when you cast a vote for a person. If the candidate flies, cheats, etc., would that enter into your decision to vote for that person? If so, why; if not, why not?) --Diana

"I was asking you why you are changing to support him (because of his change of party, or consideration of how you would vote if democracy was at issue."

^ Herschel Walker did not change his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.

He is running as a Republican.

Pragmatism when voting for a candidate should come into play - within limits. You should vote for someone who will run the government in a way consistent with your ideas. You can't expect to get someone who is perfect, and their ability to advance "the cause" is generally more important that the fine points of their personal behavior. (Consider Churchill with his drinking, versus Hitler's temperance - who was the better leader?) That said - if their personal flaws are bad enough, it will have an impact on their governing; and it will have an impact on the reputation of your political cause. Sometimes, the pragmatic response is to reject a candidate due to their personal flaws. I still believe the Republican's support of Trump will end up having profound negative consequences for the long-term health of the party, even though he energizes many on their side, and he did get them a conservative supreme court like they wanted.

Voting requires pragmatism, which is of course the ability and willingness to select the "least bad" option. Character, competence and platform are all weighed.

It is interesting to see what is happening in the UK. There was uproar about Boris Johnson's pandemic lockdown parties when the public were unable to even visit dying relatives, and various other "terrible behaviors". He was forced to resign. Now they have another who is floundering in public opinion and outrage but this time on policies. How long will she last is a very valid question?

The point being, politics are never about who is the most likeable or even moral politician. It is always about what policy does to the common people. Be careful who you vote for. Do you vote because you like their moral standing, or because you think they will be a good leader making good policy decisions that will affect everyone.

Do you want a moral role model? Or do you want someone who will lead well?

[Post removed.]

@Jack Peterson, thanks for the laugh showing the hypocrisy, double standard and judgmental stereotypes while saying we shouldn't judge but should ditch all logic.

On the broader issue, the GOP and the Democrats are playing by two different sets of rules. The Democrats force out pranksters like Al Franken while ignoring the multiple sexual assaults and affairs of "their" guys like Trump, Kavanaugh, Walker....

I want someone who will lead well with a moral compass. It's not asking too much. Politicians aren't librarians, but there are those who are decent human beings. Nobody is asking someone to be a "morale leader." We're asking that you maintain a sense of decency.

Voters vote for politicians they like, and those who share their views. It's common sense.

If philanderers such as JFK, MLK, and even the likes of Bill Clinton can be thought of as effective and influential leaders, then no moral compass is required.

The Republicans have fewer reported incidents of this nature because they are more conservative and willing to accept the downfalls of a miserable and unfulfilling marital relationship.

There are exceptions of course like Newt Gingrich and Matt Gaentz but nothing along the lines of the Kennedys (JFK, RFK, and younger brother Edward).

The Kennedys along with Bill Clinton are a black mark when it comes to common decency and moral stature.

A moral compass is a tool that helps people make ethical decisions. Not everyone thinks of JFK, MLK or Bill Clinton as effective leaders. All three were troubled men.

As a moderate Independent I vote for the person, not the party. I've equally voted for Republicans and Democrats through the years. So, yes I'm flexible in my political thinking, unless it's a politician I have a scornful disdain for. Newsom and Trump come to mind.

I'm saddened by those who don't think character counts. Character is the most important attribute for any person, politician or otherwise.

In addition to a moral compass, mental acuity is another important electoral consideration.

The ongoing string of Biden gaffes clearly indicates that something has gone awry with the man's cognitive abilities and perhaps Congress should pass a new law setting the maximum age limit for being a president at 70 years or less.

Age limits should also be established for members of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court...anyone over 80 should be required (or forced) to retire.

While some elder proponents will say that with older age comes wisdom, in many instances all it triggers is senility and forgetfulness.

We need a third party of moderates, perhaps led by Tulsi Gabbard. She's had a lot to say recently on Twitter.

Re the "liberal media" we hear so much about, I'd appreciate a pointer to that when hedge funds have bought up hundreds of newspapers, when big conservative companies like Sinclair control tv stations across the country and dictate content from HQ and when Fox and its cousins OAN, Breitbart etc. are thriving.

The thought of a dullard like Herschel Walker, being in the United States Sentate for a 6 year term is frightening. Herschel Walker's campaign staff reportedly believes he's a pathological liar, which would explain why he gets along so well with Trump. Walker lied to his own campaign staff when they asked him about rumors of children that he fathered and hid from the public. Despite his denial, Turned out that Walker had three children that were previously unknown to the public, this after he spent years speaking out against absentee fathers. And then there is the incident with the fake Sheriff's badge which is insisted was legit....games aside, he has no business running for any public office.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

"Millennial and future Gen Z voters might change this voter perspective later down the road because they are being indoctrinated in school and through the liberal media that LGBT lifestyles are an acceptable way of life."

Excuse me, Rachel Voorhies, we don't have "lifestyles" or "way[s] of life," we have lives. "Lifestyles" imply exercising completely discretionary choices, such as whether one carries a Gucci purse or not or whether one lives on a houseboat instead of on land.

In contrast, sexual orientation is hardwired. You are presumably heterosexual. I am not. Period.

As a fellow citizen and taxpayer, I object to your implication that I am somehow morally inferior to you.

Furthermore, I find it disappointing that I have to point this out for the 4,000th time in the 45 years since I figured this out about my own existence. Which, by the way, is up for neither discussion nor debate.

Morality is best defined as virtuous conduct that differentiates right from wrong.

The problem is that the definition and concept of right and wrong is oftentimes debatable and based on one's individual perspectives and personal beliefs.

Morality is also an ideal and as we all know, various ideals can be difficult to practice and carry out because of one's vested interests...self-serving interests that often conflict with ideal thoughts and behavior.

Politics are the last place to have any false or ideal expectations of morality.

Pragmatism is the ability to choose the "least bad" choice. Most of us pinch our noses in the voting booth.