Should we start requiring background checks on political candidates?

1. 60

   JeniferDposted 14 years ago

   I think we should.  If it's one job that a mandatory background check should be required for, it's that of a public official.  Why?  Representation of the citizens is a sacred trust and that trust has been violated over and over again, and speaking for myself, I am damned tired of it. Airports require background checks on janitorial employees these days, why not background checks on our elected officials?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I think the media does a pretty good job of background checks.  If there's dirt to be dug, there's money to be made from digging it.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         "I think the media does a pretty good job of background checks.  If there's dirt to be dug, there's money to be made from digging it."
         
         How interesting, an answer focused on the money to be made from a media dig, no doubt there is as well money to be made by the media person who digs up filthy and alarming dirt and is paid to shut up. 
         
         The media has shown no ability to be relied on as a watch dog for the citizens of the USA.  Look how long it took for the very Reverend Wright to be exposed -- should have been part of Obama's background dossier from the get go, along with Ayers, and all the rest of the old line terrorists now on OUR payroll, rather than the Homeland security watch list.
         
         Yes, background checks should be required of all political candidates.  It's surprising even to see the question is one that would be entertained as debatable.

         replyreport
   2. 67

      rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know if things are cleaned up anymore than in 1999 when this article was published on but I doubt that it has.
      
      These were the slime of that moment in time.
      
      Taken from http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/ … 081699.htm
      Numbers from 1999:
      
      * 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
      * 7 have been arrested for fraud.
      * 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
      * 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
      * 3 have been arrested for assault.
      * 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a
      credit card.
      * 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
      * 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
      * 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
      * And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         *faints*

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Rafiniposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I second that emotion! 
            
            
            
            
            but, then again, there are some of those things that might be forgivable IF they were 'youngun's' at the time - not everyone's perfect.

            replyreport
   3. 64

      RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Then nobody would qualify.

      replyreport
   4. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The Office of Personnel Management does background checks on all political appointees and on all federal government employees who have access to classified information and on key employees at all agencies when they are hired and every five years thereafter whether or not they have access to classified information. The five-year security "checkups" in non-defense agencies are a colossal waste of taxpayer's money, not to mention an invasion of the employees' privacy. Being gay used to be grounds for disqualification which meant that gay employees lived in fear of being outed and fired as has been the policy of the military. My understanding is that since the early 1990s homosexuality has not been grounds for denial of a security clearance. I could be wrong about that. I know it was true in the non-defense agency where I worked. Not sure about the Pentagon, CIA or other agencies that dealt with classified defense information.

      replyreport
2. 67

   TheGlassSpiderposted 14 years ago

   You mean we DON'T?! Well F%*@#*^ *slaps forehead*

   replyreport
   1. 0

      cosetteposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      
      hee hee

      replyreport
3. 83

   donotfearposted 14 years ago

   I thought we already DID require background checks...?  WE do, I'm sure. Thing is, who's to know it's not 'doctored'? Ha!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Chaotic Chicaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'm with you! I thought we did, too but evediently they're not good enough!  It sure is interesting how that works.....
      I have to say theglassspider's senitments are pretty accurate, too!

      replyreport
4. 60

   JeniferDposted 14 years ago

   Then explain to me why President Obama appointed folks to certain positions who 'forgot' to pay their taxes?  I doubt any valid B/G check was done on Geithner or the other appointee, forgot her name.  That's what I call the 'Good Old Boy Network'.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Chaotic Chicaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I believe the key word in your post is VALID, that tends to make a bit of a difference!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Oh I think I see your point.  I was thinking of people running for political office. 
      
      I think it makes sense that if someone has been found guilty of a felony that they can't serve in certain positions. 
      
      But then again, our elected representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people.  If the people elect someone who has a criminal history, then shouldn't the will of the people be the end of the story?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with what you say.  It is funny that in some states you can't vote for yourself due to a conviction but you can run for the office you are precluded from voting on.
         
         I think it is supremely up to the voter to validate their own vote and not just vote for party nominees as a cop out to due dilligence on their own part.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Chaotic Chicaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            AMEN!! It's why I consider myself an independant.  People are people, each with their pros and cons and it's the PERSON one should vote for, not supposed similar ideals.  Track their history and listen to their speeches, including what they didn't say, and then decide.  As for the will of the people, most are unaware of a candidates criminal history because they don't pay attention.  Do you see a trend here? LOL

            replyreport
      2. 61

         JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         ....how droll, you leave me laughing, good job.
         
         The 'will of the people', lately that's not meant much.  As for the 'will of the people' in regard to voting a political candidate into office, at any level -- if they were not told of the actual background of the candidate, then their vote, their will, is compromised by lack of information. 
         
         And their 'will' is thus subject to change once the actual history of their elected official is known.  They may well be okay with some issues once disclosed.....but it is highly unlikely that the average American would be inclined to vote their 'will' for anyone who is anti-American based on their past associations and actions -- so Yes, a background check should be required for political office candidacy.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Hm. 
            
            So a background check would not only include criminal convictions, but also past political and religious activities?
            
            And those with "unAmerican" affiliations wouldn't be allowed to run for office?

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Glad to see Joseph McCarthy is alive and well...

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  No doubt.  But then, if McCarthy incarnate were running, shouldn't the American voting public be fully aware of that?

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I am all for that !

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  And who determines what is and is not anti-American?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL beat me to it UW!
                     
                     I guess we can just let the secret police take care of all that political stuff for us.  They can just tell us who to vote for! Yay!  So easy!

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        I know...if it's Obama it was anti-american because he dared think his country needed improving.
                        
                        If it was Bush being arrested for drunk driving that is okay because it's not anti-American.

                        replyreport
                     2. 61

                        JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        OooooooH!  Sounds like you have an inside track on Secret Police in the USA.  An extension of the reach of Homeland Security?  A new undisclosed spin on the Democrats blessing of cell phone monitoring that they screamed about during Bush's term?
                        
                        Yay!  So Easy!  I've absolutely no doubt.
                        
                        So just what should be in a background check for a voting member of Congress or a Secretary of Defense or a Czar of Soap Operas?  If affiliations with known terrorists aren't included...then perhaps we should just let the media tell us what they are paid to say -- as it is done now, and let the chips fall where they may.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           William R. Wilsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           So, I guess Bush 43 would have been out, since his family had extensive financial dealings with the Bin Laden family?
                           
                           And what about John McCain's mixup with the Keating Five? 
                           
                           My original point was, we can't go excluding people on the basis of arbitrary political conditions.  This is a representative democracy (in name anyway, and broken, but still).  If the people vote someone into office, that is the person who needs to hold that office. 
                           
                           I have no illusions about the people who are supposed to represent me.  Corruption and power go hand in hand.  That is why we have checks and balances, and term limits, and why we need more limits on campaign contributions.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Financial connections.......now there's a can of worms.  Care to discuss the Clinton's connections to who and how many, the Kennedy's? I don't, the time is now, and for all the corruption it has never been pegged as Anti-American activity or affiliations for either of those Democratic families.
                              
                              Before Bin Laden's family had Osama as the world's bad guy, no doubt the Bin Laden family did business with lots of folks, probably even the Kennedy's.  That is a pointless issue and a global finance issue.
                              
                              Background checks of affiliations that are current and pertinent to the issues of the USA, that are overtly associations that are Anti-American, as in Wright's GDAmerica, etc..., and Ayers gladness that he almost killed a few people, etc.. and etc... for so many, and many other sick things, are highly pertinent to any voting citizen of the USA, as are connections with corrupt groups such as ACORN paying folks to vote.

                              replyreport
                  2. 60

                     tony0724posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm pretty middle of the road I will be happy too !

                     replyreport
            3. 61

               JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               ROFL......they certainly aren't allowed to just waltz into the White House.....or are they?

               replyreport
            4. 61

               JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, you are really an intellectual quick study, glad to know another Patriotic American is out there.  Homeland Security is hard at work right now on a new Democratic definition of UnAmerican activity that includes returning soldiers, and of course the top 'Tea Partiers' are on their list I'm sure - perhaps the whole discussion of this forum is moot as the DHS is on top of the issue!

               replyreport
               1. 76

                  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow, you must be a White House insider to know that for sure...

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Dang, I thought you were Romer's best buddy and surely a WH insider as well!  Glad to meet ya!

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, sorry that I question specious arguments. Must mean I am one-sided.

                        replyreport
            5. 69

               Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Background checks are quite thorough. Last week I was interviewed by an OPM investigator of my next door neighbor who works in the U.S. Attorney's office in Detroit. He has worked their for more than 30 years. The investigator told me that they repeated the investigations every 5 years. The investigator's questions didn't include anything about religious or political activities.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Religious and political activities are just so NOT important these days, highly understandable, we wouldn't want to hinder a religious or political terrorist, that is not legislated American free will as interpreted today.  They may have an Easter bomb plan we wouldn't want to interfere with -- gotta love that separation of church and state and liberal attitude and gratitude in regard to extremist positions.

                  replyreport
5. 60

   JeniferDposted 14 years ago

   I'm sure it's gotten worse now that these closet cases are being outed by the media on a regular basis these days. BTW, Nice list there, Glass Spider! 

   replyreport
6. 51

   squid82posted 14 years ago

   screw that,we shuld make them take a piss test ! along with all gov hand resipents that would help to drop the dept.

   replyreport
7. 60

   tony0724posted 14 years ago

   I think that question answers itself.

   replyreport
8. 74

   Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago

   YES, and psych evals, and lie detector tests(daily).
   
   The two questions I would want answered, after the initial test, and on a daily basis...
   
   
   1 Did you lie to someone today.
   2 What was your lie about.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It is a rare human who has never lied about anything.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Dang, that was deep, you think they steal a few pencils a day and deny it vociferously to their staff?   
         
         Let's not take the conversation to micro-analyzing -- background checks are not at a micro what did you have for breakfast level -- but, rather who you shared that breakfast with and how often, and if it occurs so much that it is ready knowledge, and background checks, Secret Service checks, should be required of all political candidates for national office.

         replyreport
9. 76

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   And of course, the Bush family were lily white and never dealt with any of the bad guys ever did they? The Saudi royal family who are very close friends with the Bush family are good people who never harbored terrorists or anything.
   
   Funny how you assume that families whose politics you disagree with must meet with the bad guys.
   
   And, it is Osama Bin Laden who is the terrorist, not his family.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Grasping a bit?  Obama bows to them all, you've no idea what connection he has through the folks that put him in office.
      
      And more important, George Bush Sr. or Jr., or Ronald Reagan, or any other prominent Republican or Conservative, never associated with Anti-American groups or individuals.  You can be very sure that if that ever occurred it would be pasted all over mainstream news on a daily basis as a justification and validation for the current crap.

      replyreport
10. 71

    livewithrichardposted 14 years ago

    Yep, they should all have criminal as well as credit background checks, they should be implanted with the RFID chip, and also be forced on a public stage to pass the "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" test.  Those that are already in need to pass a "guilt by association" test although I'm not sure which associations we should exclude.
    
    Honestly, if they're smart enough to persuade the majority to vote for them then they deserve the job. Once they're in the job, it's our responsibility to make sure they stay on target.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "Honestly, if they're smart enough to persuade the majority to vote for them then they deserve the job. Once they're in the job, it's our responsibility to make sure they stay on target."
       
       But, they don't, it is the media they have been smart enough to influence to persuade the majority to vote for them.  Which gets back to Wilson's comment way back about just letting the media get paid to do the digging -- and they'll get paid as well to closet what they find.......and America votes on.  Or outfits like ACORN vote on, we really will never know what the true vote was in the last election.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          So did the same go for the last two elections before Obama, it was all the media?

          replyreport
          1. 82

             IzzyMposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Probably.
             The Bilderberg Group decide who is in power, who are 'elected' representatives and what YOU should vote.
             They control the media as well as the politicians. The media are a lot more powerful than we give them credit for.
             The politicians are merely puppets. Greedy puppets but still puppets. Guys that are good at talking - superior car salesmen. I'd actually trust a car salesman before I'd trust a politician.

             replyreport
          2. 61

             JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Could be, what do you think? Let's here an opinion from the contributors, rather than a question designed to provoke.
             
             As well, let's reflect on the past elections.  Do you recall the mainstream media doing anything other than trashing the Bush Administration?  If so, be sure and let us all know. 
             
             Do you recall the Bush Administration having an arm such as ACORN to drum up fake votes?  If so, let us know.

             replyreport
             1. 69

                Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                The NY Times supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq. He had pretty good support from the MSM until it became apparent that the invasion was a colossal mistake based on lies and misinformation. Then the media turned against Bush as did public opinion. That's my recollection.

                replyreport
                1. 70

                   earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Mine too. It also cost Howard and Blair their governments for believing him when the truth came out about Iraq.

                   replyreport
             2. 69

                Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Acorn has not been proved guilty of voter fraud. There were cases of registration fraud so that the ACORN workers would meet their quotas and get paid.

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   "The NY Times supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq. He had pretty good support from the MSM until it became apparent that the invasion was a colossal mistake based on lies and misinformation. Then the media turned against Bush as did public opinion. That's my recollection."
                   
                   So, the New York Times epitomizes the Mainstream Media? Yes, they no doubt do. And they kept up a pro-Bush, pro-conservative stance in regard to Bush during the last election, or the one before that?  Highly doubtful, but I'll be sure and look into that.  Oh, that's right, they turned against him over the Iraq war suddenly being one built on lies and mistakes, beyond that his policies were considered sound, glad to know that.

                   replyreport
                   1. 69

                      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      The NY Times supported Gore and Kerry over Bush. The NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the L.A. Times epitomize the mainstream newspaper media. All the TV channels supported the invasion of Iraq and were generally supportive of Bush early in his administration until it became apparent what a poor president he was. Of course Fox still supports Bush. It's not accurate at all to say that the Times supported Bush's policies aside from the Iraq war. They were quite critical of many of his policies--wrt to allowing religion to influence scientific and other policies, his poor record in the environment and climate change, his tax policies and his policies in many other areas.

                      replyreport
11. 0

    sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

    We should vote to outlaw professional politicians!

    replyreport
12. 0

    chasingcarsposted 14 years ago

    If you're referring to Congress, I'm pretty sure that's your job because politicians are elected locally.  If you are referring to the birther bs, I don't believe your right wing judges would have sworn him in had they not known he was a citizen.  Roberts hated swearing Obama in so much he botched it.  But swear him in twice, he did.  If you would make an effort to be better informed, rather than waiting for the right-wing talking points to make a decision, you would elect better representatives, that is, unless you are just as corrupt as the guy you are voting into office, which is often the case.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       foreignpressposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Let's try a for-instance. Let's say it is legally determined that (newly-elected) Obama was not a citizen yet was elected President. Do you feel he should be sworn in? Does he still have a "right" to be President of this country even though he's not a citizen? What I'm finding incredible is that people make various accusations while totally disregarding the established laws of this country. This healthcare debacle is another example, as states are tripping over each other to declare the bill null and void. It is also obvious that our immigration laws are pointless.

       replyreport
13. 61

    Wealthmadehealthyposted 14 years ago

    A simple answer to this question is YES!!!
    
    I believe they ARE SUPPOSED to check WHERE A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENCY IS BORN, BUT THEY DIDN'T, AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN ASK...Much to our chagrin now with the rif-raf in the White House.  How much is this to ask when we the people are background checked before we blow our noses.

    replyreport
14. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    Why not require background check on political candidates? Employers do it the employees and the CITIZENRY is the employer of the government. So, in the best interest of the citizenry and national security, they better check out those in office. DUH! That is a no brainer!

    replyreport