Paulson: It's not about personality

Vote for those who hold your values, principles

On either side of our political divide, voters are searching for the perfect candidate, and they're not convinced there are any out there.

With the kind of scrutiny involved in today's campaigns, the money required and the gauntlet of races one must endure, it's a wonder we find any candidates who even want the job.

There are no perfect people, much less perfect candidates. In fact, no one leader alone, no matter how competent, could ever know enough to chart an effective course for America in these challenging times. They must lead a team of citizens and like-minded professionals and politicians who are committed to the same vision.

So whom am I voting for? I've struggled over which candidate best represents the principles I support and has the best chance of winning and leading effectively. But I'm not worried because my vote is less candidate-based and more party- and issue-based.

All the remaining Republican front-runners are preferable to the Democratic choices available. Why? While some voters and pundits talk about personality, charisma, likability and whether a candidate &quot;connects,&quot; I vote for the chosen leader of the team that most effectively stands for the principles, values and positions that best match my own. With that candidate comes a team &#8212; a rich database of skilled and like-minded politicians and the judges, leaders and professionals they'll appoint to key positions.

In 1992, I made the childish mistake of voting for Ross Perot to punish President Bush for breaking his promise by raising taxes. Unfortunately, I, like far too many Republicans, rejected Bush on one issue, not realizing the impact Bill Clinton and his team of like-minded Democrats could do after coming to power.

With two imperfect parties with a chance to win, I now vote for the candidate from the party who best supports my shared principles. If your heart and mind resonate with most of these main principles, consider voting with me for whomever gains the trust of the Republican team:

1. You stand for smaller government, fewer regulations and less government intervention in our affairs.

2. You support lower taxes and letting people who earn money keep more of what they make &#8212; &quot;yes&quot; to charity for the poorest of the poor and &quot;no&quot; to more expensive, unfunded entitlements!

3. You believe national and homeland security are government functions America can't afford to neglect in this age of terrorism. Freedom isn't free, and war sometimes is the answer!

4. You believe in preserving the &quot;American dream&quot; based on personal freedom and individual responsibility, no matter what a person's race, gender or age. Instead of glamorizing victimhood, you support celebrating and learning from the affirmative examples of citizens who are living their dreams.

5. You support educational excellence, higher expectations, applied discipline and the upholding of high standards for our youth.

6. You support a sound, free-enterprise economy and believe that America can outinvent and outperform anyone in a fair global competition.

If you're disappointed in the ability of Republicans to deliver on these principles, join the crowd &#8212; keep complaining and work to make them better! Republicans are far from perfect, but electing a Democrat president with a Democrat-controlled Congress is a nightmare from which you won't quickly wake up.

Promote your positions in the political and public arena; disagree but don't demonize any candidate or throw away your vote. President Reagan wisely coined his 11th Commandment: &quot;Thou shall not speak ill of any other Republican!&quot;

For those of you undecided, ask yourself which party has the people, programs and principles needed to meet the domestic, economic and military challenges we now face. The future is too important to leave to a series of debates or an assessment of a candidate's communication style or charisma.

Presidents are no better than the team they lead and the vision they share. In this critical election, don't just think of the candidate and their vice president. Think of the Cabinet members they'll depend on and the judges they'll appoint. As we saw in the Super Bowl, it takes a quarterback and a team to win the big game!

Americans deserve more campaigns based on principles, positions and teams. As we move toward the November election, I promise to focus columns on the key issues thoughtful voters must consider before they vote. I'm sure those who disagree will give voice to their opinions. That's what makes America great!

&#8212; Terry Paulson is a psychologist, speaker, author and host to the blog. Contact him at


  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 20

Tom_Johnston writes:

Why does the Star give so many inches of column to a guy like this? His bottom line...if you are a Republican?

What..don't "demonize any candidate", but on the other hand "electing a Democrat president with a Democrat-controlled Congress is a nightmare from which you won't quickly wake up". Let me guess, only the Democrats get demonized right? Same old same old.

As for his "six points", the current administration has failed him on them all.

ekwhite#292240 writes:

I find it amazing that given the current state of the economy, the continuing occupation of Iraq, the violation of the human rights of American citizens, and numerous abuses of the constitution, that Terry Paulson would consider a Democratic congress and Democratic president to be a nightmare. It seems to me that most Americans would consider the last 7 years to be a waking nightmare! I'll give my own 6 points to consider:

1. Does the candidate believe in continuing war in Iraq, or does he or she have a plan to get us out honorably.

2. Will the candidate honor the Geneva convention, or will he or she continue practices such as 'extraordinary rendition' and 'enhanced interrogation' that are clear violations of human rights?

3. Will the candidate honor the separation of powers in the constitution, or will the candidate continue to use 'signing statements' as an extra-legal means of subverting the constitution?

4. Do you support the American dream that anyone can have a decent life with hard work, or will the candidate continue to pursue policies that have brought the gap between the rich and poor to levels unseen since the great depression?

5. Will the candidate continue to give tax breaks to companies that export jobs, while allowing unsafe imports to come from China?

6. Will the candidate finally put together a plan to make health care affordable for all, or does the candidate support the status quo, in which we pay more per capita for health care than any other industrialized country, while simultaneously having the fewest people covered by insurance of any industrialized country.

Look at the issues that matter to you. I believe if you look objectively, the Democratic party is more likely to fix our problems than the Republican party.

laura_54321 writes:

This column, like a few recent ones, can be summarized thusly: "Hold your nose and vote republican."

Don't "demonize", look at "issues, not personality", and when you realize that the democratic candidates actually have the better ideas and speak to your issues: hold your nose and vote republican.

Stop patting yourself on the back for being so thoughtful and above the fray, Mr. Paulson.

nick2fot#726016 writes:

Just what is the "Republican team"? The obvious answer is that these are the delegates to the 2008 Republican convention, who may or may not represent the principles of the Republican voters. There is a more formal version of the principles to which all Republicans are expected to adhere - the Republican National Committee party platform. The current version was adopted on Aug. 30, 2004, and it will be replaced this year. The authors of this platform included two representatives from California: Araceli Gonzales and Timothy LeFever. Do any Republicans remember participating in the selection of these two individuals to represent your principles? Do you remember reviewing the draft document and having input to those who adopted the final platform? Of course not; that could only happen in a democracy.

Of course, this also applies to the Democratic National Committee party platform. My point is that if you plan to apply party loyalty to your voting decisions, you should only do so after you have read both party platforms for 2008. Only then can you tell if your principles and those of one of the parties are in alignment.

sslocal writes:

I would like to thank the people that took the time to comment on this article. You have varified my feelings on why this state is the laughing stock of the nation. Thank you all very much.

shaver_one#727793 writes:

I, too, voted for Ross Perot in 1992. I did so because I didn't like the candidates from the two major parties. I won't say I threw that vote away. George HW Bush pushed through the largest single tax increase this country has known.
Remember? "Read my lips. No new taxes."
The result: Bill Clinton. matter what your opinions of cigars are:
1. Clinton DID balance the budget.
2. Clinton DID leave the country with a $261 billion surplus.
3. Clinton DID work with both sides of the aisle to get things done.
4. Clinton DID see the US achieve the highest growth rate this country has known.
Had Bill Clinton be able to run for a third term, he would have won, overwhelmingly.
That said, I don't imply that Hillary can or would do as good a job as Bill. She is polarizing. So What? So is Obama, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. That IS the nature of politics. forego candidate-based decisions in favor of party-based conclusions will further separate the two sides, making working together as impossible as it has been for the past 7 years.
To consider voting based solely on whoever your party tells you to vote for, is to blindly walk into a dark room that may be filled with buzzsaws. To vote only for those people who represent your party, and not necessarily your overall opinions and beliefs, is to give up your free choice, in favor of being led subserviantly.
We need a president that will work with both sides of the aisle, not just with his/her party.
We need a President that will look out for the interests of Americans...not just Republicans or Democrats, but all Americans.
We need a president that will work with the international community.
We need a president that believes in the rule of law.
But, most important, we need a president that will govern by the Constitution of the United States.
Candidate-based vs Party-based?
Ask yourself: Are you better off today, than you were 7 years ago? Do you want more of the same?

marketrealist writes:

Terry is at it again with half truths disguised in cleverly crafted words.

The Republicans have bankrupted the nation by pouring money into the military without gaining any corresponding increase in our security. The military can win any battle with its superior weapons but the Republicans have no clue how to manage the situation afterwards. The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team bungled the “winning the hearts and minds” task so badly and left us in a situation whereby we have spent of over $1.6 trillion in Iraq based on a report by the Congressional Budget Office. See the explanation of our situation from military advisor, Thomas Barnett:

Tax cuts to the rich in light of growing deficits are irresponsible. Its going to take a long time to recover from mess left behind by the Republicans under this failed administration.

surfmedic91#425000 writes:

AS and shaver_one, did you see the 60 Minutes episode with the Syrian born FBI agent that spent 2 yrs of his life communicating with Saddam Hussein after his capture? That was invaluable info that took a long time to acquire. That is why we are in Iraq for so long. It will take a long time for the Iraqi people from all religions and sects to work together and accept a common govt not and not be ruled by one person. There has been an increase in our security by adding Border Patrol Agents, creating Dept. of Homeland Security, and changing the focus and jobs of our military to adapt to the times at hand. Had we been forced into a "war" with the Middle East in 2001, we would have not been prepared because of old ideals from Vietnam and even Desert Storm.

ekwhite, there has been a plan to get us out of Iraq since we went in. Since 2003, the military has known it will provide continuing rotations beyond 2009 and each Division knew its' rotation up to 2009.

Am I better off now than I was 7 years ago?? Yes! I joined the Army as a result of Sept. 11.

sslocal writes:

Careful surfmedic, these folks don't like the truth being thrown in their collective faces.
BTW: Thanks for your service.

marketrealist writes:

Can someone remind me why Bush got us into Iraq? Some may say oil, but oil is a completely fungible commodity - anyone can buy it on the international markets. So why are we there?

911 did not originate from Iraq. In addition to the tremendous waste of lives and money, we have inadvertently created in Iraq an incubator for terrorists and have turned a billion Muslims against us. Nice job George.

Tom_Johnston writes:

It amazes me how much some of the conservative commentators to these boards are able to pull the wool over their own eyes. The worst Orwellian double-speak is exceeded here routinely, beginning with Mr Paulson.

Mr Paulson speaks on one hand of not "demonizing", then turns right around and says a Democrative Party dominated government would be "nightmare".

"sslocal" remarks that we "varify" (er?) his contention that California is the laughing stock of the nation, excuse me, but with approval ratings that hover in the low 30's at best, this current Administration is the not so funny shame of this nation. I'd say having two successive morons for Attorney General, or a horse breeder as FEMA director is laughable, if the outcome hadn't been so tragic.

Surfmedic opines that we would not have been prepared had we "been forced into a "war" with the Middle East in 2001". Hey, that's exactly what happened in early 2002, and while most of use supported that, in 2003 we got FORCED into a war by lies, deciept and fear-mongering by this administration. That's exactly what happened.

This administration has spent more than any prior, gone further into debt (indeed turned surplus upside down), and recklessly exposed the nation to risk externally while neglecting it internally (New Orleans is still a mess).

Some may be fooled, but most of us have wised up to what needs to change in this country.

sslocal writes:

New Orleans was a mess before it flooded.

As asked why we went to Iraq. Well, like most of us I can't really be sure but from what I remember Saddam had violated 12 UN resolution and the UN was doing nothing. He, Uncle George, thought he was a threat. He took what evidence he had to congress and they said yes, lets do it.
If I am wrong here someone please point out my error.

marketrealist writes:

sslocal said "He took what evidence he had to congress".

Did you actually mean to say he lied to congress and the American people? In case you have not read it yet, the case for a preemptive strike against Iraq was made long before 911. He and his cronies had a misguided vision of a world in which having the ability to bomb a country was equivalent to having the right to bomb the country. He has wasted our national wealth, lost both American and Iraqi lives, and destroyed American credibility on the world stage.

The sad part, is that Terry coughs up the same old patriotic jingos and a segment public laps it up. According to the Bushies, never mind what the NIE says about Iran, we'll go in and bomb them too and hey for that matter, why not bomb Syria on the way in and Pakistan on the way out. This nightmare has to end..... please.

mikeb6804#235809 writes:

We have so many errant and misguided commentators to the Paulson article, I won't even bother calling you out by name; I'll only address a few issues. So if the shoe fits, wear it.

Our health care problems would best be solved by tackling head-on the problems which have us in the mess we are in now: ambulance chasing lawyers and excessive hospital charges and overhead.

Don't just cut up the Republican team. Pay attention to the Democratic convention superdelegates. These are the party powerful who can override the popular vote; watch what's going to happen --- If Obama beats Hillary in the primaries and comes to the convention with a delegate lead, the supers already bought off by the Clinton machine will make Hil the nominee. Great representation there! She, with her 35 years experience, is a joke, but not a funny one; she just assumes she will always get a free pass.

The people who gripe about Bush subverting the Constitution wouldn't recognzize the Constitution if it slapped them in the face.

Bill Clinton left us with a surplus --- after giving us the highest taxes in history. Everyone who hated G H W Bush for raising taxes after the famous "read my lips" comment cannot remember that in the end he had the choice of raising taxes (which was being pressed by the Democrat controlled Congress) or facing governmental paralysis.

The economy was skyrocketing during the Clinton administration --- the dot com boom was purely speculation and when it collapsed, anyone with any smarts could see it was based on NOTHING.

starkly writes:


There are two ways to right wrongs. One is through regulation, the other is in the courts. So you'd regulate health care? Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just be a little more up front -- make it clear you want Congress deciding what a doctor can charge to diagnose your cancer or whatever. Let everybody know you'd make it illegal to pay a good doctor more for his expert services. Sure, you might have to wait 6 or 8 months to get seen by a good doc, but when you do, it'll be the same price as the iffy doc whose patients keep moving on. Or dying.


Hey, at least I know there are three branches of government, not four. When the White House suggested that was an interesting debate for Constitutional scholars? That's when we should have impeached.

No other administration has worked so diligently to subvert the Constitution. Not one. No, they're not fascists. But this is how fascism starts.

>>Bill Clinton left us with a surplus --- after giving us the highest taxes in history.

And after the Deficit Reduction Act, which Republicans at the time opposed vehemently, saying it would lead to a recession. Ha! (Who cuts spending? Democrats. Who increases it? Republicans. It's been that way for 25 years.)

Deficit spending and the debt is an anchor on the economy. $1 trillion for this war, and cutting taxes on Paris Hilton? That's like skipping out when the bill comes at the restaurant, leaving my five year old son to pick it up.

So, wow, taxes were higher after Republicans let us with staggering deficits? Yeah, blame Clinton for that. Here's something to think about: had he not, there's no way we could have gone to war in Iraq. We couldn't have borrowed the money.

bombero42 writes:

AS, if you want to know why we got into Iraq, get a copy of Greg Palast's book Armed Madhouse. He explains it all, from the history of the Bush families many decade collusion with the Saudis to the present. All the lies and corruption are exposed along with the proof. He also explains how the Republicans stole the elections of 2000 and 2004 and how they hope to steal the election of 2008.

marketrealist writes:

Oh and the tax breaks are great unless you now consider the budget situation - the following is extracted from Reuters this morning:

"Conrad said the nation was less equipped to deal with those problems because of the national debt, which was expected to reach around $10 trillion by the time Bush leaves office -- close to double the $5.6 trillion level of 2001.

Interest payments on the debt have ballooned above $200 billion a year, making them one of the fastest growing parts of the budget and rivaling the Iraq war in their annual cost.

Also of concern to lawmakers is the potential that the near-term fiscal picture could be even worse than the scenario laid out in Bush's budget."

Bush has proven definitively that the Republicans have no credibility whatsoever with respect to fiscal restraint. They have sold out this country to their special interest groups.

shaver_one#727793 writes:

I noticed that you did not dispute the argument that Bush subverted the Constitution.
And, yes. I WOULD recognize it. And, it would not have to slap me n the face.
It begins:
"We The People..."
It does NOT begin:
"I am the decider."

shaver_one#727793 writes:

I did not vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996.
I did not vote for George Bush in 2000 or 2004.
I do not vote straight party I do not belong to either the Redemocan or Demopublicrat party. I HAVE voted for GOP candidates, in the I have voted for Dem candidates in the past...based on their particular views and opinions.
And, I HAVE voted for February 5, 2008.
Have you voted?

shaver_one#727793 writes:

A quote from a Conservative Republican woman, aired on KFYI-550 AM in Phoenix, AZ:
"I can't vote for McCain. He's against torture. I'm FOR torture."


Featured Promotions