After the current rash of manhunts on public figures, it is nice to finally hear a refreshing view. It seems that lately we have been shooting down politicians and Supreme Court appointees for acts done in their past that have little to do with their ability to perform the task that they have been elected or appointed to do once they are in office. I agree that their past may have some influence on what they may do in the future and on their moral character but what does cheating on one's spouse or experimenting with marijuana when they were in college have to do with governing a nation?
Because we are a nation of uninformed voters who are not willing to take the time to learn more about our candidates' views, the candidate that can get through the campaign with the least amount of scandals wins, not the one that is most qualified. Tavris is right in stating that we need to be looking at the overall person and not "fatal flaws" of their past. We have been spending too long in looking at the mute in one candidate's eye while missing the log that may be in the eyes of politicians already in office.
DIANE L. RISKE