Is winning all that matters?

Just out of curiosity, before I get into the candidates and issues, I want to ask a question: Is it important how people win or is winning all that counts?

Suppose you knew the candidate from your party was telling lies about his policies, his abilities, his running mate's ability; suppose that person changed their policies every time they spoke to a different group; suppose you knew that one of your candidates had abused their power and was trying to avoid having that be proven; would you care? If your candidate had been proven to be lying with actual footage, would you care?

If we go through these issues over the next month and you begin to really think about what has gone wrong, realizing your side has screwed you royally and the 'other' side has a better plan, would it change anything or was your mind made up before the campaigns began and it was a matter of looking for a reason to vote as you already intended and overlooking anything that didn't fit?

Is the idea to win at all cost or is it how you play the game? Does that get taught early in life? Do one group of parents teach that it's more important how you win than whether you win? Do people then carry that attitude through life?

I am a realistic woman. I understand that no leader is perfect. Voting should not be about expecting them to be heroes, but is it really enough that they are like the guy down the street? Worse, is it okay if they are a rat if they are our rat?

When we look at presidents, should we look at what they have done for the country, for the world or are we told what we should think or even see-- like the emperor's new clothes that weren't new or clothes?

President George Herbert Walker Bush was disrespected by Republicans because he was responsible economically. After the Reagan years of increasing our debt (charts on that to come), Big Bush looked at the situation economically, saw it for where it was heading and did what needed to be done-- raised taxes. Pay for what you are doing? Cover your debts? This is a strangely conservative attitude for how conservatives talk today.

When a situation arose that Big Bush saw required war (and that does happen), he asked what is the exit strategy? He said, you don't go into a war without knowing what you want to win, what it will cost, and when to get out. Many in this country, most especially neo-cons, wanted to occupy Iraq, and so they didn't like that. Not to worry there is always another more pliable leader coming along.

Little George was elected twice by not caring about exit strategies or responsibilities. He won by promising something for nothing; and I might add, on that he has delivered. His party defended him throughout one debacle after another. Even now, as the full cost of his presidency is beginning to be clear, some overlook it and think it wasn't his ideas but how he carried them out. They are prepared to vote for those same ideas again (think pie in the sky).

Experience matters until it's your own party? Hero worshiping is bad until it's your hero? Is it only about winning? Palin said Obama will regret nominating Joe Biden instead of Hillary Clinton. She believes that for one reason, she thinks Biden won't help Obama win. It doesn't matter who would be best in the office afterward. It's all about who can help win. To hell with the results later and literally that is what happens!

If someone runs a campaign for the presidency where they lie, where they call upon the worst nature of people, where they introduce fear whether it makes sense or not, where they use fascist political tactics to win, will they run an administration that is any different?

Back to my question, does it matter how someone wins or is winning all that counts?