Who (what?) do you vote for?

Tacitus has a thoughtful post in response to Kos's assertion that "victory by any Democrat is better than victory by the best Republican." Tacitus finds this moral idiocy, and instead argues that a good Republican is better than a sordid Democrat, a good Democrat better than a sordid Republican (the semanticist in me wonders whether this might just be an issue of extension versus intension).

I'm inclined to agree with the substance of Tacitus's post; I'd much prefer an unselfish, thoughtful president (or representative, senator, governor, etc.) than a mean-spirited corrupt one.

I'm not sure, however, that the anecdote Tacitus provides really proves his point. Back in 1994, he had the opportunity to meet both candidates for the governorship of South Carolina. After meeting the two, he decided that he preferred the gracious [Democrat] Theodore to the crass [Republican] Beasley. Here's the thing. I think it's absurd to vote for someone based on how friendly and personable they are. You vote by your principles and whether someone is capable of implementing those principles.

What's odd is that the second point of Tacitus's post appears to contradict the first. "I am Republican because I adhere to certain principles. These stay the same, wherever the party may go. At the moment that a Democrat better embodies those principles, that Democrat receives my vote."

My guess is that Beasley's principles better matched Tacitus's back in '94. Yet by his first argument, he wouldn't have voted for Beasley. So that's the question. Do you vote for principles or a good person?

(To be sure, this is a false dichotomy, but these two positions are, to a certain extent, contradictory. Tacitus is generally smart enough to recognize things like this.)