In my previous column, I argued that Republicans failed to make their case to the American people. We had policies worth defending and accomplishments worth explaining, but failed to connect them to the concerns of everyday voters.

There is another problem Republicans must confront: We must do a better job of choosing our candidates.

The 2026 United States Senate election in Texas provides a troubling example of what happens when Republicans fail to give sufficient weight to character, judgment, and electability in choosing their nominees.

Three prominent Republicans sought the nomination: incumbent Senator John Cornyn, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Congressman Wesley Hunt.

For many conservatives, Cornyn was no longer acceptable. His voting record, including his support for bipartisan gun legislation opposed by many Republicans, raised questions about his commitment to conservative principles.

Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy faced similar dissatisfaction, particularly over his vote to convict President Trump during the second impeachment trial. Cassidy finished third in Louisiana’s Republican primary.

Experience and seniority in Washington do not guarantee the confidence of conservative voters. But rejecting an incumbent is only half the responsibility. Republicans must also choose a better replacement.

That brings us to Paxton and Hunt.

When evaluating someone for employment, I believe there are two important categories to consider: teachable skills and qualities that cannot simply be taught.

Technical knowledge, job-specific experience, and familiarity with procedures can be learned. Character, integrity, honesty, courage, discipline, and responsibility are different. These qualities are developed and demonstrated over a lifetime. They cannot simply be installed through training.

People can change. Christianity teaches repentance, forgiveness, and transformation. But when hiring someone for an important position, we should look for demonstrated character rather than merely hope it develops later.

Why should choosing a United States senator be any different? We are, after all, hiring someone to represent us.

Consider Ken Paxton.

As Texas attorney general, Paxton aggressively challenged Democratic administrations, defended conservative policies, and fought what he considered federal overreach. His accomplishments were significant, and his willingness to fight made him popular among grassroots Republicans.

But what about the qualities that cannot simply be taught?

Paxton faced felony securities fraud charges that were eventually dismissed following an agreement involving restitution and other conditions. The Republican-controlled Texas House impeached him in 2023, although the Senate subsequently acquitted him.

A whistleblower retaliation case involving former employees resulted in a $6.6 million judgment against the attorney general’s office. Allegations concerning the treatment of employees who reported suspected wrongdoing raised additional questions about accountability and integrity.

Fairness requires acknowledging the acquittal and dismissed charges. Allegations are not convictions. Nevertheless, voters have every right to examine a candidate’s judgment and conduct.

Then there was his marriage.

In July 2025, Paxton’s wife of 38 years, Angela, filed for divorce, alleging adultery. She publicly stated that she had sought reconciliation but believed remaining in the marriage no longer honored God.

Although those allegations should not be presented as judicially established facts, they raise serious questions about personal character.

Marriage is more than a legal agreement. It is a sacred covenant before God, built upon solemn promises of faith, faithfulness, honesty, and lifelong commitment. Those promises should govern a lifetime.

If a man fails to honor that sacred covenant with his wife, why shouldn’t voters question whether he will honor his promises to them?

We should not demand perfection. Everyone falls short of God’s standards. But human imperfection does not make character irrelevant.

Character is not something we should demand from our political opponents while overlooking it in our own candidates.

Now consider Wesley Hunt.

Hunt graduated from West Point, where cadets are taught that duty, honor, and country are more than words. They are principles intended to govern a lifetime of service.

He served eight years in the United States Army, rising to the rank of captain. As an Apache helicopter pilot, he flew 55 combat missions in Iraq. He also served two deployments in Saudi Arabia as a diplomatic liaison officer representing the United States.

Consider what those responsibilities require.

Flying combat missions demands courage, composure, and the ability to make decisions when lives may depend on them. Military leadership requires accountability for others, respect for the chain of command, teamwork, and the willingness to place duty above personal convenience.

Diplomatic assignments require another set of important qualities: sound judgment, self-discipline, communication, and the ability to represent one’s country responsibly.

Hunt’s record demonstrates that he accepted demanding responsibilities and successfully completed years of military service. He received an honorable discharge and subsequently earned three graduate degrees from Cornell University.

These accomplishments did not happen by accident. They required perseverance, self-discipline, and a commitment to completing difficult assignments.

Military service does not automatically establish a person’s moral integrity, nor does it guarantee success in politics. But Hunt’s record provided substantial evidence of courage, responsibility, leadership, and dedication to something larger than himself.

Those are precisely the qualities voters should examine when choosing someone to represent them in the United States Senate.

Hunt also supported conservative priorities, including border security, American energy production, national defense, and Second Amendment protections.

He was not without weaknesses.

His congressional attendance raised concerns because he missed numerous votes while campaigning for the Senate. However, a statewide campaign requires extensive travel while maintaining congressional responsibilities. His attendance deserved scrutiny, but those competing demands should also be considered.

Questions arose concerning campaign expenditures. The House Ethics Committee ultimately closed that investigation without further action.

Neither candidate was perfect. But perfection was never the standard.

Paxton possessed extensive experience fighting conservative legal battles. Hunt offered military leadership, considerable education, conservative convictions, and a record of accepting responsibility in demanding circumstances.

A senator can learn legislative procedures, develop expertise in policy, and gain experience navigating Washington. Those are teachable skills.

But the courage to face danger, the discipline to fulfill demanding obligations, and the willingness to place service above self are qualities that must be demonstrated through actions.

In my judgment, Hunt had demonstrated a stronger foundation of those essential leadership qualities.

Texas Republicans chose differently.

Hunt finished third in the primary, and Paxton subsequently defeated Cornyn in the runoff.

Then came November.

Democrat James Talarico defeated Paxton, becoming the first Democrat elected to the United States Senate from Texas since 1988.

Would Hunt have won? We cannot know. Economic conditions, national political sentiment, and campaign strategy all influenced the election. It would be unfair to attribute Paxton’s defeat entirely to his controversies.

But shouldn’t Republicans ask whether those controversies made the election harder to win?

Too often, Republican primaries become contests over who attacks Democrats most aggressively, secures the strongest endorsements, or demonstrates the greatest political loyalty.

Meanwhile, voters are asking more fundamental questions. Can I trust this candidate? Has this person demonstrated sound judgment? Will this individual honor the responsibilities of public office?

Proverbs 22:1 reminds us that a good name is more desirable than great riches. Reputation and character matter.

Conservative principles remain worth defending. Constitutional liberty, limited government, secure borders, fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense are essential to America’s future.

But those principles must be represented by people worthy of the public’s trust.

When hiring someone for an important position, we examine qualifications, experience, reliability, and character. Why should we apply a lower standard when choosing someone to help govern the nation?

Political knowledge can be acquired. Legislative experience can be developed. But character must be demonstrated before we entrust someone with power.

Republicans should never have to choose between conservative principles and personal integrity.