I’ve seen some news sources saying that Lieberman’s loss is actually bad for the Democrats, because Lamont will be pictured as “too liberal” and may actually lose the state to the Republicans - not to mention that, around the country, the Reps will be saying things like “See, Joe Lieberman was not liberal enough for the Democrats! They’re extreme left wing!” Even some Democrats are scared, because Lieberman could attract many more “centrist / right-wing” voters than Lamont, and now the entire party may be seen as “too liberal” or “not tough enough on terrorism” (WHAT terrorism? What does the Iraq war have to do with “terrorism”?)
Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
Is the only goal in politics to win elections? Must politicians base their campaigns on opinion polls, instead of actually having principles of their own? Do they just say anything they have to say to get elected? Anyone with half a brain knows that the war in Iraq is wrong, but because so many people don’t have half a brain, our candidate must support the war? Is that it?
Or am I too naïve by being surprised?
I’m glad Lamont won. It’s time politicians - and everyone - stop being afraid of standing up to the Bush administration, because they don’t want to be seen as “liberal extremists”.
Let’s hope this is but the beginning of a wave of people finding out where their balls are.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
1 Responses to “Lieberman’s loss, and lack of integrity”