Interesting post by Stirling Newberry at BOPNews.com regarding the true motivation behind Lieberman’s loss…
This race isn’t really about the war – it is about lying. People feel they have been lied to – about the economy, about how sound the housing market is – one rural route was packed with for sale signs for homes – but it is the war that they have proof positive they were lied about. They want someone who can stand up to Bush – who is not “the President” but “that President” – and someone who won’t lie to them any more. Lieberman’s campaign, desperate to keep the election close, or even win under depressed turn out – has lied about Lamont’s past, about his own record on the war – and now about their site being hacked. (my emphasis)
Interesting point. I wonder if the anger that is tapped here is truly from the national feeling – or a personal frustration at Lieberman (after the general impression of inevitability of his re-election). As I read the previous blog posts, I see very little extolling support for Lieberman, and a lot of people expressing their anger at him. With the blogosphere leading and the mainstream media reporting on the Cinderella story of Ned Lamont and drubbing of Lieberman, is it any wonder why he became the focus of the Dems anger at this time?
Integrity is a tough quality to measure – especially when you consider that it is not measured by the winds, but by a personal code. I wonder – does Joe actually think that the war is good or is it support for the Administration policies? The people that I know, who know him personal, speak of his incredible integrity and the fact that he would not be so duplicitous. His belief in the country and the threats that exist lead me to believe that he is strong on his convictions, even when faced with a vocal group of constituents who disagree with him.
Does he know something we do not?
Is it right to assume that Lieberman is privy to other pieces of data that we are not – and is it this information that leads him to make these decisions? It is this integrity that makes me (want to) believe that he must have some reason for his unwavering faith in this course of action. Maybe I am being naive about my belief in the goodness of others – but as I have said before, a number of friends have vouched for his integrity – and for that, he gets credit from me.
And, as I have said before, I am not in support of the war or the actions that have brought us to where we are today – but I still believe in the inherent goodness of the man – even if he seems to have lost the pulse or the sheer representative nature of his position.
Thought exercise: are Representatives/Senators supposed to be a pollster to their state in terms of expressing the majority opinion of the state – OR – are they to be the person we would trust to represent the best interests of our state in Congress? Is it better to have a representative reflect the moods of the people they represent, or be the person they have represented themselves to be in Congress? Or should we use the word AND?
UPDATE: just read at Media Matters that Bill O’Reilly and I seem to share a similar view on Lieberman.