Elections have consequences

In 2006, Democrats had the opportunity to support a Democrat who was running for the Senate in Connecticut. His name was Ned Lamont and he had won the right to make that race by beating Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary. The leadership and most of the well-known names in the Democratic Party failed to support Lamont. They either supported Lieberman, who ran as an Independent, or they sat on their hands and refused to support either candidate.

Ned Lamont was not exactly a dynamic candidate but he was a true Democrat and he had won his primary race fairly and squarely. He deserved to be supported by his party. Had he won the general election and had the opportunity to serve as Connecticut's senator, there is no question as to how he would stand on the current efforts to pass Health Care Reform. He would be foursquare in favor of such reform, rather than playing the obstructionist role that is embraced with such enthusiasm by the man who won the general election with the default assistance of the Democratic Party apparatus.

One of the Democrats who refused to support his party's candidate in 2006 in Connecticut was Barack Obama.

Elections have consequences.

(Read what Paul Krugman had to say about Lieberman in 2006. He was right then and nothing about Lieberman has changed.)


Popular posts from this blog

Poetry Sunday: Don't Hesitate by Mary Oliver

Overboard by Sara Paretsky: A review

Open Season (Joe Pickett #1) by C.J. Box - A review