In the toughest decision we had to make this election season, we believe students should chose competence over integrity and vote to re-elect Joseph Lieberman as Connecticut’s junior senator.
If this decision was made based on who was been the more honest, straightforward man, we would have endorsed Lieberman’s Democratic challenger, businessman Ned Lamont. Lamont has earned the trust of voters, basing his campaign on withdrawing American troops from Iraq and promoting better health care and education policies.
Lieberman, meanwhile, has been more arrogant and disengenuous than any other politician in the country this election season.
When he was running for the Democratic nomination, Lieberman said time after time that Lamont was a closet Republican, at many times arguing that Lamont was un-electable because Thomas D’Amore Jr., a former state Republican Party chairman, was working as an adviser to Lamont.
The minute Lieberman lost the primary, he changed his tune 180 degrees, saying that Lamont was in fact a left wing extremist who would be soft on terrorism and incapable of reaching across party lines to legislate effectively.
Since losing the party, Lieberman has chastised both parties (but especially his own) for the partisan culture in Washington. He has been accurate in many of these claims, but voters would be foolish to believe that he has not been part of the partisan culture for the past 18 years.
In every way possible then, Lieberman has been a phony and a fraud on the campaign trail.
We think honesty and integrity are qualities public servants need to have, which is why our decision was so hard to make.
However, when considering which candidate to vote for on Nov. 7, the most important question students and other voters should ask is which candidate will be a better senator for the next six years.
Given his impressive legislative record and the enormous amount of respect he commands, we have little doubt that Lieberman is that candidate, and for that reason, he has earned our endorsement.
On the war in Iraq, we agree with Lamont that the war was a colossal mistake, and that troops should come home sooner rather than later. However, he has not offered a specific plan on troop withdrawal, and given the lack of influence he would have in Washington, it seems unfathomable to us that a Senator Lamont would be much better in terms of defense policy than Senator Lieberman.
More importantly, on most domestic issues, Lamont is no better, and in some cases, no different from Lieberman. The only true difference is that ,because of the bipartisan respect Lieberman has in the Senate, Lieberman would be far better at getting things done for his constituents.
Both men are in favor of raising the minimum wage, working towards universal healthcare, and significantly raising the amount of federal financial aid to college students.
The difference between them is that Lieberman’s voice for the next six years would be far louder than Lamont’s.
Leave a Reply