The meaning behind the vote: inadequate
October 6, 2010
It’s difficult to look at certain politicians without a political bias, obviously, but there are some that present problems that clash with our values, and we collectively span the gulf across political parties. Such is the case with our editorial staff and one Christine O’Donnell.
When candidates like O’Donnell not only receive national attention but also manage to win a republican primary, it gets a little worrisome. It’s not that this woman is conservative -it’s that this woman is nuts, and people are actually agreeing with her.
Have people become so fed up with our country that politicians like her can gain public support? This is a woman who has lied about her educational background, has been outspoken against such normal human functions as masturbation, and has made such hilarious erroneous gaffs in public as saying that scientists were growing human brains on mice.
Regardless of political party, no one should be OK with that.
The problem isn’t just people like O’Donnell. It’s that people can be so motivated by one single cause (say an anti-establishment candidate’s stance against the current administration) that they will completely ignore everything that would otherwise stop them in their tracks. It would be like choosing everything based on one rather superfluous detail, like buying everything you ever owned based on the sole quality of it being blue.
We cannot condone such political behavior.
People need to recognize the consequences of electing inadequate and unqualified candidates. Voting should not be some random decision. It should be informed, and the decision should be based upon various points, not just a sound bite or two about how we need to win our country back from the government.
We are concerned by O’Donnell’s current political success, not inspired or excited. Most of all, we are concerned with this trend, which foreshadows uniformed voting and ill-suited political officials.