I have been involved with endorsing candidates for office, or not, for many years. I think what they do is more important than what they say. Unfortunately, there are those who believe the people don’t know the difference.
We see candidates vilifying each other in seeking their party’s nomination. Sometimes they are speaking truth; often it’s political blather.
What amazes me is the retreat from truth in the ensuing general elections.
The loser for the nomination is then called upon to endorse their opponent for the good of the party. But what’s inexplicable, to me, is that the loser now wants the voter to support a candidate that they deemed unfit for office.
If the person that you now support is that good, why did you oppose him? Was what you were then saying true?
People, particularly minorities, have been told “that voting for the lesser of two evils is better than not voting at all.”
I thought we were past assuming the people are like sheep. Can we focus on issues that continue to affect our safety, health and welfare?
The people are always ahead of the “leaders” on the real issues.
Who speaks against racism, not apologizing for it? Who shows involvement with the underserved in our communities? Who pledges with meaningful proposals to address the continuing disparities in education?
Where is the record that demonstrates anything of substance?
Encouraging people to vote is one thing; giving them specific reasons is another.