Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
C'mon, be realistic. This election turned on a several month (years?) old blog posting made by one pastor; which was then used to paint an entire party as anti-gay and bigoted. None of which is true, of course. It didn't help that Danielle took a libertarian response to the issue, but at least she was consistent in her beliefs.
The criticism of Redford was based on her policy and record. Nothing was made up. It's too bad the media didn't decide to search out some of the old PC candidates similar statements, but likely it was the PC's driving the witch hunt.
Take for example, Pylon. He violently reacted to the hunstberger affair, and then flocked to vote for the PC party who have many members with the same beliefs, just not politicized and publicised in the same way. I think much of that happened.
|
People didn't see it as the libertarian response, they saw it as her agreeing with him (and Leech), or at least not disagreeing enough to do something about it.
Agree or not, that's how most people saw it. Had she come out and thrown either (or both) of those candidates under the bus, she would not have disenfranchised the moderate population that the WRP clearly needed to win. Not saying she needed to do that, because there is something to be said about standing up for what you believe in. I think it is extremely naive to think that the uninformed voting population would see it that way though.