Writing for Ehrhardt/Associated Press, on June 11, 2014, Molly Ball, a staff writer covering national politics at The Atlantic, wrote a blog entitled Why Eric Cantor Lost and Lindsey Graham Won.

Ball explained why House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost to “a little-known tea party challenger,” David Brat. In explaining why Cantor lost, Ball compared and contrasted the issues Graham ran on, to how Cantor handled his campaign.

Ball stated: “Graham ran on immigration, while Cantor ran away from it. Graham talked about his support for a path to citizenship at nearly every campaign stop, touting his work with Democrats on the issue as evidence of his willingness to solve tough problems in Washington. By his calculus, voters would accept a difference of opinion, but they wouldn’t accept insincerity. Cantor, on the other hand, tried to be all things to all people. He voted against the DREAM Act, but to the business lobby, whose campaign donations he reaped, he signaled support for a scaled-back version of it; earlier this week. Graham told me he believes Cantor, to whom he is close, ‘gets it’ when it comes to the need for reform. But in Cantor’s scorched-earth campaign against Brat, he distributed mailers that boasted about having blocked immigration reform in the House – an analysis frustrated immigration-reform advocates would agree with. It wouldn’t be surprising if voters were reacting more to Cantor’s inconsistency than to his perceived position.”

Ball discussed “mistakes” that Cantor made, that go “beyond his immigration incoherence.” However, since what I read appeared to be further examples of Cantor’s lack of integrity, in the interest of time and repetition, I have chosen to not pursue discussing any additional political foibles that perhaps caused Cantor to lose his primary election bid to be reelected as his district’s House of Representative’s choice to represent them in the United States Congress.

What has impressed me with what Ball wrote reflects  her keen understanding of what one of the main things that need fixing both in our Congress and with our president, and that is there’s a need for all our politicians to listen to what the people want and respond accordingly, remembering they represent the people, not their political party, their selfish interests or the lobbyists. Their first and only obligation is to serve the people; if they do that, they will be serving our country in the best way possible.

The only way that can be done is by following their integrity, for if they do that, they’ll be responding to the very best of what they have to offer our country; for every decision will have been made with the best interest of “We the People” in mind. If our political representatives in Washington are serious in responding to the people’s dictates, their needs, wants, and desires, then they must allow their compassionate personal integrities, not their political orientation, determine their actions; compromises will then result and laws will be made that benefit all Americans, and, as a result, our nation will be all the better for it.

“If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.” That quote is as true today as when it is reported to have been uttered by former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson in October 2000.