It's the week of the Democratic Convention. The
Democrats are trying to introduce their candidate to the
nation while remembering to bash the incumbent.
Republicans are attacking that same democratic candidate
in every way they know how other than physically beating
him up, also remembering to sing the praises of their
highly controversial President. Some of the news media
is caught up watching and speculating while other
channels are stepping up their efforts to influence the
upcoming election in their favor. The pundits are out on
both sides, as are the bloggers, a phenomenon new to
And meanwhile, the American public is paying more
attention to Seventh Heaven or Summerland on the WB.
Maybe they're the smart ones in all of this. Democracy
is obviously very important, but perhaps it is wise to
stay out of the middle of the political brawl that
started a few days ago and will continue for the next
I have seen what politicking at this level can do to
people, and it appears that the first thing to go is
Look at Ralph Nader. Back in the 2000 election he ran
against Bush and Al Gore. Between the two, his opinions
and initiatives were clearly more compatible with Gore.
Intentionally or not, Nader divided the Democrats who,
like the Republicans, were mulling over two almost
identical, moderate candidates. In many of the states
where Bush won by a slim margin, had Nader been taken
out of the equation, Gore would have won. This was even
the case in Florida, although there were other forces at
work in that state.
And a little over three years later, Nader has
returned. Why? On the Daily Show, he told Jon Stewart
that, "Anybody's better than Bush." But he's in the race
anyway, and he even seems to have the delusion that he
could be the underdog winner of the election.
Now he is trying to make a political point, and it
happens to be one a lot of people, including myself,
agree with. But making the point could cost him another
four years under Bush. His effect on the last election
is obvious, but here is politics getting in the way of
Next up is Bob Novak of CNN's Crossfire. On the
episode in question, the topic was also about Ralph
Nader. It turns out that the Republicans have cleverly
decided to support both Bush and Nader in their
elections. Several prominent Bush campaign contributors
also made donations to Nader so that he could make it
onto the ballot. The Republicans know that Nader takes
more votes from the Dems. It's a smart move, even if a
Where the Republicans have not been so smooth is
denying the strategy. I bring up Bob Novak only because
I remember his argument so clearly, but many of the
conservative pundits were doing the same thing. They
argue that Nader has a right to be in this election and
that it is wrong for the Democrats to try to shut him
out. Bob Novak wanted to know why the Democrats were so
angry towards a guy just exercising his rights.
There goes the common sense. It is undeniable that
most observant people, especially those on the news,
know that Nader takes votes away from Democrats and not
Republicans. It is undeniable that some Republicans have
financially supported both Bush's campaign and Nader's.
But because of their political agendas, Bob Novak and
many others have lost their common sense.
Then there are the extremists like Michael Moore, Al
Franken, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter.
It's hard to know where to start on these people. Unlike
most politicians, we can't be sure that the extremists
have good intentions. Many seem to be watching out only
for themselves, although that's the opposite of what
they would say publicly.
Last night I saw Michael Moore in an interview refuse
to acknowledge that Bush didn't lie about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. Recent information has
concluded that Bush had plenty of reason to say what he
did about Iraq's weapons. Moore said that Bush presented
information that wasn't true and, therefore, lied. But
the definition of lying is to present false information
with the intention to mislead. Moore should have said
that Bush made a mistake and has refused to apologize
about it, but it appears that politics got in the way.
Sean Hannity makes a regular practice of acting like
he supports someone he actually opposes as long as it
suits his political agenda. Back in the primaries he
proclaimed his love for Joe Lieberman and constantly
pumped up his popularity to far more than it ever was.
Hannity just wanted to take the attention away from the
candidates who really had a chance. This was not good
news, nor was it even good television. It was politics
clouding common sense.
Ann Coulter says all liberals are treasonous, and I'm
not going any further than that.
From Republicans to Democrats, liberals to
conservatives, and moderates to extremists, everyone has
an opinion when it comes to politics. That much is fine.
People get in trouble when they lose sight of what this
country is all about: making decisions in the best
interests of the American citizens. This becomes more
difficult as politicians, news people, pundits, and
other commentators get wrapped up arguing with each
other and forget common sense, which was so important to
the development of this country.
It's enough to make you want to change the channel,
although personally, I'm still more disturbed by the WB
other political related articles written by Scott