PUNDITS & SOMETHING "NEW"?
Voters must beware.
Presently, the political pundits are on the go, in all kinds of ways, to get the voting public to accept what they themselves assume to be "new ideas"; but are they?.
They are out in full force to introduce "a third party option" into the 2012 presidential election, naming Ron Paul to be having the criteria that loyal Republican Party members want.
That will only start the ruckus that the 1992 campaign for the presidency of United States has ended up in. A revival of "Ross Perot comeback", making all the hoopla to draw attention to an outsider. However, that noise will eventually peter out, because he will be nowhere near winning many Republicans or independents to his cause for him to make a difference.
They, pundits, are saying that neither Gingrich nor Romney is the ideal candidate for the Republican Party; and setting Paul against them, especially if he wins the Iowa caucuses in January next year, will be a welcoming suggestion.
That will tell the average person that the turmoil in the party will continue and even get worse as time goes on. The campaign is still young, and there is much more activity to come in the way of gruesome campaign advertisements.
However, there seems to be another "new" idea being developed by the same pundits that the peace of mind in the Democratic Party is quite unusual, and that bringing of all people Hillary Clinton to challenge President Barack Obama, who is likely to be unopposed in his party's selection for the post that he is already holding.
Besides, he and Clinton are doing a good job together, as the defense of the United States is stronger than ever and the foreign policy of the Obama administration, which she is spearheading is winning friends for the country; with the latest being Burma.
To rail her against Obama will just be asking for trouble; but that is what the pundits are anticipating. Clinton herself has shoved aside questions of he doing so. She is happy where her career is currently at, Secretary of State of the U.S. Government.
However, has American politics deteriorated to that? That if a person's house is on fire, he or she must set his neighbor's house on fire too. Arson in the real world is a felony, and people go to prison for that.
On the other hand, political arson is a little bit different, because it is not as detectable as the real thing, but its effect is almost the same. Therefore, if these pundits are able to achieve their nefarious objectives, must they be allowed to go free?
The answer is not as visible as it must be, but the fact remains that voters, who the pundits are making every effort to attract, have to be wary of what they see and hear.
They must see the type of skulduggery that the professional television pundits are promoting, which is only designed to divide people and confuse them.
To put them to shame, voters in the Republican Party must not give in to what they will regret, in not being permitted to choose a candidate the way they want.
As for the Democratic Party members, one can assume that their house is in order, and any tomfoolery by the pundits is their own. Obama must remain their only choice for his second term bid; and that the Congressional membership will give him the support he needs to lead the country to the best of his ability.
Peace is what the people want; peace is what they must have. Voters beware!