This day, the first day of November, we stand in a kind of no man’s land, between the mock horror of Halloween and the anticipations of hope and dread for Election Day: Hope for one party, dread for the other. Yet, a little voice keeps telling me those two are both the same, the ruling establishment. Whether their names are followed by Rs or Ds, they want to remain in power. We the people are a threat to their authority. So they distract us, confuse us, deceive us.
This morning on Fox News I saw a poll that illustrates this point. Taken 10/30 by Pulse Opinion Research, it compared the opinions of likely voters for Harry Reid (D) and Sharon Angle (R), in Nevada’s race for Senator. According to the reporter, this poll showed that Angle was pulling ahead of Reid. Yet, the most significant aspect of the poll was ignored. Reid had a 36% Favorable rating and Angle a 43% Favorable rating. But also, Reid got a 60% Unfavorable rating, while Angle’s Unfavorable rating was 52%. To me, these figures lead us to the unavoidable conclusion that the overwhelming majority of likely voters do not like either candidate. But did they point this out? No.
If you were to look at the list of candidates for Senator on Nevada’s ballot, how many names would you see? Two? Reid and Angle? A little searching took me to Scott Ashjian’s site where you can see the list of candidates (also available on Nevada’s Secretary of State site). Scott Ashjian is the Tea Party candidate. He is one of eight qualified candidates running for Reid’s seat. Eight. Not two. So if 60% of likely voters don’t like Reid, and 52% of voters don’t like Angle, which of the other candidates do they approve of? Fox didn’t report on that because those other six candidates aren’t part of the ruling elite. They actually represent real voters with real concerns.
In an economy that is struggling to stay afloat, this year’s election has produced record fund-raising and record spending. Democrats complain that Republicans have out-spent them because (as “everyone knows”) the Republicans represent the rich. Yet, it’s the Democrats who have actually raised more money. They just haven’t spent it all. (What are they waiting for, 2012?) In the meantime, so-called “third parties” struggle to get their messages out. By and large, they are treated by the media as if they do not exist. All those “journalists” are paid, not to inform you, but to entertain you and keep you addicted to the status quo (which, according to Ronald Reagan, “is Latin for the mess we’re in.”).
Michael Savage is the Poster Child for independent voters ignored by the media. His latest book, Trickle Up Poverty, has been on best seller lists for weeks without so much as a peep from the media. They don’t want you to read it. The more informed you are, the less likely they can influence you. But you don’t have to agree with Savage any more than you have to agree with the various “radical” positions held by third parties. What you must do, in a democracy, is to respect diversity of thought and respect open debate. Let ideas succeed or fail on their merit, not on the fixed field of political correctness.
I pray that one day we may all cross this no man’s land, and meet those from the other side. It might surprise us to find that we all wanted the same thing: the freedom to live our lives as we choose, not as dictated to by those in power.