Thanks but no thanks politics

Why are people speaking up for a candidate when I asked the candidates to speak for themselves? They should know that what they say a candidate will do has no weight and no meaning to informed voters. They should know that attacking me for promoting a public forum is not in the best interest of their candidate—the two candidates that did dare to attack me and had other people attack me in the news didn’t win. I’m performing a public service and I’m sure people can read between the lines to see the bias in their details. It really defies common sense to complain about someone asking the candidates to tell all the people “what they will do and how they will get it done” but there’s always going to be one “complainer.” I also invited the candidates, not their third party cheer leaders, to write in the Opinion section.

I’m not publicly supporting any candidate and it is up to the people to get informed; I’m just helping them. The complainer for one candidate about the articles I have proposed shouldn’t get mad at me because I am making them think and research all the candidates. That is what everyone should be doing. The complainer should already know who the two candidates are who have taken a public political stance for the people in the news—so don’t blame me, get informed. The truth is also better revealed when you discover it for yourself, so do your job as a citizen and find out who is who among the candidates.

I do know that we shouldn’t be voting based on “character reference” letters to the editor. These character reference letters won’t mean anything to the people if they are informed. To the people not running for office who attack me and promote their candidate—thanks but no thanks to your politics; it’s your candidate’s responsibility. You can’t save him from the challenge I have posed and the editors are in full support of the three questions I’m asking the candidates. The cheerleaders really need to get their candidates to turn in their articles if they really want them elected because I fully intend to inform the public about every candidate who fails the simple test of writing a letter to the people telling them what they plan to do and how.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that nine candidates are ridiculous. The election process is supposed to be determined by a majority vote and with nine people running, it is highly possible to win with less than 2,000 votes, making the desires of the majority meaningless. People have common sense and they know all nine people are not legitimate candidates. We just elected a governor that used the same lucky politics and numbers game to get elected and now look what it got us—and the complainer thinks its good we have nine. This is about the politics of the candidates—not Ambrose. This is about the majority electing the best person—not Ambrose. This is about the platforms and ability of candidates to deliver—not Ambrose. This is about the candidates’ track record or lack of record—not Ambrose. This is also not about someone speaking up for a candidate or their limited political gatherings, it’s about the candidates informing the people about their intentions and their politics in the largest public forum we have access to in the CNMI—the newspapers.

Anyone who thinks what I’m doing is ridiculous really doesn’t understand the purpose of the democratic process and how it should be conducted. This is not Fox News where the host and contributors persuade the public—this is all about the candidates and no one else. I proposed this public forum and the editors are supporting me and making sure it is a fair process so the cheerleaders really need to stay out of this forum and stop trying to sabotage the process. Let the candidates speak for themselves as they will have to do in Washington!

I do want to thank the complainer for reminding us of how the old politics of the CNMI used to be and for giving me the opportunity get the record straight. I’m sure it will be obvious that I am just trying to help people determine the best candidate for Congress. I can say with a high level of confidence to the complainer that many people are saying thanks but no thanks to your politics of bias. The traditional persuasive politics with no substance do not apply nor do they have any effect on informed people with common sense—we have all learned to find out for ourselves.

It also looks like the people may be subjected to a host of character reference letters to the editor after this because the cheerleaders are already two for two in the two days since I issued the challenge to all the delegates. The editor might get overrun but I’m hoping the editors will stop printing any of these biased character reference letters especially since the general public is really waiting to hear from the candidates and not their cheerleaders. We obviously have a big problem when a citizen can’t ask people seeking public office to explain themselves to the public without being attacked. Attacking me clearly defies common sense and it more than likely took away some of your candidates votes. I haven’t said one bad thing about any candidate and I have only brought out the public facts about the candidates that should have already been known. I am only trying to inform people and make the process work by yielding a majority decision in November like it should. It is absolutely ridiculous that someone would have the nerve to try and give me a hard time for promoting the biggest and most genuine public forum possible for all the candidates and all the people.
[B] Ambrose M. Bennett[/B] [I]Kagman, Saipan[/I]