TELEVISION PUNDITS & "NEW IDEAS".

The year 2012 will be strenuous for everyone in the country, as the buildup to who will be the nominee of the Republican Party continues, not only in Iowa, but throughout the length and breath of the United States.

It is already a backbreaking undertaking for media pundits, some of whom are now throwing out "new ideas", thinking that people will be foolish to forget that those ideas are not new at all, for they have been seen and practiced before in American political history.

The one idea that stands out is the third party option, and that will make a "Ross Perot comeback" for the Republican Party, as how, people will vividly recall, he has thrown a "wrench in the works" of the 1992 presidential campaign that has caused so much hoopla; but it has finally come to nought in the end.

The pundits are insisting that Gingrich or Romney, none of whom fits the mold of the political expediency that the majority of Republicans want, and so Ron Paul, if he wins the Iowa caucuses, will be a perfect attraction for voters.

That will set him against the two front runners in the Republican nomination race, and party loyalists will have a better perspective of candidates to choose from. So, the fight and negative propaganda between the three will be as fierce as they come among the rank and file of the party. It tells one that the turmoil has already begun in the Republican camp.

However, there is another interesting "idea" being developed by the same pundits that Hillary Clinton is a match for President Barack Obama, and so she has to consider running against him.

Nevertheless, how come that has to be so? There is a kind of peace in the Democratic Party, and why must a second person come out to challenge Obama in his party?

Besides, Clinton is repeatedly saying that she is alright where she is now in her career, and if so, why are the pundits still interested in her to throw her hat in the presidential race? They are even forcing her to jump into the fracas.

The reason is quite obvious, that the tranquil in the Democratic Party is disturbing, and that calls for something to be done about it; and whatever that will cause an upheaval in that party will be fine. It will be a welcome incentive for those, who do not want Obama to win another term, even from within his own party.

Yet, has American politics come to that? That if there is fire consuming your house, you must set fire on your neighbor's house too?

There is arson in the real world, which is a serious felony. A crime that can get a person a whole number of years in prison.

Therefore, if these pundits, who are presumably conservative sympathizers, are capable of committing political arson, is there a possibility that they will get away with it and go free?

Certainly not; for the voting booth must be the "decider".

They, pundits, are being interviewed here, there and almost everywhere, and more so by a section of the media, which has organized a group of professional agitators to reek havoc anywhere they find necessary.

It will therefore be incumbent on voters of all kinds, but particularly Independents, to be wary of the skulduggery that is presently going on to trap and influence them. It is designed to ruin politics, as they have come to know that a third party option or a write-in strategy to divide a party will not do the country any good.

In other words, the voters are going to be asked to accept the unacceptable, whether they like it or not; and so they must do their best to resist such caper, for the sake of peace and harmony, as well as unity, to exist among all citizens.

Democracy provides freedom of choice, that one can vote for whomever one desires; however, going past a person, who is able to put America's number one enemy, Al Qaeda, on the run will be atrocious and unforgiving.

It will also demonstrate how ungrateful some people are, to look away from the diligence and tenacity that a leader has engaged in his leadership to protect and defend the U.S. from its enemies at all times, especially, as there is no sign in him of ever relenting his efforts to accomplish that objective.

Should he not be the person Americans can trust and feel secure with their own protection and that of their families' lives in an ever increasing dangerous world?

The pundits will have their day on their interview rounds on television, and in their articles in the newspapers and posts on the social media, which have now become the newest tools to convince younger voters and telling them how to vote and for whom.

The average voters will always have the final say; and although the task of rifling through the heavy amount of information the mainstream media may dump on them, they will do what they can to make their decision to choose a formidable and trustworthy person for president in November of 2012.

They should not allow any ruse or trickery of the political pundits to gain the upper hand, for their own sakes and that of their fellow citizens.