Suddenly, soon after his loss, Forbes announced he was going to support Dole. Contrary to this, it seemed as if most ads Forbes ran were against Dole.

How could Forbes's convictions change so drastically after losing the candidacy to Dole? Did the loss shock him so badly that, all at once, he came to the conclusion that his facts concerning Dole were wrong, that Dole was right in what he stated, and that Dole had always done his best for the people?

Or, is Mr. Forbes, along with his party, just trying to feed us all a bunch of political garbage?

Could be it's just politics as usual after all for Mr. Forbes. Like the others, say anything to get your party in office, even if your party does not go along with what you believe.

Say anything, even though you know the others in your party are not right in the way they intend to do things.

Say anything, regardless of what you have stated in the past as fact.

Just say anything!!!

And, with his statements of support for Dole, Forbes became just another Washington politician, exactly what he had stated he was not.

One must wonder just what politicians really think of the public they are in office to serve. Do they consider us stupid or what?

How can any person believe that a man could begin supporting an individual he was dead set against during the primaries? Or, are we getting to a problem of greater depth? Perhaps, the possibilities should be explored.

Forbes pointed out Dole's flaws in negative ad after negative ad. His ads indicated to all of us that Dole was one of the worst possible candidates for the presidency.

Wouldn't it follow that he is now supporting one of the worst possible candidates, at least based on his past reasoning and facts, the Republican Party could put forth?

Or, did the other candidates' losing correct all of Dole's flaws? Was all of the information in the anti-Dole ads wrong? Did Forbes and the other candidates' people manufacture the information? It would be nice to have the truth rather than political fancy footwork.

One must wonder if politicians are concerned with what events such as these are apt to cause many of us to think. Is it possible, for example, that it is impossible for the Republican Party to accomplish anything worthwhile as far as the majority of the people are concerned?

The party members who now hold various offices just seem too confused over their beliefs to ever really work together for anything more than getting into or staying in office.

Look at the leaders of the Republican party that ran for the candidacy for the presidential office. Each had distinct reasons for thinking they were the best choice. They seemed, particularly Forbes and Dole, to be bitterly opposed.

If you have experienced anything close to diametrically opposed people in a group, you know it is virtually impossible for the group to get anything accomplished. People who dislike each other or strongly oppose one another's ideas and philosophies do not function well together in any type of proceeding, let alone in Congress and/or the Oval Office. (Hm, wonder if that has anything to do with the terrifically slow pace Congress works at?)

Special addendum: Check out the "Do Nothing Congress, the 105th, headed by Newt Gingrich, to see just how true this premise became.

Millions of dollars were spent during the primaries proving to us that none of the potential candidates were worthy of being president. That is, except to each of the candidates spending the money on himself.

If each proved that the others were not worthy, then where does that leave us? It seems to the writer they proved none are worthy of being president. The proof of this is in their own ads and speeches.

Remember the old saying, "A house divided falls." How about, "United, we stand." During the upcoming campaign, even though the hopefuls for the candicacy knew how ineffective and NOT for the American good the other candidates were, they must stand up and pretend to be united if they wish their party to be in power.

What would that be, a united front of people who know the others have serious failings, a united front of people who know the the others have lied and are lying?

That may sound harsh but, by gosh, if the negative ads ran by the candidates, if the statements made by the candidates, were true, then what we will certainly have is a united front of not-caring-for-the-general-public, say-anything-to-get-in-power, politicians.

If the ads weren't factual, then the same holds true. Think about it.

Is the Republican party now going to spend millions upon millions in an attempt to prove how great the party is and how great a president Dole would make?

You know, they could spend ten times ten that amount and the fact would remain that leading members of the party changed their convictions. They would be standing behind a man they were just as certain a few weeks ago was not the man for the presidency.

Think about this. Many party members MUST change their convictions to stand behind Dole. And, what, in general, does that say about the party?

Doesn't a person with integrity stand behind his convictions, even if those convictions are unpopular or against his peers? To do otherwise is telling a lie not only to the public but, also, to themselves. All the rhetoric in the world will not change that.

It would be very easy to believe that the Republican Party should bow out of the presidential race. However, knowing that the party will not withdraw, it is imperative that voters be concerned with what can be learned indirectly from political actions and statements.

Too often, the people in the parties seem to be too concerned with their own or their party's well-being rather than the people's. Republican party members have shown us quite clearly the party is philosophically divided. That will affect their function in Congress and, therefore, will affect us.

We have learned how easy it is for politicians to change their minds when seeking office. That will affect their functioning in Congress.

We have also indirectly learned how easy it is for them to turn against one another. That will affect their roles in Congress.

We have also learned that we don't know what the truth is unless we listen to every word uttered by and read every word written by politicians.

Listening to every word uttered also means being able to listen to the `behind closed doors' conversations and meetings that take place. Don't you know that capability would really be an eye-opener. But, alas, we don't have it so we can't listen in.

We also know it is impossible for us to read every statement made by every politician. Therefore, we must assume that the worst will happen, that politicians will lie just as the majority have done in the past.

Because we are certain that politicians aren't always truthful and we can't always tell who is lying and who isn't, we must do what we can to assure a smoother running country.

How do we do it? That's a good question. First, if we needed a doctor, most of us would want the very best based on his accomplishments and merits, not a doctor that argued to be the best by knocking down other doctors' abilities.

Thus, as much as we can, we should get the facts. That is what really counts. Even with the media, we need all of any statements made, not statements pulled out of context. In other words, political ties must be forgotten and actual unbiased reporting done. Fat chance, probably, but politics (like, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours) must never be tolerated from any form of media reporting.

Beware of slick talking politicians. The worst is the type that avoids answering a question by going all around it. How many times one can hear that happen in interviews. And, the interviewer lets it go. That's irritating. Of course, Nixon was infamous for circling all around. So, what does that tell you?

Be aware of a politician who has actually changed, or proported to, his convictions at every phase of his political career. If his convictions change simply for political reasons, his own or his party's gain (which is usually the case), then his integrity must be suspect.

Trust in politicians must be established. So, we must not allow any politician to get away with a proven lie. They must be removed from office, especially if the lie had any undesirable consequences for the public. What business person would tolerate lies from employees? And that affects only a specific business, not the entire nation.

Surely, there are straight talking people who want public life. There must be people who will re-define the concept, politician.

There must be people who will work for the good of all Americans, who refuse to be manipulated by others and not misrepresent themselves.

There must be people who will remain true to themselves and the public. What we must hope for is that we recognize them when they do appear.

For now, Ladies and Gentlemen, based on Republicans' own statements during the primaries, the Republican Party members are neither true to themselves or the public. They are, therefore, not fit for duty in any office.

Special addendum: How true this proved to be. And, not only in the Republican Party ranks but also amongst the Democrats.