We all have to take sides at one time or another.
Sometimes we are assigned sides, like when we were playing sand lot baseball or a pick up game of basketball. That wasn't always a pleasant experience, especially if you were athletically challenged. Being the last one chosen for a side was a little embarrassing as you watched all of your friends being picked before you.
The consolation prize was that you got on the team, even though no one really wanted you.
At other times we get to choose which side we want.
The fact that we actually have some control in that choice is a good feeling. Instead of being passive and waiting for someone to choose us, we get to be active and choose them.
Every election cycle we are asked to choose a side. It could be the Democratic side, the Republican side, the conservative side or any number of other sides including the "no side" option.
In some smaller municipalities, the number of sides almost outnumber the actual voters.
Choosing a side in an election can be a confusing process and frankly some of the more recent campaigns, including local, state and national, boggle the mind.
We are fed one campaign spot after another, over and over and over. Some of the spots are sponsored and paid for by organizations with impressive names like; Americans For Freedom, Mothers for Truth, Fathers for Honesty, and Your Next Door Neighbor for Decency.
Of course some other spots are sponsored directly by the candidate which seems like a more honest approach but then can you really expect honesty from some of the people who create or pay for these ads.
It's almost gotten to be a contest between who is the best liar rather than who is the best candidate.
What a candidate said in the third grade to his teacher, or how many choir practices he missed, or what student protests his wife led in college, or how many times his mother cheated at bingo, all seem to be far more important than the candidate's stand on the issues his abilities or experience.
Now just about every candidate will justify his or her attack ads by saying his or her opponent is using them and this is what gets people's attention.
Sounds a little like the justification that auto makers used when defending the continual production of gas guzzling autos. "This is what the people want."
Is it really?