This may only be interesting to me

My dad basically watches four things on his satellite TV - The Westerns Channel (which is what's on most of the time), Whose Line Is It Anyway (for a nice laugh before my parents go to bed), Smallville (a recent discovery to Mom and Dad - they watch it on ABC Family and probably don't even know it's on the WB), and hunting shows (shown on maybe three different networks on the weekend). On the Sunday I left to come back to St. Louis, Dad had one of these hunting shows on the TV before switching over to the Chiefs game. I was helping Mom with our brunch dishes (sausage patties, fried potatoes, biscuits and gravy, eggs - scrumptious) when I heard on this one hunting show (don't know which one) about the election that had yet to be held on November 2. Even though the election was already over and the show was a rerun, I was interested to hear what was being said.

I'm paraphrasing here, but this is basically what was said:

When you vote on November 2nd, you are not voting for just President and Vice-President. You are also voting for the thousands of people the President appoints to various positions in Washington. For example, the President appointed John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Gen. Ashcroft has been a true friend to those people who believe in upholding the Second Amendment. The President also appointed Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior. Sec. Norton has opened up thousands of acres of public land to hunters like you and me. We already know where the current administration stands on hunters rights. Would you rather have thousands of policy makers whose position on hunting rights we already know, or would you rather have thousands of policy makers who may or may not stand up for the rights of hunters? The decision is yours on November 2nd.

Needless to say, I was outraged by this "editorial" portion of the hunting program. While it wasn't a direct endorsement of Bush it managed to circle its way around the election laws. There is supposed to be equal time for each candidate on the airways, but by not mentioning Bush or Kerry directly they were able to make their point while not giving a specific candidate air time.

I know the NRA endorsed Bush for President, but I still couldn't figure out why many hunters and people from rural areas that I know were sure Kerry and Gore were going to take away their guns and their hunting rights when that was never an issue. My response to one person was, "Where the hell did you get that idea? Kerry's not going to outlaw hunting!" After catching this segment on TV it was clear to me that there was some serious back-door campaigning going on.

Another realization I had was that my parents had easier access to the Republican side of the debate than the Democratic side. My dad listens to one specific radio station most of the day because it gives the farm reports. However between the prices for corn and soybeans my dad gets to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Rural areas are being bombarded with the views of the right. I guess if you hear something enough you begin to believe it, even if it's a complete lie like Kerry wanting to abolish hunting. And we wonder why Republicans won so much of the rural vote.