As we move nearer to the next presidential election, a question: Do you believe winning a majority vote means the best candidate has been elected?
We have stated in these pages before that, in politics as in most other things, little is what it seems.
With that in mind lets conduct a small experiment. Two candidates, unnamed, will be presented for your consideration. When you have decided on the better of the two, put down A or B for your selection and send it to us. We dont want your name, just your choice.
Next week in this space we will print the outcome along with some comment.
So here is some pertinent information about each candidate, something like a California Voters Guide, though I doubt any kind of guide would make much sense in Californias case.
First we have Candidate A: A well-known critic of government, this man has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession, armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the overthrow of that government.
He is a known member of a militia group that was involved in a shoot-out with law enforcement authorities. He opposes gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as restrictions on open immigration into this country.
He is a businessman who has earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco, retailing, and smuggling.
Candidate B: A decorated Army war veteran, this man is an avowed non-smoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer.
He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans.
He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products.
Such advertising restrictions include:  not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity;  not allowing such advertising to be directed to women;  not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and,  limitations as to where such advertisements may be made.
This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in to maintain order therein.
So there they are. Mull it over, weigh the pros and cons of each candidates claimed platform and then tell us your decision.
Send your vote to The Rock River Times, election, 128 N. Church St., Rockford, IL 61101, fax it in at 964-9825, or e-mail email@example.com.