Imagine my surprise when I went online recently and encountered this headline: "Karl Rove's Sly Deal With Fox". Think of a conservative, right-wing political hack with slight-of-hand magic out to pull a fast one over on American voters. You get the picture.



This incredible insight comes from Amanda Terkel and Matt Corley, who sound more like an ice-skating dance team—and now, Terkel and Corley with all of the suspense of Ravel's "Bolero"—than highly sought after investigative political commentators.

This duo is letting the voting public know that Fox News political analyst Karl Rove, disguised as a Fox News political analyst, is really "playing a strategic role that he and the network refuse to reveal to viewers."

I was stunned to learn this revelation, not that Rove is playing some hidden role, but that Terkel and Corley think the American viewers are so stupid that they could not possibly figure this out without their brilliant insight.

Terkel and Corley take pains to point out that Fox News introduces Karl Rove as a "former senior advisor to President Bush," the architect," a "political wizard" and a "famed political consultant," noting that he has never been introduced as he should be—an informal advisor and maxed-out donor to John McCain's presidential campaign.

Karl Rove is certainly as advertised by Fox News. I suspect that Dick Morris is too, as well as dozens of other spin doctors, talking heads, political consultants, hacks and mouthpieces for either major party and every one in-between.

Do Terkel and Corley really think that Democrats go on television and do not do a candidate's bidding? They give the impression that all Democrats are introduced as a backer of this or that Democratic candidate. This is sheer nonsense.

Viewers who follow politics know that Karl Rove is not on Fox News to read Bible verse to flaming, left-wing liberals. They also know that James Carville and Paul Begala are not on television to read Bible verse to flaming, right-wing conservatives.

Anyone with a modicum of sensibility can identify Sean Hannity as a flaming right-wing conservative and Alan Colmes as a flaming left-wing liberal. Both of these birds are such shills for their party that they really challenge the idea of giving them even a shred of credibility.

Both of them promote polarization in a fit of righteousness for their particular viewpoint, ignoring any understanding or consideration for the other. Their nightly debate is not so much a debate as a shouting match of sarcasm and stupidity. They seem to entertain themselves more than others.

The challenge with the majority of these disclosed and undisclosed political backers on television is that they seem to think that if they granted their opposition even one point in conversation, the would lose all of their credibility. They fail to understand that they have very little credibility to begin with.

Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and all of the associated parties around them are about as important as I think they are—no more and no less. I will decide whom to vote for and why, and feel very comfortable doing it without a song and dance from Terkel and Corley, or anyone else.

It is like watching a televised presidential debate, and then all of the commentators come on immediately and tell me what and how I am supposed to think about a candidate's performance. Their arrogance astounds me.

These commentators treat voters like we are silly, immature 9 to 13-year-old children without a brain in our head or the ability to use it.