When the Emperor set forth clad in the altogether, he made this statement:  "I am dressed in magical clothes that are critical to national security.  Anyone who claims not to be able to see my garments is a traitor and a terrorist."
    Most of the people, the testimony of their senses notwithstanding, nodded their acquiescence.  There were, however, a few critics, and foremost among these were those who were vying to replace the Emperor in the upcoming Emperorial election. 
    "Well, of course, that's a dandy outfit," said one, "but he needs to straighten up his tie."
    "No, no, no!" insisted another. "The shirt is all wrong!  It doesn't match his pants!  When I'm Emperor, I'll straighten that bit out."
    "You're both wrong," contended a third. "He needs an entirely new outfit."
    "Well, I agree that the outfit is all wrong," said a fourth, "but now that he's wearing it, we're stuck with it for a while.  When I'm Emperor, I will, of course, wear those same clothes until I can have a suitable replacement made."
    "Oh," exclaimed the third quickly, "I didn't mean to imply that he should just throw the outfit away!  He made a bad choice, but we're stuck with his choice in clothes for at least two years."
    "You know," said a fifth, who had been quiet until then, "that guy is buck naked."
    "You're way out of the mainstream," said the other four.

    The next day, the New York Times ran the following editorial:

    "Candidate #1 made a strong case for straightening up the Emperor's tie, but he needs to carry his message of Necktie Rectitude to the swing voters in the hinterland.
    "Candidate #2 failed to arouse any enthusiasm for the Matching Shirt and Pants theme he has been hitting so heavily.  However, it is still early in the race, and this issue is likely to resonate with voters in the heavily populated garment industry provinces.
    "Candidate #3 may have shot himself in the foot with his rash call for replacing the Emperor's clothes, which have been so recently purchased at such great cost.
    "Candidate #4 struck an ambitious yet measured note by promising to stay the sartorial course while working on a make-over.
    "Candidate #5 should shut up and not waste the time of the serious candidates."

Back to reality.  What the Times really said was:

"Representative Dennis Kucinich has every right to keep campaigning despite his minuscule vote tallies, but he should not be allowed to take up time in future candidate debates. Neither should the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is running to continue running, not to win."

If you don't believe it, here's the link: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/28/opinion/28WED1.html

So, while the "major" candidates continue to support palliatives to the insanity of the Bush administration, the voters should not have their time wasted by inconvenient truths spoken by "minor" candidates.  We should not be hearing, for example, that as long as the United States is embroiled in Iraq, the deficit will do nothing but rise, and no meaningful domestic reform will be effected.  Because the war will eat all of our resources.