Normally we're pretty happy when we find people who agree with us.  There is a certain comfort that comes from this.  But the more I delve into the world of punditry and opinionation, the more I sometimes find myself saying to people (at least in my head as I read things they've written).... "Stop trying to help already! You're really hurting the cause!"  Generally this happens when people make really crappy arguments in support of something you believe, or say it in such a way that even you say, "Now I don't even know if I believe in this any more."

I'm sure most people who are against the Iraq War felt this way about Cindy Sheehan.  I know that most people who have reservations about the war, or want us to pull out are not as extreme as she is.  In fact, those reservations have solid merit, and deserve attention.  Yet there is Cindy Sheehan, sucking up a lot of attention, and more importantly, providing a nice target for people like Michelle Malkin to concentrate on in order to make it seem like all anti-war people, and Democrats somehow, are like Cindy.  I'm sure Michelle privately wept when Cindy announced she was leaving the Democratic Party.  When Cindy was making her noise, any point an anti-war person said, no matter how valid, was drowned out by her.

I get a similar feeling when a lot of people talk about Voter ID in Wisconsin.  Being an old debater, I am keenly aware of how arguments can easily be spun by the other side, even when some people don't seem to realize it.  For instance, when the voter fraud allegations cropped up around Michael McGee, I just knew someone on the right would somehow use this as an argument for Voter ID, even though it wouldn't have done a damn thing to prevent it.  Sure enough, Fred (with a little prodding from some commenters), and others, bit down hard.  Arggggghhhh.  Great... now the debate will center around one losing point, that has nothing to do with the arguments for Voter ID.  What were you thinking?

Apparently a similar conversation took place on Charlie Sykes' show yesterday regarding the need to show ID to buy Claritin.  I complained about this a few weeks ago, and someone mentioned that it was a topic on the radio yesterday.  Apparently, the inevitable comparison with Voter ID was brought up.  I mentioned to this person how it was a stupid comparison to make, to which the response was... "But it shows the hypocracy in the whole thing."  Of course it does... but the hypocracy is in your argument now!  The suggestion is that we shouldn't have to show ID to buy over the counter drugs... and then you use that to argue that we should show ID to vote.  If you think we should show ID to vote, then why wouldn't you think it appropriate to show ID to buy over the counter drugs?  And if you think we should have to show ID to buy over the counter drugs, why wouldn't you want us to show ID to vote?  But the funny thing is, people who believe we should show ID for one, don't think we should for the other.  The two have nothing to do with one another... and yet you're drawing comparisons which can only hurt your argument.

The point is, all arguments for your viewpoint sound good when you're making them.  But often, those arguments will only prove to be fodder for the other side.  Sometimes you can help more by not helping.