I approve this message

“Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote.”
~William E. Simon~

At this point, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will be facing each other in the November presidential election.  That said, can't they wait until they're actually officially nominated before the campaign ads start???  I'm speaking strictly about TV commercials here.  I know - that's not realistic but even so, it's a thought.  We all know it's going to be a choice between the two men mentioned above and, honestly, I DO understand why they get started early but can't they put the TV ads off just a little?  I'm already sick to death of hearing "My name is [fill in the blank] and I approve this message" - and it's only June!

I guess campaigning is a necessary evil but it seems that it could be done with class, decorum and respect rather than the constant barrage of negativity we get on a daily (dare I say 'hourly'?) basis.  That word "constant" begs another question - do we really need to see the same campaign commercials over and over and over and over in the same day just to wake up the next day and start them over again?  Do they really think those ads are going to sway voters?  Yeah, they probably do and actually, some voters ARE probably swayed by them.

Maybe if the candidates stuck mainly to issues and what they would do for our country, I wouldn't mind so much.  Instead, they will begin telling us not why we should vote for them but why we shouldn't vote for the other candidate.  Seriously?  They're offering themselves up as the lesser of two evils?  And we wonder why that's what elections become about - choosing the lesser of two evils.  The candidates themselves have dictated it!

One of the things that gets my goat the most is why Candidate A insists on calling Candidate B a liar because he now supports an issue that he voted against in Congress ten years ago.  Really?  It's not possible that circumstances may have changed since then or he just changed his opinion on an issue?

I know that many - probably most - Americans don't know what their elected officials do or how they vote on issues when they're in office but I resent that an opponent of any given candidate thinks it's his responsibility to inform me of downfalls of the other candidate.  Not only that, but they expect me to believe them without question.  Seriously?  You know what I think is kind of ironic in this whole negative campaigning thing?  I always think less of the candidate slinging mud than I do of the one being muddied - does that make sense?

No matter what the campaigns would have me believe or how negative they might get, I will go to the polls in November and cast my one lowly vote with a clean conscience.  Wouldn't it be nice if the candidates ran for the office the same way?