Here in Colorado, it is hard to ignore the fact that an election is coming.  We are one of the lucky states with a Senate seat that both parties are fighting hard to win.  We have been polled to death, and the local TV ads are relentless.  Sadly, I again am faced with a choice of which is the least bad candidate.  In response to the pollsters’ question, “If the election were tomorrow, who would you vote for?” my response is I don’t know.  I don’t want to vote for either one.  The fight for the Senate seat in Colorado has deteriorated to the single, polarizing issue of abortion.  Are we, the constituents, really the sheep they think we are?  Do we knee-jerk react when one hot button is pushed? I guess so.  Otherwise the campaigns would be a bit more, what?  Meaningful?  Broad?  Informative? Not to diminish the importance of that one issue, but there is a lot of other pretty important stuff that we expect our Congress to legislate.   I’d like to hear about a candidate’s views on some of those things, too.

In our local election for the state Senate seat, one candidate has relentlessly attacked the other as a “Denver liberal.”  <Shudder>  The libertarian candidate has decided to center his campaign on attacking her too.  So, the race is down to two candidates attempting to disassemble the third.  Pathetic.  (I’ve often wondered what kind of person is willing to put their lives and families out there for attack by running for political office.  Completely altruistic or completely egomaniacal?)

Along the lines of my earlier blog, it’s a vicious circle.  A candidate who soundbites the polarizing “evil” of the other seems to gain traction better than the candidate who presents her views in a coherent, well reasoned manner.  So they win.  And then we don’t like the way they behave when they get into office. . .