You know, if everything political candidates say is true, we are in some serious trouble.

I mean, really, each and every one of them tells horror stories about their opponents.

Has anybody been watching those Jill Long Thompson and Chris Chocola ads?

My word.

I am waiting for the "My opponent kicks dogs, slaps small children and trips little old ladies at the bus stop" ads to come out.

It's gone from bizarre to ridiculous to absurd.

If these people were really as bad as they make each other out to be, there would be no one capable of holding office.

It seems Third District candidates Rigdon and Souder have kept it a little more civil than lots of other House and Senate races. I have actually read about some issues in the faxes they send.

But those guys are the exception.

There was that Senate race in Montana where candidate Mike Taylor - claiming he was overcome by a "sea of sleaze" - decided to throw in the towel against four-term incumbent Max Baucus.

You see, Taylor was in the beauty supply business for many years. Baucus ran an ad featuring footage of Taylor, dressed flamboyantly, circa 1980.

Basically, the ad made Taylor look like a gay hairdresser. The ad became known as the "Boogie Nights" ad.

I am not sure what the relevance to the Montana Senate campaign was, but, hey, it worked.

It got the opponent to give up.

There are other really nasty congressional sludgefests going on all across the land.

And the experts say candidates are spending plenty to get out their vile messages.

Congressional campaign spending is expected to top $1 billion this election cycle.

Four years ago, candidates for Congress raised $781.3 million and spent $740.4 million.

(That was $452.5 million spent by 1,364 house candidates and $287.8 spent by 270 senate candidates.)

That comes out to a paltry $330,500 and change per candidate. Of course, that's just an average. Some of those Senate races cost $20 million or $30 million for each candidate.

You know, I really don't think it's something we need to regulate or censor. It's a free country. If political candidates want to spend fat cash to buy ads telling us that their opponent's brother's niece got busted for pandering, so be it.

I really don't care.

But it is an insult to my intelligence, and overall, I think it hurts the electoral process.

There are plenty of people who argue that negative campaigning works. And they may be right.

Remember the Ragin' Cajun? He's political strategist James Carville, who toiled for Bill Clinton. He came up with the "It's the economy, stupid," slogan that eventually helped propel his candidate to the Oval Office.

Really, who do you suppose the stupid people were?

You know, the stupid Republicans.

So the effectiveness of that particular slogan was based on its ability to deride the opponent.

But that is really mild compared to some of the stuff I see lately.

And just like everything else, it keeps getting more and more pointed and more and more negative as each election cycle passes.

I believe there is a difference between negative and distorted, however.

I think it's OK to point out areas where a candidate says one thing and does another.

I think it's OK to point out your opponent's voting record on any given issue as long as it's kept in context.

But context is where things tend to get out of whack.

Just because a candidate may want to consider partial private investment of Social Security funds doesn't justify saying the candidate "wants to bankrupt Social Security."

But the exaggerations and misrepresentations run rampant. Frankly, those are nice words for lies.

Let's be frank and honest. The candidates lie about each other.

And we have little choice but to endure it each election cycle.

Do the candidates really think voters are that stupid? Do they think we don't know what they are up to?

I purposely made no mention of political affiliation in this column because no one party has the mudslinging market cornered.

They're equal opportunity slanderers.

Again, let me emphasize, I believe it is their absolute right and I don't support any type of government intervention, regulation or censorship.

I just wish candidates could see their way to a little self-restraint in the vilification department. [[In-content Ad]]