Once again we are well into another election season. And in order to make the most responsible choice we can in electing the candidate who is most capable of serving the public interest best, we need to know each one's strongest points, and the plans they have to improve their respective community.

Most citizens have simple needs. If we can't win the Megamillions lottery, then we need enough money from our government to help us pay the rent or mortgage, cover our cable bill, or buy us beer.

Instead, what we learn from political advertisements is that one candidate is a worthless sleazebag who hates his mother and probably kicks puppies. The highly informative commercial goes on to say there is no reason in the universe for us to even consider voting for this hideous waste of a carbon based life form.

Thankfully, the candidate's opponent is kind enough to let us in on this story and of course, he approves of his own sleazy message. Not that he is any better, as we learn later.

It is never explained in the political attack advertisement exactly how the person sponsoring the commercial is any better of a person. And political mudslinging has only gone downhill from there.

The origin of the attack ad reportedly goes all the way back to the Stone Age. Fred Flintstone was running for Grand Poobah of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes when opposing parties uncovered the fact that Flintstone had been advertising Winston cigarettes on his highly rated prime time television show.

Later Flintstone was admitted to Bedrock Rehabilitation Center for alcoholism after he turned his car over while supposedly just going to a drive through for a rack of brontosaurus ribs. His effort at rebuilding his image later through promotion of regular use of vitamins proved to be no help to his future political ambitions.

Our country's first president, George Washington, was vilified by media advertisements for chopping down his father's cherry tree. Dan Rather and the 60 Minutes crew constantly aired specials decrying the country's lack of an environmental policy.

Commercials were airing constantly during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. We learned that Lincoln once represented a slave owner during the time he was a trial lawyer. Yet years later he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Editorials all over cried that no one wants four more years of Lincoln's flip-flopping.

Today people often look past ethics issues in a number of cases because no matter who they elect, the person will appear too dumb, be a womanizer, seem too untrustworthy, or come across as too liberal or too conservative. They look at the things they can see which really matter to them.

Like Joe Lieberman's voice, which is too whiny for a lot of the public. And Senator Robert Dole should have asked his psychiatrist before he began doing those Viagra commercials. In New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine received his share of bad reviews for actually having the gall to run for that position while being single and sporting a beard.

I've heard that more people vote for American Idol competitors than the Presidential election. People are permitted to vote for winners on "So You Think You Can Dance" and "America's Got Talent", but they are unable to vote on something we really need, like "Who Wants to be a Superhero?"

If they used attack advertising on American Idol, Katherine McPhee would likely have accused Taylor Hicks of being the illegitimate love child of Jay Leno and Elaine from Seinfeld, considering his dancing ability. Actually, that wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

There's a good chance that a bill is languishing in Congress which would outlaw political mudslinging. But Congressmen are public officials we elect because they are on vacation so often that we don't know what kind of job they are doing. We know many of them are guilty of something, but we can't prove what it actually is because they are rarely in their office.

So the bill sits in Congress until they return from vacation. Then we vot

e them back in for another term, then they return to vacation. So the bill continues to sit.

You can't really expect the ugly campaign ads to end just like that. A whole lot of heavy campaign donors provide good money to one guy to prove to them in a thirty second spot that he isn't a horrible person. Sometimes he almost comes close.

Politicians need these hefty donations so they can afford to put up their campaign signs. They have to be placed a maximum of two feet apart according to federal law so drivers won't miss them.

I maintain that one simple solution to cleaning up an election would be to elect the candidate who removes his campaign signs the quickest after the race is over. Any signs left up longer than one week would automatically subject that candidate to a recount or disqualification if they had been victorious.

It really shouldn't be that hard for public office candidates to disclose their own virtues, assuming they have any. Candidates who ride a Swift Boat or Dan Rather like candidacy through extremely low tide need to wind up crashed on the rocks. Even pigs who wallow in the mud are said to be clean and sanitary animals. Just tell the people why you're the right person for the job, and what's in it for us if we elect you.

I'm Bob Holt, and I don't approve of any part of this message.