We are being deluged with political ads for many sources.  I am not aligned with any party, and so I hope you will see this as a balanced blog.

I fear that far too many people figure out who is running in their particular party, and then simply believe every ad about that person that they see.  As citizens of the United States, we have an obligation to see to it that the best qualified person gets into office.  In my home state of North Carolina, they put judges on the ballot.  In 2024, if I remember correctly, there we 5 or 6 seats up for election.  I took time to look at each person’s biography and voted for who I saw as being the best qualified. Some were Republicans and some were Democrats.  As it turned out, it was a straight Republican victory.  At one of those elected, I felt was not at all qualified.  But this is how I feel it would be best to approach any candidate’s suitability for office.

Recently, in Massachusetts, the state in which I grew up and lived there until 2021, 48-year-old Rep. Seth Moulton was running against 80-year-old Sen. Ed Markey.  I felt it was time for a changed and hoped that the people of Massachusetts would also see that.  Moulton lost.  Why did he lose?  The Democrat Party in Massachusetts is well-funded.  It sent its money to Markey over Moulton.  Why?  I don’t know.  One more thing about Seth Moulton.  He is a bronze star recipient who served four tours in Iraq.  Markey, on the other hand, has been in politicals his entire adult life after having received his JD from Cornell.  Even though he was in the army, he never saw active duty.  This is not a slight against him, but rather an indication of his life experience.  It is on this point as well that I thought Moulton the better candidate.

When a political ad comes on the television, I do not watch very much, I simply tune it out after having heard the claims made several times.  It really bothers me when a candidate proclaims how a representative voted against giving people something all voters need as if that were the bill in its entirety.  Of course it is not.  The bill in question was a rider on a much larger bill that the candidate could not vote for.

Each of us needs to look closely at each candidates recent history to decide if that person is qualified.  To find out if the opposing candidate is telling the whole truth and not just a part of it.  That is lying by omission.  I would hope that every American would think beyond themselves a little bit to see how any candidate will positively affect their district or state.  In other words, people going for a national office should not be tying themselves to what other states wants, or what a particular person, not of their state, desires.