It has been some matter of consternation to me that the Presidential campaigns, and those who follow them, have been hung up on the late 1960s and early 70s. After all, the candidates are not named Nixon and McGovern, or even Carter and Reagan. Everybody's human, and everybody grows- or should. We all make questionable choices in our early adulthood, especially if the question of participating in war is involved. What about the record each for the last four years? That is a far greater indicator of what to expect in a candidate for President than what was done as a young adult. Could it be that the campaign teams want us to overlook the Bush and Kerry records? If the recent record of an elected official is irrelevant, should the independent and third-party candidates become more relevant? Badnarik, Nader, and Petrouska may not have a record, but they can certainly tell you what they were up to in '72.

National trends often become local trends so it came as no suprise, and no relief from disappointment, that the Indiana gubernatorial race has been reduced to fingerpointing about marijuana use in the 70s. Story.

The Democrats got word that Republican candidate Mitch Daniels smoked weed back in the dorms of Princeton. The Dems got on their high horse, called a press conference, and declared Daniels unfit for leadership- based on this ancient, irrelevant past.

Problem is, the Dems forgot to ask their own candidate, incumbent Governor Joe Kernan, if his lips ever kissed the bong. Oops. So did US Senator Evan Bayh, whom Blogcritic Al Barger is running against.

So, the media came around to asking the Libertarian candidate, Kenn Gividen, figuring they had a slam dunk. Oops, again. Gividen has not only not smoked pot, he's never smoked tobacco, and has never even tasted alcohol.

Is Gividen now the most worthy to lead Indiana? Based on what the campaigns of the major parties are telling us, yes.

As a partisan Libertarian, I'll agree. I still say it's time to get back to running on ideas, don't you agree?