As if to prove my point, the Republ-icrats poured cash into the few contested Congressional races to gain power for themselves. Thanks to the miracle of gerrymandering, most 2002 contests were virtually non-partisan, where anyone gets the vote if she runs as a Democrat or Republican, depending on the district. And I mean anyone. Even dead or old, forgotten white guys. Look at how long Strom Thurmond was reelected after he died.

Since Republican and Democrat are meaningless labels, even contested races skirt actual issues. Let's face it. Neither major party is trying to deal with our problems, since they are one of them. They focus on name recognition. As a candidate, I got daily e-mails urging me to buy services to put my name before voters. Nothing else. Just my name.

You can't expect voters to bother learning about what their representatives do. It's enough that a name sounds familiar. Maybe I could have won had I changed my name or campaigned. Of course, it didn't help that I was fourth on the ballot. I'm sure many voters saw four candidates and figured "vote for three" meant check the first three.

The name game explains the bright posters with only the candidate's name and target office. "Vote for me because I, or someone on my staff, chose these spiffy colors." Even the "issue" signs give gross simplifications such as, "Prop X – No: Too Costly." I can get behind that. Substitute Goverment for Prop X and I'm there, dude!

Some placards reflect what politicians value: endorsements. If you've ever been involved in the endorsement process, you know it is a sham. Another politician's endorsement signifies some quid pro quo or a relative. When I see "Feinstein says Ward for Assessor," my first impulse is to distrust Ward. Voting for someone supported by Feinstein is not impossible. Her being the queen of self-serving politicians merely increases my skepticism.

Then there is character assassination (as if any politician has character or stands for anything other than career self-advancement). Dead politicians have character. Still, someone printed placards exactly like the Feinstein/Wards, except with, "Ward – FBI investigates." Doris Ward was not indicted. And who in San Franciso government hasn't been the target of some investigation?

Then there's the argument over whether we want a Democrat- or Republican-controlled Congress, when we don't give a rat's ass. Yes, some voters believe that label is important. Some believe Tommy Hilfiger's name enhances an article of clothing. A Denver station ran an advertisement that made "Smallville" seem like reality television. The announcer claimed that the Republican party is controlled by the right wing (and by right, he meant Conservative, not Correct). He ominously intoned that if they control Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court (they don't), they will force their agenda on us. I wasn't aware they had an agenda but, apparently, it comprises your worst, most irrational fears. They will destroy Social Security, make dancing a felony and give free designer clothes to the rich.

Face facts. Neither major party cares about American citizens drowning in taxes. Neither party will reduce waste, cut bureaucracy, lower taxes, fix Social Security or do anything worthwhile. Both want to grab more power and privileges for themselves. That's why they spend millions of dollars on issueless campaigns. The issue is which party gets more perks.

In this election, some House races exceeded $4 million in spending. With about 645,000 persons in a district, that's $6.20 per person. Not per voter, per resident. One Connecticut Rep raised $3 million. That's a lot of money to convey her "message" to voters. And these figures are local. Nationally the parties raised about $244 million for the House election, more than $100 million over 1988, the previous midterm election. The most money was spent in West Virginia's District 2, $8,770,000, more than West Virginia's annual budget. By the way, who contributes the money to these campaigns? Well, it's ordinary Americans like you who want to make a difference and improve our lives.

No less a statesman than my Dad has said that it doesn't matter. Whoever wins, nothing changes. The Wall Street Journal ran a table explaining the effect of different party control on what they call "hot-button" issues. Let's look at these.  

• Tax Cuts: Dream on! Your taxes will increase, but by different amounts and in differing ways.
• Social Security: Republicans may let you invest part of your own money, but you can bet it will involve raising the payroll tax. Democrats will continue doing nothing. Neither will address why the Federal government is spending your retirement money or why they have their own retirement system, independent of Social Security.
• Drugs: If you're not retired or about to, expect no help. Both parties will offer some kind of coverage for the aged destined to drive up prescription drug costs for everyone. Well, you can always fill your prescriptions abroad. On non-prescription drugs, neither will have the balls to end the "Drug War." While you're out of the country, stock up on illegal drugs.
• Energy: The Republicans want to increase non-Arab fuel sources. The Democrats want to do whatever it was they did when Clinton was President. I'm not sure what that was. In other words, expect higher fuel costs and no helpful alternatives.
• Foreign Policy: One way or another, this issue will be used to distract Americans from the dismal job being done domestically and from the lack of real democracy in the U.S.A.

In theory, Democrats want to control your money, Republicans want to regulate your behavior. In practice, both parties spend increasing amounts of our money to force you to act as they feel is appropriate. For you. They can do whatever they want. Far from advancing freedom here or abroad, both will produce platitudes and no results. No, that's not fair. There will be results. They will be bad and often unintended.

Think Education is a mess? Wait until the government does more to improve it.

Flying risky? More Federal involvement should make flying nearly as safe as rail travel.

Despite all the spending, the election results suggest that voters are not mindless dolts, as the the media and politicians believe. They ignored the polls, the pols and their publicists. In California's pathetic gubernatorial election, independents garnered over 10% of the vote and Gray Davis did not win in a landslide, despite the experts' claim that the Republican candidate (his name slips me) ran a poor campaign. Over the nation, Republicans won. I would be happier if more Libertarians won, but I console myself that I am not the only one who thinks Tom Daschle is one of the sleaziest pricks in Washington, perhaps the world.

As the politicians wasted the campaign money they worked hard to raise, so they will waste tax money they did nothing to raise. You vote to get what you deserve. And you deserve better than a Republican-Democrat monopoly.

Tuesday night's "Late Show" was a repeat because what passes for election coverage runs over, like awards programs. Sure enough, crucial weather and sports coverage extended the news until almost midnight. Instead of resuming from that point, KPRIX replayed Dave from the beginning, so, once again, I missed half of a new "Late Late Show," fortunately not the half with Sela Ward. Here is where the government could help because there is little the public can do. If the FCC cannot force stations to begin programs on time, allow us to receive other local stations that might be more responsible, instead of forcing us to watch one affilate, despite dish and cable technology. We deserve better.

I spent no money on my campaign, just the time and gas to make a few appearances and adjust my web site. I kept my promise. What other candidate can say that? Honestly. I know they can lie.

I got over 2500 votes without campaigning, and virtually no media coverage. Pretty impressive! I suppose if I keep running for office, my name will become familiar enough to win.