Just a cranky, old curmudgeon or real reason to despair?

Candidates these days are making me feel like a kindergarten teacher imparting the harsh realities of a world no longer just about "me" to the uninitiated. Or an irascible Granny B., impatient at a direction-less younger set and certain "the world is going to hell in a hand basket."

Candidates used to arrive relatively prepared for editorial board interviews, even if novices were sometimes a bit naive. And certainly, many still do. But more and more arrive these days ill-prepared and bereft of facts, but nonetheless overflowing with unsupported accusations against others. Worse, they show little shame at their ignorance once it's exposed or that their accusations are little more than uninformed opinions.

I first noticed this trend among Democratic candidates a couple of years ago, but I attributed it mostly to a dead party coming awkwardly to life and trying to grab attention in a Republican stronghold. Now this disease afflicts all parties, all ages and both genders and is becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Maybe it is the Internet, where one can say anything and impugn anyone anonymously, that makes them believe this is acceptable. The mixing of fact and opinion or the espousing of opinion as fact is so pervasive there that I question whether people know the difference any more.

One candidate clearly impugned the integrity of a sitting county board member, suggesting an illicit relationship with a contractor. When asked for proof of that view, the candidate said that wasn't what he meant. But his words were more than clear. He just didn't expect to be challenged, which is what these interviews are mostly about.

A county board candidate absolutely didn't understand the difference between municipal and county government, or the limitations of each, and she didn't particularly care. A slate in a municipal race solemnly refused to participate in anything resembling "a debate" or express any individual views, a rather bizarre way to seek public office.

A sitting public servant failed to bring official financial and budget information despite having made financial savings a campaign centerpiece. His opponent had the facts about his competitor's legal recommendation absolutely wrong in a disparagement of that competitor.

Editorial boards find none of these behaviors evidence that the public should trust these candidates with their money or their futures.

Some candidates will have all the information we request with them. If they don't, we'll ask them to send that information to us. Some will deliver the requested data within a day or two -- John Laesch, Tim Schmitz, Jim Krenz, David Akemann come to mind as among those who did so this election. For others, we wait forever.

Maybe it's the cranky Granny B. in me, but I've little patience for those who seek public office and arrive uninformed about the basics of the job they do or seek.

That's because it's light years easier than it used to be to educate oneself. Budgets, voting histories, legislation, minutes, agendas and articles can be found at the touch of a button. Given that unprecedented access, it's incredible so many know so little about what's going on around them, but it's unforgivable in candidates for public office.

When elderly curmudgeons like me and the newspapers who pay people like me are gone, which will be sooner rather than later, I'm wondering who will ask these questions or challenge these poorly informed wannabes.

Maybe no one will and no one will even notice. Then we'll really get the government we deserve, when what we have already seems bad enough.