Washington may be in for more aggressive TV ads in the U.S. Senate race. The gauzy, personality-driven ads that have blanketed the state so far have turned off voters, including Seattle-resident Michael Kinsley, who wrote this in Friday's Washington Post:
If you knew nothing about Mike McGavick except what is in his TV commercials and on his Web site, you would conclude either that he is a moron or that he thinks you are a moron. Democratic incumbent Maria Cantwell's ads aren't so wonderful either. They're mainly about all the federal money and other favors she's brought to the state. But if any of this is part of the "pork barrel . . . wasteful, out-of-control spending" that upsets McGavick, he doesn't say so.
McGavick has avoided talking about issues, because his positions won't please both the Republican base and the majority of the state's voters. Cantwell, whose reelection bid seems hardly even in question, just wants to run out the clock.
Kinsley blames the media for dumbing-down the whole political process by simply explaining how candidates use vague inanities like "change" and "families" in their ads:
The media do a better and better job each election cycle at pointing out and analyzing these campaign constructs. But by doing so, in a way, they legitimize it all. By raising up the subtext, they diminish the importance of the text. Don't be naive: You're not supposed to take this stuff literally. Politicians are trying to push your buttons. They aren't trying to communicate with you.
Should we expect more? Shouldn't specific proposals come from candidates -- especially challengers?