Life of the Party

The latest in the continuing mystery of negative advertisements from the Maine political parties this season comes from Republicans, who had Democratic congressional candidate Mike Michaud clearly in their sights and so fired at their own foot. Not a major wound, certainly, but an observer might wonder why it was necessary at all.

The GOP ad asserts that Senate President Pro Tem Michaud is anti-senior because of three votes: one on taxing Social Security in 1999, and 1991 votes to increase drug co-payments and abolish the state panel on aging. The Social Security vote is one Sen. Michaud no doubt wishes he could change; the proposed tax on some Social Security receivers produced more than 1,200 irate retirees scorching Gov. King’s phone lines in one day that June, demanding he veto the bill, which he did.

Rather than this vote being the sole evidence for the GOP ad, however, Republican officials tossed in the two from ’91, forcing their local staffers to explain why the party was beating up Sen. Michaud for bills that turn out to be initiated or supported by GOP Gov. John McKernan during the budget crisis of a decade ago. Did this mean Gov. McKernan was also anti-senior? Did it mean the party was rejecting the policies of the McKernan administration? Mysteries both.

The abundant negative advertising from Democrats and Republicans has been more intense this year than in any other. The reason so much is being spent on behalf of Maine campaigns concerns three races. Last Spring, the Senate race between incumbent Susan Collins and Chellie Pingree was considered close, and the contest for the open seat in the 2nd congressional district between Mike Michaud and Kevin Raye, will likely remain close through the election. With both House and Senate near parity, every contested seat counts enormously. The third race, the open position of governor, may be of lesser interest to the national parties but is vitally important to the state parties.

Anyone who turns on a television has seen the ads – Rep. John Baldacci, a moderate Democrat with a cheap streak, suddenly is the biggest spender around; Sen. Susan Collins, who has devoted much of her first term helping to expand access to health care and been praised by senior groups for her achievements, now is supposed to be weak on this issue, etc. While describing poor decisions by an opponent certainly is fair, distorting those decisions through thousands of airings of ads with nasty-voiced narrators is not, but that is what is happening.

None of this is new to politics, of course, and Maine has its own history of attack advertising that predates television. What is new is the amount of money devoted to the ads and the dragging down of this state to a national norm that it had until recently avoided. The danger is not just to political reputations of candidates in the current races, but that the ads will become an acceptable way to campaign here, thereby driving more good people out of politics.

Parties spend a lot of a campaign season worrying whether their negative messages are getting out to voters. In Maine, they can be assured that they have, but voters who are tired of the relentless attacks should ensure in November the messages did not get out the way they were intended.