ELIMINATE THE NEGATIVE

With just a few days to go in a very long election season, voters are more and more frequently expressing their disgust for the swarm of negative advertising that has buzzed around Maine for months. This is not the only state so infested, but it feels particularly bad here because its intensity is unusual in a state known for its moderate politics.

What has happened, as has been much reviewed, is that the closeness of the House and Senate, and an open House seat and a senator completing her first term have produced an unusual amount of national interest and, therefore, national money. That money comes with strings – the national parties steer the types of advertising to be seen. This disconnection between decision makers and local sensibilities has voters fed up in Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Maine and Montana – all places with hot races – as well as a few other states.

These states have seen negative ads before; what is unusual is that the parties have enough money to inflict them on television viewers with unusual and unappetizing frequency. And, certainly, issue-oriented ads that knock a candidate’s record are fair; negative ads are the ones with the unflattering pictures of the candidates, the cartoonish behavior of actors pretending to be candidates, the voice-of-doom narrator who suggests the candidate is the fourth member of the Axis of Evil.

The ads have had their intended effect in, for instance, the race for the 2nd Congressional District. The opposing parties have portrayed Republican Kevin Raye and Democrat Mike Michaud, two likable, decent people who otherwise would agree regularly on many issues, as the nastiest opponents ever spawned. A new poll shows their unfavorability ratings at 24 and 26 percent respectively, and neither is particularly well known. Imagine beginning a career in national politics with a quarter of the voting population thinking you are awful.

Three suggestions about what might be done:

. Voters should hold the candidate directly responsible for negative advertising, even if the ads were produced by the candidate’s party or other allied organization.

. When one of those dreary ads saying something like, “Call Candidate X and tell him to stop harassing bunnies” appears, don’t call Candidate X – call Candidate X’s opponent and say you think the ad is terrible. Just that. You don’t need to get into a debate with the staffer answering the phone, just say, “I think the bunny ad is terrible and I hold your candidate responsible.”

. Send a protest dollar, noted as such, to the campaign that has been hit with the negative ad. Your dollar won’t buy much defensive advertising, but the put-upon candidate could use it effectively. It is a cheap antidote with plenty of symbolic value.

Maine’s 2002 election may not have been the worst ever for negative ads, but it was bad enough to require a response, even if it is too late this time. Two years from now, when the negative ads start again, voters who are fed up now might remind this newspaper to reprint the three suggestions above along with the phone numbers of the candidates. Catching it early in 2004 could stop or slow a repeat of this year.