Ad watch: McGavick v. Cantwell on sales tax/ By Jim Camden, staff writer
The ads: In the first half of a duel of 60-second radio commercials, Republican Senate candidate Mike McGavick criticizes Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell’s vote against a bill that included a continuation for the state sales tax deduction from federal income taxes. He praises the deduction as a help for Washington families, and an announcer says “faced with this choice, Maria Cantwell voted with her party, against our deduction and against our families … Sen. Cantwell said she voted no because she disagreed with parts of the bill, yet when she was offered a compromise, she refused to even talk.” McGavick then says his problem isn’t really with Cantwell but “partisan nonsense” in Washington, D.C. On Thursday, Cantwell responded with a radio ad of her own, which begins and ends by quoting a Seattle Times editorial criticism of McGavick’s ad, and notes she was instrumental in getting the deduction in 2004. It’s the challenger, this ad says, who should stand up to Republican leaders “and tell them to stop playing games with the sales tax and the minimum wage.” | |
| Cantwell campaign response : Chief strategist Michael Meehan says the McGavick ad is misleading because it suggests Cantwell opposes the sales tax deduction and should be removed from the air. Cantwell helped get the deduction passed in 2004, he said, and sponsored a permanent extension of it that passed the Senate earlier this year. | McGavick campaign response: Spokesman Elliot Bundy says the ad doesn’t question Cantwell’s overall support for the sales tax deduction. “The ad is about this bill, where we feel she voted incorrectly,” he said, and could be the last chance this year to extend something that helps many state residents. The ad won’t be pulled, he said, but will be switched out as part of a regular rotation. |
Bottom line: The most questionable thing about the McGavick ad is that it leaves the listener with the impression that this was a bill mainly about the sales tax deduction. In fact, the bill was a combination of tax cuts, joined to a controversial increase in the federal minimum wage. It’s a stretch to say she “refused to talk” because both sides acknowledge some negotiations took place over the bill, and there are conflicting versions of how they ended. It’s also a stretch to suggest that the “partisan nonsense” was one-sided because both parties clearly did the calculations on how this would play with voters. The Cantwell ad benefits from allowing someone else – the Times – to level the harshest criticism and point out her history on the sales tax deduction, although it’s essentially what her campaign has been saying for most of the month. This ad shares a flaw with the McGavick ad, the suggestion that only one side has been using this bill for partisan advantage. | |