U.S. Senate foes need to massage their messages

Washington's U.S. Senate race is officially engaged. Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell and Republican challenger Mike McGavick are fine-tuning their messages. Both have a few positions on the issues that cry out for an attitude overhaul.

For Cantwell, what should be a cakewalk in a big year for Democrats is still vexing for her because of her position on the war in Iraq. She voted for the war resolution in 2002 and has not done enough public soul-searching since.

She ought to borrow a line from two Democratic congressmen who hail from moderate or swing districts, Reps. Adam Smith of Tacoma and Norm Dicks of Bremerton. Both voted for the war resolution but since have changed their minds, without much rancor or second-guessing from constituents.

Smith switched because he believed in giving the president trust and authority, which the president frittered away. Dicks changed his stance because Congress was given bad military intelligence.

Cantwell has plenty of room to adjust her position beyond the line, "In Iraq, 2006 must be a year of transition." Whatever that means. 2006 should be the year Cantwell transitions from quiet support of the war to a very apologetic and very human change of heart.

An apology or explanation is particularly important for a candidate known as a bit cold and distant. The public relates to officeholders and candidates who are self-deprecating and human.

Even President George Bush, who has made it official policy never to back down, managed a few regrets for some of his highly offensive cowboy talk. Sitting on dismal approval ratings, he said recently he should not have said, "Bring 'em on," and other Texas-isms that never sounded presidential in the first place.

Cantwell ought to admit her position on Iraq no longer makes sense. It is her job to figure out the proper wording and appropriate amount of groveling to voters. She should not waste much more time facing the fact that it is time to craft an exit strategy from Iraq, and yes, that means bringing troops home soon in strong numbers.

What if — tell me the Democrats haven't thought of this — McGavick beats her to the punch? What if he turns anti-war?

McGavick, the former CEO of Safeco Insurance, is spending a lot of time trying to be the civil guy in this race. Voters will admire him for that, but one position he was road-testing during a recent editorial board appearance at The Seattle Times made no sense at all.

McGavick said Cantwell should not have taken a leadership position for Democrats on the issue of not drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A year or two ago, Democratic leadership handed her this issue and she has done a good job. Republicans are still trying every angle to drill, but so far the Senate has held them at bay.

In leading the fight, Cantwell got into a whopper of a battle with Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican who has been in the Senate too long to remember his manners. He threatened on the floor of the Senate to go to every state where a senator voted against drilling and "tell them what you have done."

McGavick foolishly suggests Cantwell should have turned down this high-profile issue in part because it causes turmoil with a neighboring state.

"She should not have led the fight against a neighbor," he said. "She should not have taken a leadership position."

Smart guy. Absurd position.

Cantwell has credibility on energy issues, having worked tirelessly on Enron's unacceptable conduct against electricity ratepayers, including those in Snohomish County. No way she should have ducked the leadership.

McGavick is trying to neutralize her strong environmental credentials on an issue Washingtonians care a lot about.

McGavick, who also wants to be seen as green — don't they all this year? — says he is more environmentally minded than President Bush. Maybe so, but McGavick has taken the anti-environment position on one of the top green issues of the day: drilling in the Alaskan tundra. He's for it.

Compounding the problem, his logic is off. Our senators do not go to Washington to scratch each other's backs. If a senator from Oregon were leading the way on a proposal affecting the Columbia River that would benefit Oregon but hurt Washington, no one would want our senators to sit back for the sake of being collegial.

McGavick should think before he talks. And Cantwell should re-think her position on one of the most disastrous episodes in American foreign policy.

Joni Balter's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is jbalter@seattletimes.com