Note to wife:
We are in the midst of the most brutal midterm election season in a long time. Attack ads are not new, but the severity, distortion and prevalence of this year’s campaign messaging has set new lows for civility and accuracy.
One of the most aggressive negative campaigns (funded by lots of national Republican Party money) is against Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema. Yes, she was flamboyant and strident early in her political career, but she has since mellowed and has been very much a centrist during her three terms in Congress — much to the chagrin of some of her Democratic colleagues.
Instead of evaluating her well established middle-of-the-road voting record when considering her Senate candidacy, the airwaves are saturated with claims she is “too radical” for Arizona. Nonsense. Youthful exuberance and indiscretion should not negate a lengthy respectable career of public service. Yet the current tone of attack ads do not allow for politicians to evolve (or even repent) as they mature.
Ditto with Judge (now Justice) Brett Kavanaugh. As egregious as some of his alleged high school actions were, they should not have been the primary issue during his confirmation hearings. The focus should have been on his qualifications and judicial temperament. Until a few decades ago, that was the long-established framework for evaluating Supreme Court candidates — and they usually were confirmed by near unanimous majorities.
Kavanaugh has a long history as a partisan hack. His diatribe against Democrats during the confirmation hearings was a revealing glimpse into his mindset. The question should have been whether he can be fair-minded on the court.