It's negative TV ad time in the statewide races here in Oregon, but this time with a bizarre twist: Now the plan is to appeal to the target candidate's core constituency and try to shake them loose from voting for their obvious choice. In the latest round of small-screen drivel, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Kulongoski faults his opponent, the GOP's Kevin Mannix, for voting to raise taxes, and incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith attacks Democrat challenger Bill Bradbury for slashing taxes for timber operators while clearcutting his own timberland.

What is the point of this? I guess the hope is to neutralize the target candidate on his easiest issues, so that the sponsoring candidate's sterling record on other issues will win the day.

But gee, whiz! Do they really think hard core anti-tax folks are going to vote for Ted "What's Another Point on a 9% State Income Tax" K.? Do they really think enviro types are going to backlash against Bill's alleged timber shenanigans and vote for Gordon?

Do they really think we are this dumb? What do they pay the people who come up with these campaigns? Whatever it is, it's a waste of money.

I don't want to vote for "None of the above" for judgeships (an actual proposition on the current ballot in Oregon). But there are times when I wish we had this option for the other two branches.