Mike McGavick's announcement last week of his drunken driving arrest and other personal and business regrets was certainly unusual. It was interesting, a little risky I suppose, and generally well played by McGavick and his campaign. But was it courageous? An act so noble it stands out over a generation of American public life?

Sen. Elizabeth Dole thinks so. She wrote on her blog:

Yesterday, Mike made a brave, personal decision to discuss some of the past mistakes he has made in his life. And, friends, I have to say Mike's choice to openly talk about his past is one of most noble and courageous acts I have witnessed in my forty-plus years in public service.

If that's the ad absurdum defense of McGavick ... and it's got to be, because no would compare him to one of the world's great thinkers, would they? ... the far other side is staked out by David Goldstein at Horsesass.org. Goldstein is looking for volunteers to replicate the drinking McGavick would have had to do to blow a "0.17 percent blood-alcohol level, and a general idea of the associated level of impairment."

Goldstein wasn't blogging in 2003, so he's off the hook here. But does anyone remember any concerns from the left about Supreme Court Justice Bobbe Bridge's ability to do her job after being even more drunk than McGavick? Gary Locke and Chris Gregoire came to Bridge's defense. Surely blood alcohol levels are not a partisan thing.

Lost in the novelty of McGavick's announcement and the hyperbole of the reaction is a blurring of the line between character attack and legitimate campaign inquiry. In his open letter, McGavick goes for a broad sweep, saying, "The candidates and the incumbents spend their time attacking each other's personal character instead of attacking the issues and problems that face our country and our families. ... In this campaign for example, my opponents have attacked my leadership in turning around Safeco."

But isn't his leadership at Safeco a legitimate campaign issue? Certainly Maria Cantwell's time at Real Networks was worthy of exploration when she ran in 2000. McGavick says one of his more embarrassing failings of his life was the way he handled layoffs at Safeco. That alone makes it important because carrying a burden like that shapes a man.

It's not just a business record that is fair game in a campaign. Character is an issue in American politics. Why wouldn't it be important to find out if someone was, for example, less than truthful? The standard is always changing about where the line is for legitimate inquiry, and for what voters are willing to accept in their politicians.

Maybe the question is not whether character is fair game, but what constitutes an "attack." The quote that got the most press from Friday's news wasn't McGavick's, but Democratic spokesman Kelly Steele who said, "From privatizing Social Security to drunk driving it becomes clearer every day that Mike McGavick and George Bush are cut from the same cloth."

That was a shrill attack that would have been better left unsaid.

Last night I was on 710 KIRO as a guest on the David Goldstein Show. As I said above, he wants to talk more about how much McGavick had to drink. On his show, though, Goldstein took several giant leaps into speculation about McGavick's behavior and character. I objected and he said, "Is that a character attack?" No doubt.

Both sides do it. But we shouldn't let the talk show or blog attacks confuse the issue when it comes to serious and substantive questions about character or candidate's background.

There's been lots said in the past few days about McGavick's open letter. Here's a roundup of some of it.

On Fox News' "The Beltway Boys," Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke not surprisingly gave McGavick high marks.

KONDRACKE: Welcome back to "The Beltway Boys." Let's check out the "Ups and Downs" for the week.

Up: Republican Senate challenger Mike McGavick of Washington state. He's using a gutsy but risky campaign strategy in his race against incumbent Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell. In an open letter, McGavick preemptively confessed to several personal and political shortcomings, including a drunk-driving incident.

He said in the letter that was the — the most embarrassing and worst things that he'd ever done in his life. And that — you know, that they're rather — rather minor. There's the drunken-driving arrest. There's a — a dirty trick that he played when he was helping to run the Slade Gorton campaign. There was a — a business error that — that he made. And — and he wasn't — and he wasn't a good father to his — to his child. I mean, that — that's pretty minor stuff.

I think though that getting out preemptively is a good — is a good step, and it attracts a lot of publicity, and makes him look like a — like a — a clean citizen.

BARNES: Well, I agree with that, and probably all that stuff was going to come out anyway, and it will be hard for Maria Cantwell to attack him as a bad father. His son's going to the University of Virginia, by the way.

Locally, Eric Earling at Sound Politics is mostly pleased with how the media reacted.

Bradley Meacham at The Cascadia Report says the open letter makes McGavick look like "the honest, aw-shucks guy who most voters like to support."
He says the "chattering class" think McGavick made a mistake, but I think he's mostly talking about Danny Westneat.

The Sensible Mom says "I don't think it was a powerful event that shaped his life more than it was a powerful event that could have derailed his political career if not handled properly."

There's praise for Kelly Steele's zinger at Daily Kos, while the journalist and ventriloquist behind The Moderate Voice compares McGavick's confession to George Allen missteps.

And you can always rely on something thoughtful at Ridenbaugh Press, where Randy Stapilus says about McGavick:

There is also a certain amount of gruesome credibility in what he says here. At the end of his statement, he says, "My pledge to you is one of authenticity, civility and transparency."