The caustic tone of Washington’s U.S. Senate campaign, with its alternating charges of duplicity and incompetence, could leave voters with the impression that they must choose the lesser of two evils. Neither Patty Murray nor Dino Rossi deserve such status.

Both are savvy, committed candidates who have demonstrated legislative skill — Murray in 18 years representing the state’s interests in Washington, D.C., Rossi as the Republicans’ lead budget writer in Olympia during the fiscal crisis of 2003. Each has a distinct set of priorities and the energy to push them. Both see themselves as problem solvers.

They differ markedly in ideology. Murray believes government has a strong role to play in ensuring fairness and social justice; Rossi believes in less government control and maximizing individual freedom.

For us, the choice comes down to seasoning, and is the central reason we endorse Murray’s re-election. Her deep understanding of the issues important to Washington citizens and businesses, combined with the political clout she has forged over three terms, put her in a better position to make a positive difference.

We call on her to put that seasoning to work not only for her constituents, but for the nation. “Leadership will be required,” she said, to make the hard choices necessary to eliminate a budget deficit that has become a grave threat to America’s future. She’s right, and we’ll be looking to her to provide it.

She’s capable of it. Murray has shown toughness that her critics are quick to overlook. She’s been a tenacious defender of veterans, aggressively pushing the Veterans Administration to meet its health-care commitments and improve suicide-prevention efforts. She’s been a leader on improving the security of U.S. ports in the wake of 9/11, teaming with Republican Susan Collins of Maine. When it comes to supporting Boeing’s Air Force tanker bid against Airbus, no voice in Congress has been stronger than Murray’s.

Some of her positions do give us pause, however. Her sponsorship of a “card check” bill, which would allow unions to be organized through open signature drives rather than private balloting, is a solution in search of a problem. And she’s been quicker to support new spending ideas than to eliminate programs, a trend that must turn around throughout Congress to bring the budget into balance.

As for Rossi, his success in leading a difficult budget process in Olympia has been one of his leading selling points, for good reason. It showed an ability to make tough but practical decisions, which required both courage and a willingness to compromise.

Now, in contrast, Rossi’s uncompromising approaches on taxes, immigration and health-care reform strike us as too rigid to be effective.

Legislating is about give and take, but Rossi leaves too little room for that with his insistence that all of the Bush-era tax cuts be extended permanently, that the immigration reform debate is academic until a fence extends across the entire Southern border, and that essentially every key aspect of the Obama health-care reform bill must be repealed.

We think he overstates the case that any tax increase puts a damper on job creation, and that such unyielding positions on taxes will make it harder to reduce the deficit. He’s right about spending: It must be reduced dramatically. But that alone is unlikely to balance the budget. Modest tax increases on millionaires and billionaires shouldn’t be off the table.