The 2014 governor’s election, which could shape public policy in Hawaii for the next eight years, has devolved into a shabby battle of guilt by association between the two major-party candidates.

Democrat David Ige and his allies in the party and the Democratic Governors Association have sought at every turn to associate Republican James "Duke" Aiona with Furlough Fridays and other unpopular policies of former Gov. Linda Lingle, to whom Aiona served as lieutenant governor.

Their attacks are peppered with references to the Lingle-Aiona administration, as if the two were equal partners in formulating policy.

Aiona responded in the most recent TV debate that this is as unfair as if he argued that an Ige administration would be the same as that of Gov. Neil Abercrombie because Ige’s running mate, Lt. Gov. Shan Tsutsui, held the same job in the Abercrombie-Tsutsui administration.

Aiona is right, but the problem is that his allies such as the Republican Governors Association have practiced exactly that kind of guilt by association in TV ads suggesting that Ige and the unpopular Abercrombie are two peas in a pod.

It’s a preposterous notion after Ige was so troubled by Abercrombie’s direction that he mounted a rare primary challenge against a sitting governor from his own party.

Beyond the dubious guilt by association, the attacks by both sides are loose on the facts.

When Democrats attack Aiona on Furlough Fridays, they neglect to mention that the public worker unions backing Ige bore as much responsibility as Lingle for the furlough days that disrupted state government and public schools.

The unions pushed for the furloughs over the straight pay cuts Lingle initially sought to balance the state budget during the Great Recession.

The Republicans tap dance around the facts when painting Abercrombie and Ige as "good partners" who worked hand-in-hand to stick Hawaii residents with $800 million in new taxes and fees.

While serving as the state Senate Ways and Means chairman, Ige was often at odds with Abercrombie on taxes and spending and significantly cut the governor’s proposals.

The main beneficiary of the cheap sniping is independent candidate Mufi Hannemann, who can use it as Exhibit A in his argument that petty partisan politics are behind many of Hawaii’s problems and it’s time to try something new.

While Ige and Aiona have played niggling small ball, Hannemann has taken the higher road with substantive policy proposals on matters such as energy, fixing state hospitals and returning the Superferry.

The former Honolulu mayor is a political lightning rod with much baggage to overcome, but at least he’s offering voters specific solutions for the state’s problems that they can agree or disagree with.

It would be nice if the two major-party candidates acted more gubernatorial and did the same.