Negative ads are good for voters.

I am a harsh blogger. I slam issues with hard facts and I'm blunt about it. my blogs, in this respect, are much like negative ads.

Since this is an attack blog on anti-attack ads I should start the way many attck ads do, with some quotes, based on fact, showing my opposition is wrong.

from Reason Magazine November 2006, pg. 24

"television campaign advertising from 1960 through 2004 found that nearly three-quarters of the claims in negaitve spots involved issues, not attacks on the candidates' characters or values. "you can't just attack President Bush for being weak on the economy," Geer says. ""you need to be more specific when you attack. You have to say why. For the attacks to work, they have to be based on fact.""
(Geer is a reference to: John Geer, "In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Politics." 2006)

Next time you see a campaign ad, count how many facts a candidate gives you about themselves, and how many about there opponent. As a voter, do you want facts or valance.

Clearly, since voter turnout increases with an increase in these ads, those who claim to want a pleasant, friendly campaign, are hypocrites in November.