Attack! Attack! Attack!

Didn't all those political attack ads on TV get you really angry this year? No, they didn't.

Didn't all those negative ads make you really disgusted with the American political system? Liar.

Didn't those so-called "comparative" ads turn you off? Baloney.

Those are the kinds of things people tell pollsters, but many, many people don't tell pollsters the truth.

And why should they?

It's dinnertime, you are trying to get your daughter to stop texting for five minutes and eat something, the baby is screaming, the dog is barking, and the phone rings. Somebody with a bored-as-hell voice (or maybe it's a computer with a bored-as-hell voice) starts asking you personal questions. Aren't you offended by misleading, repellant, offensive, un-American campaign ads on TV? they ask.

Uh, well, what should you say to this stranger? Should you say, no, you kind of like the ads because at least they aren't as boring as paper towel commercials?

Of course not. That's not the kind of answer the caller wants to hear. So you say, I hate attack ads because it's American to hate attack ads, and I'm an American, and now I've got to go because the baby is trying to eat from the dog's dish.

So the outcome is poll results and academic papers arguing that attack ads are counterproductive because voters hate them.

But, you know what? Politicians don't believe that. They believe attack ads work, which is why they poured nearly a half-billion dollars into them this year, making 2010 "the most negative campaign in recent history by both sides," according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks such things.

"More than half of all ads are pure attack ads," says Erika Franklin Fowler, assistant professor of government at Wesleyan University.

According to the project, "attack ads have steadily increased since the 2004 election, and the 2010 House and Senate advertising is the most negative in the past decade."

But you knew that, didn't you? You knew that just by turning on your television set.

The question, however, is why.

I have three reasons:

1.

Attack ads give you the biggest bang for the buck. If you do a positive ad, you have to spend millions on airtime in order to reach a lot of people. But if you run an attack ad — Harry Reid calling Sharron Angle "pathological" in the race for Senate in Nevada, for instance — that is picked up by YouTube, newspapers, radio, cable TV, the blogosphere, everybody. And all that is free. Attack ads make economic sense.

2. Attack ads work because the truth doesn't really matter. Every time I read a scholarly essay telling me how attack ads offend voters with their inaccuracy and irresponsibility, I have to wonder what country these scholars are living in.

Don't they remember the Swift Boat ads that sunk John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, transforming him from a decorated Vietnam War hero into a liar and a coward? Did it matter that the attacks were discredited by the media? Nope. And how about the Willie Horton ad used against Michael Dukakis in 1988? Did it matter that the ad was meant to instill racist fears rather than address any serious political issue? Nope.

You can go all the way back to the most famous attack ad in history, the "Daisy" ad of 1964 that Lyndon Johnson used to convince voters Barry Goldwater would lead us into a nuclear war. It was used once by Johnson and then pulled, but it aired time and time again on television news and was widely discussed in print, all aiding Johnson in his landslide victory.

3. It is easier to attack than to defend. Do you really want to explain the intricacies of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Public-Private Investment Program, the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Isn't it just easier to say your opponent is a cheat, a liar, a witch or a sinner? Also, it is far better to attack first and force your opponent to defend than to be the victim who is forced to defend himself.

Not all attack ads work. Some are just silly or stupid. And all ads get boring eventually (or even sooner than eventually).

If, as a voter, you are genuinely sick of attack ads and the candidates who run them, there is a simple solution: stop voting for these candidates.

What if both sides use attacks ads, however?

May I suggest a coin toss? The result might not lead to a Congress that is any worse.

To find out more about Roger Simon, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM