I recently forwarded to you a dissertation on the political virtues of negative campaigning and why it works written by communications guru Rich Galen of Mullings.com.
For a real-time/real-life example of the power or negative campaigning, consider the following report by Allysia Finley in Political Diary today:
New polls show Newt Gingrich sliding down to earth as Ron Paul surges in Iowa and the former Massachusetts governor adds some new supporters to his coalition of the scared-with-nowhere-else-to-go.
According to Public Policy Polling, Ron Paul has jumped to the front of the pack in the Hawkeye State with 23%, while Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich trail him at 20% and 14%, respectively. Two weeks ago Mr. Gingrich led the field with 27%. Insider Advantage likewise has Mr. Paul ahead at 24%, with Mr. Romney at 18% and the former Georgia congressman at 13%.
Mr. Gingrich's decline coincides with a barrage of attack ads that Messrs. Romney and Paul have unleashed upon him in recent weeks. The ads highlight the $1.6 million that Mr. Gingrich collected from Freddie Mac for his consulting work and his spot with liberal Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi bemoaning climate change.
The pro-Romney PAC Restore Our Future has poured more than $1 million into an ad that itemizes all of Mr. Gingrich's “baggage,” and the group plans to spend another $1.4 million over the next two weeks. Mr. Gingrich's favorability rating, according to PPP's survey, has sunk by 32 points since the beginning of the month.
Again, you’ll hear over and over and over again (ad nauseum) that people “hate negative campaigning.”
But the fact remains that negative campaigning will remain a part of our system (and quite possibly in YOUR race) for one reason: It works.