i hate attack ads, you hate attack ads, everyone hates attack ads. so vote for the less poisonous set of attack ads. (okay, i really mean vote democrat! woo! but it's still true that by voting for the less awful set of ads you'll be doing that.)

How Republicans poisoned politics. - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine:

Negative Democratic ads tie Republican candidates to President Bush, and to the Iraq war, or accuse them of being in the tank for the oil or pharmaceutical industries. But Democratic ads do not charge that their opponents 'prey on our children'—even though one recently resigned following accusations that he did precisely that. One can only imagine the ads Republicans would have made this year if Mark Foley had happened to be a Democrat.
In fact, the form, style, and content of the contemporary attack ad are a specifically conservative contribution to American politics. Republicans have developed most of the techniques, vocabulary, and symbolism at work in these spots over the last couple of decades. Some of the motifs go back to Nixon and Spiro Agnew, but you can trace most of the elements back to the presidential campaign Lee Atwater ran for George H.W. Bush in 1988, best remembered for the Willie Horton ad and the charge that Michael Dukakis was a 'card-carrying member of the ACLU.' What's different in this election is simply the ubiquity of the conservative calumny and, in some cases, the aggressiveness of the Democratic response. Spreading hatred and poisonous lies about one's opponent has become an ordinary and almost accepted part of running for office.
It shouldn't be. There may be no cure for dishonest attack advertising that isn't worse than the disease. But that doesn't mean that voters shouldn't be offended or that they should fail to react when politicians treat them as docile bigots. Republicans deserve to get walloped next week for this, if for nothing else.