Personally, I think negative ads are indicative of lack of strength and often exhibit a lack of integrity. You see, there are two ways to have the tallest building in town. One is to tear down all the other buildings and leave only yours standing. Even if it is just a one room shack, it will be the tallest building.

The other way is to work the hardest and build the tallest building by relying on your own efforts, tenacity, and accomplishments. Set your goals to build the tallest building and work to get the most done. Then, you will have the tallest building in town without having to destroy others.

The same applies to the game of politics. If a person wants to rise to the top, it should be done without having to tear down opponents. Instead, and granted it may be more difficult, the person should set his goal and strive for it by being the best, by working the hardest, and by always having the highest degree of integrity possible.

The writer's disgust during the primaries gave rise to pertinent questions concerning the use of negative ads by politicians. Why do so many politicians rely on negative ads? Are they so insecure in their accomplishments that they feel they won't be elected on their merits?

Better yet, if a politician must rely on negative ads or negative statements made by his campaign manager (Dole's solution late in the primaries), should he be elected to office?

Logically, if a politician and his staff rely on tearing down their opponents, then they must have determined that his chances aren't very good, that the opponents have more going for them. Based on the premise that outstanding accomplishments should rise above the lesser accomplishments of others, tearing down of others must be an act of desperation to make one's own lesser accomplishments look better.

Then, of course, politicians using negative ads too often take statements out of context. Dole apparently used just a part of Mr. Forbes's statement in an early ad. Mr. Dole's ad stated that Forbes said, "I don't believe in three strikes and you're out." Dole and his people left out the fact that Forbes's next statement was, "I believe in one strike and you're out."

Anytime any person takes another's statements out of context in order to present a less than factual representation of the other person, it is the same as lying. It is not being truthful, it is misleading to the public, and it is most certainly not behaving in a moral fashion.

How could the use of negative ads be summarized? First, one could state that any individual who uses negative ads believes that his merits and accomplishments will not stand on their own. Therefore, he must drag the opponent down to, or below, his own level in order to compete effectively.

Second, one could state accurately that any person who gives false impressions of others by lying about the person, whether indirectly (as in pulling comments out of context in order to mislead) or directly, has a very low level of integrity, low enough that one must question in what other areas he might also have a lack of integrity.

Third, any politician and his party in relying heavily on the use of negative ads as a campaign tool is telling the public that its only option is to elect the lesser of two evils.

Why? Well, an interpretation of negative ads could be: "No, I'm not the best but, as you have seen by my pointing out all the bad things about my opponent, I am a little better than him - not much, but enough better that you should vote for me."

And, I ask, "Is that what you really want representing you and, possibly, our country to the rest of the world?"