Here some link, about what I was saying, you can find thousands if you care (for both sides for that matter):

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html

"Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate."

Another paragraph

"There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate," said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication. "This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent."

.

Then you have the whole "scare" campaign, like when Dick Cheney saying that if Kerry were elected, the country would face the risk of another terrorist attack. (just one as an example of the multiple ads/speeches where they used scare tactics, "Hey You better vote Bush or the wolves will eat us.

Bah, all in all, a terrible one sided article that is not worth reading, it says nothing new and has no balance at all, not that I expected different.