The Seattle area can’t get enough of Cavalia, the equestrian arts show now playing at Marymoor. Its run here has been extended nearly a month, until March 4. I hope you had a chance to see the show. It is spectacular.

As Cavalia winds down, we have had a brief flurry of a different kind of circus, leading to the Republican caucuses on March 3. Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney already have been here, but the main events and prizes lie elsewhere. The campaign is lurching towards Super Tuesday, March 6, when 10 states, some crucial, hold elections or caucuses.

For the majority of us a side benefit of this relative lack of attention might be that we have avoided, to some extent, the barrage of attack ads that have been a feature of the primary campaign in other venues. These ads, replete with voice-of-doom narrations and rabidly unflattering pictures of opponents, set a lot of teeth on edge, yet they keep coming. One study found that 92 percent of the political ads in the Florida primary campaign were negative.

The effects of all this negativity are apparent. At least three of the four standing candidates have been battered and bruised to the point that rumors are floating about that some key party figures want to jettison the whole lot and bring in a dark horse, perhaps drafting a Chris Christie or Mitch Daniels, or looking elsewhere. It seems apparent that, although the ads are widely considered obnoxious, negativity  works.

One reason might be that voters have a deep skepticism about the people who run for office. About six out of 10 people, according to a recent survey, believe that politicians deliberately twist the truth, and about four out of 10 believe politicians deliberately lie to voters. You have to wonder, if that is indeed the case, why do we keep voting for chronic liars?

Two out of three don’t trust the federal government to some degree. With this kind of jaundiced attitude, attack ads certainly come as no surprise and in many cases would appear to confirm some preconceived notions about people who run for office. Those notions must border on contempt, given the approval ratings accorded Congress. Collectively that body ranks lower than polygamy, porn and the BP oil spill.

But, despite not liking negative ads, voters seem to find at least some of them provide useful input in making decisions about candidates. Ads that exploit a candidate’s past performance, such as taking a position in public statements but voting in the opposite direction or accepting campaign contributions from special interests (don’t they all?) or not paying taxes or employing illegal immigrants, as examples, are accepted by voters as helpful information. Some stuff, though, appears to be off limits. Voters don’t like ads that criticize an opponent because he did not serve in the military or because he has misbehaving relatives, for instance.

One political operative looks at negative ads this way: “Never, never use negative campaign tactics unless you have to.”  Apparently these days you nearly always have to. Newt Gingrich made a serious effort to run a clean campaign, and wound up with Romney’s bus tire tracks all over his body. Newt whined about it, got nowhere with that tactic, and started slamming his opponent for making too much money (apparently making more than Newt does is a no-no) and not caring about poor people.

In any case, if you think the Republican primary campaign has been rough, wait until this summer. The mud will be flying as it has rarely flown before, propelled from both sides by broadsides of money. There’s a lot at stake, and there won’t be much held back.

Richard H. Hill has lived in Redmond for the last six years and writes a blog, “Old Dick’s Grumps for the Day.” To read his blog, go to www.olddick.blogspot.com.