Isn't that going negative by going negative on others negativity? Just checking.

how on earth does this call for civility mesh with his close at the forum on monday?

how is pointing out someone's voting % negative?

It is a shame that the last week before electing our next congressman that we have two candidates being charged with breaking the law.

instead of law breakers:
we should be talking about how to get us of iraq.

we should be developing a plan of how to cover our 43 million americans without health insurance.

we should be ensuring how to protect the women's right to choose.

we should be how to get the republican congress to renew the assualt weapons ban.

we could have been if all democratic candidate would have agreed with mark smith back in april to sign his code of ethics.

mark smith created a code of ethics and only corey mohm and joanne karll agreed to sign. apparently here are the three candidates who want to solve our problems not just play gutter politics.

why did the others not sign?

They wanted to throw some mud on the front runner and bring this race into the sewer with an illegal $6,500 piece mailing.

I personally hope they hide out who orchestrated this and prosecute them like they recently did in a congressional race in california.
This type of illegal activity should not happen in campaigns.

yes, i am helping mark smith.
i authorized and typed this message.

i can stand up and put my name on my opinions unlike a candidate or two in this race.

Adding further credence to completely unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations from other candidates is hardly "staying above the fray". This is fairly typical behavior from what I can see of Mark Smith and his supporters. He trashes other candidates in private discussions, misleads about their positions in email forums, exagerates the amount of money he has raised to others he has tried to raise it from and and then hides behind his campaign stunt public pledge. Trashing Russ Carnahan at the League of Women voters debate the other night was the most genuine thing he has done. It's to bad that he waited until after suckering the Post Disgrace into buying into his "above the fray" BS. Sneaky yes. WE'll have to see how effective it is. My guess is that he still finishes with less than 10% of the vote.

The trick to going negative in a multicandidate race is to bait someone else into doing it. Negative ads hurt the target, but they also hurt the sponsor. Carol Moseley Braun was the upset winner of her first US Senate primary when a 3rd candidate (a rich lawyer) filled the airways with negative ads trashing incumbent Alan Dixon. The ads worked against Dixon, but benefitted Moseley Braun instead of the sponsor.

That's probably what motivated the anonymous flyers, apparently put out by practitioners of Clintonian morality (it's only wrong if you get caught).

Do you want to compare knowledge of issues between Jeff and Mark? Sorry, but Jeff made one statement about Russ that was more mild than your candidate's at the forum. Jeff is having town halls all over the District on issues. Your guy is having press conferences to which no one shows up.

There is a big difference between what Jeff did and what Mark is now doing. Jeff, quite honestly, publicly highlighted Russ' attendance record and failure to show up at votes for core progressive issues. This is without question a relevant issue where Russ is claiming to be the viable progressive choice in this race. Certainly, his actual record merits scrutiny which has been missing in the local press. Russ' only response is to make totally unfounded accusations against Jeff with no evidence to support them. Now Mark and his supporters are trying to repeat Russ' unfounded allegations yet argue that they are also above the fray. Passive-aggressive BS like that being spewed by Mark and his supporters is just cowardice in my book. If you have an accusation make it and support it, but don't throw someone else's mud and pretend like your hands are clean. I hope someone gets to the bottom of this mailer soon. I am confident that if the information gets out, everyone will see that Jeff is not the one playing dirty politics in this race.

What's the story on the GOP--has fedupwithhim got the race won?

Bill has his race sewn solidly up.

Republican primary in the 3rd: Federer is favored, but it's not in the bag. Joan McGivney will carry county areas north of Watson, but that's a small part of the district. Her endorsement by the Post Dispatch may actually do her more harm than good in a Republican primary. The Call newspapers (south county) endorsement of McGiveny may be more meaningful. The big unknown is how Federer's well publicized legal hassles with mean-spirited Gephardt folks will play out. If GOP voters believe Federer is a hero for standing up to Tricky Dick's henchmen, he will win the rest of the district easily on name recognition. But if they believe the videotape in question showed Bill acting like an ass and that he is an embarrassment, then McGivney has a chance. Republican party loyalists (the biggest voting bloc in the Republican primary) may also take offense at Federer's recently reported statement at a south side candidate forum that, if he lost the GOP primary and a pro-life Democrat won its primary, he would back that pro-life Democrat over the pro-choice McGivney.

Federer has it. The mainstream guys wanted a conservative, but reasonable candidate to run, but the base just won't support a pro-choice republican like McGivney. And she's daffy to boot.

Federer has tried to make himself sound reasonable, but you get the feeling it is only a matter of time until he goes bezerk in public.

I received an email from the Mark Smith campaign tonight regurgitating every single accusation that has been made against each other by his opponents of each other in the context that he is holier than though for his "Pledge of Ethics". I have news for Mark... I don't think any candidate in this race relishes being accused of being negative. Joan Barry and Jeff Smith get dragged through the mud by Russ for simply having the "audacity" to point out that Russ has one of the absolute absentee records in the whole legislature. That's about as soft a blow as they come in politics. It takes a bit of guts for people to step forward on the steps of the Old Court House and take a risk to say what all of the candidates are talking about behind the scenes.

I think it is cowardly and shameful for Mark to use other people's criticisms to advance his own negative objectives while turning around and criticizing others for negative and unethical campaigning. If he really thought it was so horrible, he wouldn't feel compelled to repeat in detail every detail of every accusation. I have heard repeatedly from friends about Mark and his campaign trashing his opponents with untruths behind their backs. I also noticed that Mark failed to outline his trashing of Russ at the League of Women Voters debate on Monday night. If that wasn't negative campaigning I don't know what is. At least he made that critique publicly. I can live with that. This notion of using other peoples words to hit your opponents and then hitting your opponents for speaking them in the first place makes my blood boil for it's hypocrisy. It may be effective, but this repeated sneaky behavior is a pretty clear indicator of a lack of character in my estimation.

I received that same email and completely agree with Conner. Mark is sneaky and passive aggressive with this tactic. I hardly call passing other peoples rumors as staying above the fray. This really gets under my skin.

BTW..I received a pretty nasty mail piece from Russ today nailing Joan and Stoll for NRA support. Russ is blasting away at anything that moves and that is a perceived threat at this point. My guess is that he is going to nail J. Smith with some mud one more time before Tuesday. I can't imagine how bad his polling numbers look right now. If it rains on Tuesday.... he doesn't stand a chance.