Democrat Claire McCaskill said today that her rival, Jim Talent, is uncomfortable with the type of negative campaigning that is taking over the U.S. Senate race.
"I don't think he's into doing this," she said. "He knows I'm not unethical."
Talent raised a host of personal issues during Monday's debate, including accusing McCaskill of not paying taxes. He also accused McCaskill's family of owning an off-shore tax shelter. McCaskill insisted he was off-base on both charges.
McCaskill said political consultants were pushing Talent into the new line of attack because he's trailing in the polls.
"Clearly Senator Talent has not been strong enough to tell them no," she told The Star's editorial board. "Now he's being swept along in a river of mud."
She vowed not to go into the gutter with him, saying that's the only way to begin to change the tone in Washington.
"I think Senator Talent is a good man," she said. "He's worked hard." The two just disagree on a host of issues, McCaskill added.
Posted by Steve Kraske
Claire is too kind to the Repubs. The negative attacks on her are a sign of their desperation -- and the distortions they put on TV are a sign of their own ethical flaws.
Posted by: KC Cicero | October 18, 2006 at 05:22 PM
Not go into the gutter? Her ads were there long ago
Posted by: southerngirl | October 18, 2006 at 05:46 PM
Claire sure wiped the floor with Talent in the debate tonight. Talent was surprisingly ill-prepared.
Posted by: | October 18, 2006 at 08:39 PM
Was it me or did he sound crazy rushed every time he talked? His voice was dripping with desperation, like he had to cram as many details into every answer in the time allotted. By comparison McCaskill sounded comfortable and relaxed.
Posted by: LarrytheScrabbleGuy | October 18, 2006 at 09:29 PM
AS I'VE PRESENTED BEFORE...
IF CLAIRE HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG OR ILLEGAL, WHY THEN HAS SHE NOT BEEN PROSECUTED BY THE ULTRA DEMOCRATIC FRIENDLY CURRENT MISSOURI ADMINISTATION, OR BY THE CURRENT ULTRA DEMOCRATIC FRIENDLY FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION?
MAKES NO SENSE PEOPLE.
SAY NO TO SMEAR, JIM. -PRINCIPLES OVER GAMESMANSHIP.
I WOULD NEVER COMPROMISE MY PRIMCIPLES IN THAT WAY, JIM.
Posted by: Engawyer | October 18, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Can someone please cite for me a single instance where Claire or her campaign have attacked Talent or his family? I'm not talking about assertions regarding voting records or opinions about job performance as a Senator or positions on issues. A challenger in any election has to highlight how they differ with the incumbent or there is no point to even having an election. I am talking about personal or family attacks that are baseless or blatantly and intentionally deceptive.
When, where and what was said by Claire, any of her approved adverts or by any member of her campaign at any point in time that ever constituted a personal attack on Talent?
Posted by: JHBMMAB | October 19, 2006 at 12:07 AM
I am surprised to find myself in agreement with southerngirl, but Claire went too far with her coyly demure approach, especially with the K.C. Star Editorial Board (did she think they couldn't recognize negative campaigning after the County Executive race, the 8th State Senatorial race, the 10th State Senatorial race, the 40th House district race, the...oh, never mind). Claire is clearly feeling good about her chances--when you're ahead, you're surprised the gentleman would go negative; when you're behind, the opposing candidate has consistently run a mud-slinging campaign.
And, Engawyer, WHEN YOU POST IN 'CAPS', YOUR GRAMMATICAL, TYPOGRAPHICAL AND LOGICAL ERRORS ARE EXAGGERATED; I can assure you that you can achieve all those errors even with your "Caps Lock" key off--do you need help locating it?
Posted by: SPSLE | October 19, 2006 at 12:37 AM
WE'RE NOT WRITING MANUSCRIPTS HERE, SPSLE. I JUST TYPE AND HIT POST. GET OVER THE CAPS.
...NOW DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY SUBSTANTIVELY ABOUT WHAT I SAID?
LET'S DEBATE
Posted by: Engawyer | October 19, 2006 at 06:54 AM
"Was it me or did he sound crazy rushed every time he talked?"
Yeah it was just you.
"I am talking about personal or family attacks that are baseless or blatantly and intentionally deceptive."
Your own personal financial status is very much a topic that should be brought before the voters whose taxes you will be controlling (if elected). And anyone who disagrees is speaking from emotion of their arrousal for Claire. If the role was reversed and it was Talent's taxes in question you would be all over it.
Posted by: LMAO | October 19, 2006 at 07:13 AM
Left to his own deviCes, Talent probably would not have stooped to the vicious negative attacks that are in his "I approved of" messages.
BUT -- and here's the rub -- Sen. Plasticman has never been left to his own devices. He is a 94% RoboVote for the Bush/Chaney/Rove crowd. Nothing so shows their control of him -- and our need to get him out of office -- as his unwillingness to behave ethically in his campaign. Anything to win. Scorched earth. Take no prisoners -- or at least torture those you take. They dishonor the Party of Lincoln and TR. Heck, they dishonor the Party of Nixon!
Posted by: KC Cicero | October 19, 2006 at 11:31 AM
I was home the past two days--the ads by BOTH candidates suck. Negative, both ways. BOTH are in the gutter with their ads.
Sebelius is the only one doing positive ads--of course, she is up by 20 points. Does she even have an opponent?
Posted by: jenniferm | October 19, 2006 at 11:44 AM
"And anyone who disagrees is speaking from emotion of their arrousal for Claire."
LMAO, WTF?????
Posted by: jenniferm | October 19, 2006 at 11:45 AM
Thats called an opinion jenniferm. Obviously you don't like it do you disagree with thw "whole" paragraph or just part of it?
Posted by: LMAO | October 19, 2006 at 12:08 PM
Jim Talent, holds an ever-so-slight lead of 43% to 39% and remains in a dogfight with Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, the state auditor. Talent’s advantage comes in part from his ability to better hold his political base—he enjoys support from 86% of Republicans, while 79% of Democrats said they are backing McCaskill. But this race remains too close to call, which is typical of many recent statewide elections in Missouri.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1177
Posted by: LMAO | October 19, 2006 at 12:10 PM
LMAO, I usually disagree with everything you write, dear.
You say, "anyone who disagrees with you" then they are "speaking from emotion". Not sure you have anything to back that statement up--but I can count on you to come up with something that tsquare will go for.
And no, if the roles were reversed I wouldn't be "all over it". I get your need to paint everyone a certain way--sure makes it easier for your rhetoric to stick. You get your opinion, dude, I get mine.
Posted by: jenniferm | October 19, 2006 at 12:51 PM
"Not sure you have anything to back that statement up--but I can count on you to come up with something that tsquare will go for." Because all illogical(doesn't make sense) rhetoric comes from emotion not facts.
"And no, if the roles were reversed I wouldn't be "all over it". I get your need to paint everyone a certain way--sure makes it easier for your rhetoric to stick. You get your opinion, dude, I get mine."
"LMAO, I (usually) disagree with everything you write, dear"
By using the word (usually) shows that you are not "painted" and that you have a sense of logic and thought, unfortunately most on this blog are not in the same category. I think that the smear tactics in here are a to try and get your point across without any logic, yet pure emotion and discusting as it is sometimes its contaigous.
Posted by: LMAO | October 19, 2006 at 01:03 PM