Mike Castle Goes Negative Against Tea Party-Backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Republicans ,; Campaign 2010

Christine O'Donnell is running for the Republican Senate nomination in Delaware

(Credit: Facebook)

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski suffered a stunning defeat in the Republican primary last week after she refused to go negative against her Tea Party-backed opponent Joe Miller.

Republican Rep. Mike Castle, running for the open Senate seat in Delaware, doesn't plan on following Murkowski's lead. Castle's campaign is planning to air negative ads against his primary opponent Christine O'Donnell, National Journal's Hotline reports.

Castle, who has represented Delaware's only congressional district for 18 years, has for months been the presumptive Republican nominee for Joe Biden's old Senate seat. Meanwhile, O'Donnell is a perennial candidate in the state.

This year, however, O'Donnell has the backing of the Tea Party Express, the group that helped Miller to success in Alaska. The group has pledged to spend $250,000 for O'Donnell before the September 14 primary. The Tea Party group's money may not have a huge impact in Delaware, which is in the expensive Philadelphia media market. But the group could still manage to mobilize conservative voters in what is expected to be a low-turnout primary.

Hotline reports that Castle's campaign is already planning to spend $180,000 on ads through Sept. 6th, but may reserve its negative ads for the following week.

Still, the Castle campaign has already launched its assault against the Tea Party challenger. The Castle campaign this week launched the website "RealChristine.com," which focuses on O'Donnell's financial troubles. Among her problems is the fact that O'Donnell reportedly amassed thousands of dollars in campaign debt in a 2008 Senate bid.

The "RealChristine" website urges visitors to Tweet the message, "Christine O'Donnell has been hopelessly irresponsible with own finances, not to be trusted w/ ours."

The Republican Party of Delaware is also attacking O'Donnell, alerting the press to examplers of her "reckless and hypocritical behavior."

The eventual Republican nominee will face off against Democrat Chris Coons, a New Castle County executive.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Campaign 2010

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

12 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment See all 12 Comments

by arrabiate September 2, 2010 10:08 PM EDT

Christine O' Donnell is a candidate with fresh ideas. Mike Castle is attacking her because he is an establishment RINO, pro Obamacare and cap and tax.

Reply to this comment


by masanf September 9, 2010 11:20 PM EDT: Get your fact straight. Mike Castle voted against Obamacare.


by MurdochSucks September 2, 2010 7:16 PM EDT: Republicans... they would eat their own young if we let them.; Reply to this comment


by apostasyusa September 2, 2010 7:06 PM EDT: Republicans run positive campaigns?; Reply to this comment

by Brokennews September 2, 2010 6:39 PM EDT

I would much rather hear candidate #1 tell me why he's the better candidate as opposed to hearing them tell me why candidate #2 sucks!

Reply to this comment


by JV1970 September 2, 2010 9:30 PM EDT: I feel the same way! I'm also going to add that candiadates should be very careful about going negative and think about it a long time before they do it because running negative or attack ads is a gamble. They can help a candidate or they can backfire and work against him. I'm going to say, though, that McCain should have run attack ads against Obama and his ties with the Chicago machine and his unsavory Chicago associates and the fact that Obama sat and listened to the racist "Reverend" Jeremish Wright nearly every Sunday for 20 years. McCain should have taken the gamble and run the ads but he didn't. That was a mistake and it cost him!

by stn_sage September 2, 2010 5:48 PM EDT

Incumbent politicians who have done their jobs, DON'T have to worry about challengers. But, evidently, Mr. Castle is worried! What should we conclude from that?

Reply to this comment


by 34sender September 2, 2010 5:52 PM EDT: Not true.

The electorate would have to be informed and objective for your statement to be valid -- and if you have read just the comments on this site, you may realize that it is not true.


by stn_sage September 2, 2010 11:44 PM EDT: While the public is not 'well-informed' and their 'objectivity' runs the spectrum, in the end, "MOST" people are smart enough to determine whether or not their representative deserves to be sent back or not!

We are NOT dealing with perfection or absolutes here! We are leaning more these days toward self survival! And, most people know for them to survive, the country or their state needs to survive!

It's not that I have a great level of belief in the citizenry's ability to positively do the right thing; but, a belief that they will act more negatively to avoid utter destruction!

by Myopinion046 September 2, 2010 5:45 PM EDT

You don't say!!!!! Whatever gave you that idea CBS????? It's not just brewing there CBS!!!!!

Reply to this comment


by Myopinion046 September 2, 2010 5:46 PM EDT: Trust me, going negative against a tea party backed candidate is more likely to fail than not people.