AUSTIN -- The latest scandal involving sexual harassment allegations directed at Herman Cain has campaigns accusing one another of playing dirty.
Rick Perry campaign manager Ray Sullivan denied accusations by the Cain campaign that the story was pushed from inside, turning the finger instead on Mitt Romney's camp.
"I would say if it turns out that a Republican presidential candidate deliberately went out and created this kind of a story about a fellow candidate, that they would probably rapidly become a pariah among the rest of us, and they better fire the people who did it," GOP contender Newt Gingrich weighed in Wednesday. "I would think that that's the kind of despicable behavior that is the worst possible behavior. We Republicans need to be unified to beat Barack Obama."
The possibility of a behind-the-scenes battle isn't anything new.
"Scandals go back to the Founding Fathers," explained University of Texas government professor Sean Theriault. "Thomas Jefferson and John Adams got into some knock down, drag out fights even at a personal level. They weren't just disagreeing about policy. The difference now is that the American public seems like the questions of a personal nature are more legitimate in evaluating a person's judgment."
Texas has its own history of political hardball. In the 2002 governor's race, a Rick Perry ad attempted to tie Democratic challenger Tony Sanchez to drug money and murder. Perry's opponents, on the other hand, have stoked questions about the governor's sex life, going so far as to take out advertisements soliciting proof of illicit encounters.
Democratic strategist and author Jason Stanford managed the campaign for Perry's 2006 opponent Chris Bell, and says while Perry has hit his opponents hard, he has largely avoided the sort of "whisper" campaign tactics attributed to longtime Bush advisor Karl Rove.
"A smear campaign is whispering around Texas that Ann Richards was a lesbian, which is what Karl Rove did," said Stanford. "What Rick Perry does is take facts and go to the most ridiculous example."
Stanford says facts are key when candidates go on the attack.
"People respond favorably and are more likely to vote when you make constructive attacks that are relevant and credible and made in the right tone," said Stanford. "If you start smearing someone irresponsibly, they're less likely to vote. It turns them off. Attack politics done well turns on voters, engages them and gets them to vote."
Stanford says Cain's campaign erred in its response to the harassment allegations, exposing a lack of experience in dealing with the hard-hitting realities of presidential campaign politics.
"What is happening to him is not smearing, it's politics," said Stanford. "Someone is bringing up his own record against him. That's the way it works, and Cain doesn't like it."
For those who prefer their candidates to play nice, the rise of super-PACs isn't likely to help. Although prohibited from directly coordinating with campaigns, super-PACs are able to use their unlimited fund raising abilities to launch their own attacks.
"The super-PACs can go after candidates in a harsher way than the candidate's campaign can, and the nice thing for the candidate is their name isn't on the ad," said Theriault.
Until voters cast their ballot, expect plenty more attacks to come.
