Every politician has an attack dog

One-party states don't have "negative" campaigns.  In one-party states all the candidates share the same "insider" perspective and everyone thinks everyone else is a "goodfella" because they all are.  The Soviet Union had elections, so did National Socialist Germany, but they didn't have campaigns that focused on the contrast between candidates because none existed (outside of hair color, height, weight, age, and so on).

So when you hear a person complaining about the "negativity" of a campaign, what they are really complaining about is democracy.  Because it is only in democracies that you find "negative campaigning". Everywhere else you find detainment camps.  And when you read about this pundit or that talking about the good old days of early American democracy, remember that those good old days featured negative campaigns that would make today's campaigners blush. 

Every political operation has it's attack dogs.  They vary in terms of competence but they are all there none-the-less doing battle on behalf of a candidate or, in the case of this election, a government vendor with a contract before the county.

So here's a run-down on how Watchdog sees the attack dogs of election 2015:

Phil Crabb and Rich Vohden have one...

The Sussex County GOP has one too...

 

Marie Bilik has two...

 

Warren County's GOP takes a different approach...

 

There's a reason the Essex GOP leaves Sussex in the dust...

 

But the Hometown Conservative Team had one...

 

As for Parker Space.  He doesn't have an attack dog, but he has a tiger named Chris Russell...