Never? One article? Really? Care to explain this:
To: rocksblues
Mollohan is as crooked as a dog's hind leg, as they say hereabouts.
[snip]
Meantime, the man I'm running against, Charles Taylor from NC, has done all the things that Mollohan has done, just not in numbers quite as large. Millions, but not as many millions.
[snip]
19 posted on 04/21/2006 11:50:47 PM EDT by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Or, how about this:
Interview With John Armor, Republican Candidate in NC-11
Charles Taylor, Armor emphasized, has a long history of ethical problems that could become criminal problems.
[snip]
Armor asserted that "Assuming he [Taylor] survives an ethics investigation, and there are multiple 5 million dollar gaps in what he filed [with the FEC]," Taylor's fiscal inconsistencies could lead to "criminal prosecutions".
I can post more if you wish. Nah, you didn't bad-mouth him at all. Only just about everytime you opened your mouth on the internet or in an interview.
Taylor signed those Reports under penalties of perjury, and I quoted them accurately. No one in Taylor's camp has suggested that a single fact, name, date or number I cited was the slightest bit inaccurate.
Why would Taylor bother responding to a bug they don't consider worth squashing? If you had made a splash with 5 or 10 good ideas for the district that got some publicity, they might have responded to what you had to say.
As for the rest of your allegations, time and circumstance will answer them. Observe and learn.
I have "observed and learned." I notice that you don't deny that "circumstances," namely your routine and resounding defeat, have already demonstrated that conducting an "internet" vanity campaign doesn't amount to squat. Great for the ego, maybe gets you some play on message boards, but other than that, well, what can I say.
And you seem to think that I was stating my own conclusions.
No, I pointed out that the "paradoxical conclusion" seemed to be delusional.
Your knowledge of the politics of this area is derived how?
Why would whether or not I have any knowledge whatsoever of your area matter? I'm not commenting on the "politics of" your "area," I'm commenting on you and your actions, or lack thereof. Voters everywhere seem to detect BS equally well, and the voters of your area have spoken. Loudly.
So, let me congratulate you on your stunning loss again. Fortunately, it's highly likely that you and your "campaign" will soon be forgotten by the voters, and hopefully it hasn't contributed to a loss of a Republican House seat.
You lost me here. If Taylor has done something criminally wrong, it is not "bad-mouthing" to attempt to expose his crimes. If Taylor is innocent, then Taylor would have the option to sue for slander.
You are making an awfully good argument for hiding Taylor's misdeeds under the rug.
Where do you live?
Are you now working, or have you ever worked for the Taylor campaign?
Or maybe you work within or for the GOP party?
Or possibly is this just some Internet personal flame war?
Just curious.....
Thanks-
If you think that is either easy, or common, you're knowledge of congressional races is defective. And, "one article" means "one article." It was in the North Carolina Conservative. And lying on one's Ethics Committee Reports is a crime -- it's called perjury. Perhaps you missed the memo on that.
Lastly, you seemed to have missed the historical point that when incumbents are defeated for reelection, it is almost always a matter of political suicide. Almost never do they succumb to a challenger's campaign. Almost always there is a serious defect in the incumbent which leads directly to his/her defeat.
Your ignorance of the history of congressional elections is massive. You ought to read my seventh book, Why Term Limits?. As for your bias, I neither know nor care what the source of that is.
Have a nice day.
John / Billybob