Posted on 05/02/2006 9:34:31 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
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.
Well, voter turnout was extraordinarily low for this primary election. That says to me that people didn't much care, and knew that Taylor would win the primary.
Since Taylor accumulated 80% of the vote in the GOP primary, it would take some major catastrophe for the GOP to substitute another candidate for the general election.
I note that the loser of the DEM primary recieved more votes than you did on the GOP side, as well.
If you wish the district to be represented in Washington by a Republican, I advise you to endorse Taylor as soon as possible. If you do not, and you continue to malign him on the internet, there will be a DEM from your district in Washington after the general election.
Does Taylor have skeletons in his closet? I wouldn't be surprised. Most congresscritters do. Will the Abramoff thing sink him? I doubt it very much.
But, it's your decision, of course. You can continue to malign Taylor and get a DEM as a congressman or you can do the right thing and simply endorse him or say nothing.
It's up to you Billybob. This 2006 election is going to be a critical one. You can either help to maintain a GOP majority or you can help to establish a DEM majority. Which is it going to be?
In any case, to speak to the topic of the thread, I will be extraordinarily surprised if Taylor resigns. The way Taylor wins tough elections is he waits until the last six weeks and then dumps however much money into his campaign that he needs to win, and to date it's worked. I rather doubt he'll see himself as more vulnerable than in 2000 and 2002 when he had major allegations of tax evasion (though Sam Neill was a far inferior challenger).
Besides that, however, I would venture that John Armor (Billybob) is gonna have a really huge uphill climb to push Tom Apodaca, Wilma Sherrill, Nathan Ramsey, Carl Mumpower, Joe Dunn, etc, etc out of the way for the GOP nomination if it comes open.
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.
Key word, that.
Since, at this point, there's nothing beyond mere allegations, which anyone can make, the entirety consists of bad-mouthing.
Makes for a wonderfully positive campaign, huh? I'm sure it inspired the voters.
I never "bad-mouthed Taylor." I wrote and published exactly one article that pointed out five different million-dollar and up errors in hie Reports filed with the Ethics Committee.
Which is quite obviously not true, as the above quotes demonstrated.
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-
Or maybe I should say that I doubt Taylor sees himself as much more vulnerable than in 2000 and in 2004. Although early in 2002 it seemed he may be, since the late-breaking ethics allegations from 2000 might've had more time to sink in, Neill's campaign never really got off the ground in 2002, as he was rightly written off by just about everyone, since he couldn't seal the deal in 2000 (or even make it all that close).
Taylor probably doesn't see himself as much more vulnerable this year than in 2004 against Patsy Keever. Patsy Keever was a far more experienced campaigner by comparison to Heath Shuler. She was from the population center (Buncombe Co) whereas Heath Shuler is from Waynesville, and is very slightly subject to the 'carpet-bagger' charge since he had settled in Knoxville TN until he decided to run against Taylor (I doubt that'd make any difference though).
Keever's campaign didn't really sink until the last few weeks when she seemed like a flip-flopper on abortion and same-sex marriage.
Be sure to let me know when you have something of substance to say about a comment I've made. And don't forget to let us know when you stopped beating your wife/kid/dog.
Your parents named you Griffin Griffin. They watched a lot of "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" before you were born?
Glad to see you taking the positive tact. Keep the faith.
Well..that pretty much confirms it.
IOW, do not be deceived by Taylor's cash numbers - there is no doubt he will have enough to compete, and more. What's more important to watch, moneywise, is the opponent's number, to get a sense of whether Shuler can survive the Taylor money infusion in the last six weeks.
PS. One of the many reasons why Taylor is extremely unlikely to drop out, BTW, is because, unlike TX-22 or OH-18, NC-11 may very well be more likely to flip parties if Taylor drops out, notwithstanding his ethics problems. The district is far more marginal than TX-22 and OH-18, and both the Taylor numbers and the Bush numbers are deceptive in terms of GOP strength. In most statewide races, NC-11 is either about 50/50 or the Dems win it. That is not at all the case with TX-22 or OH-18 in those states.
The district is more marginal to begin with, and the Asheville area is steadily drifting leftward, and a GOP replacement nominee would be at a distinct money disadvantage for at least some while.
"Be sure to let me know when you have something of substance to say about a comment I've made. And don't forget to let us know when you stopped beating your wife/kid/dog."
By the tenor in your posts, I think Osage Orange's questions are perfectly legitimate. You sound like a very angry person with an ax to grind to whomever will listen.
Charlie Taylor has run behind party lines in the district for years now. He has been caught up in one ethical scandal after another.
Most recently, he has been implicated in the Jack Abramoff case.
Your analysis is reasonable and cogent. Your strategy seems correct as well - lay low for a bit and see what the polls show. If Congressman Taylor bails, you're back in the game, so to speak.
Good success to you!
Congratulations, you did better than I expected.
While it is possible that Taylor will drop out, or be forced to drop out, he is currently the Republican candidate. While he is the official candidate I hope that you will support, or at least not hinder his campaign.
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.