During heated campaigns, candidates make all kinds of assertions. Some of these comments are true. Some are not. It is incumbent upon the candidate to be savvy enough to know the difference between a comment ( if untrue) he can get away with and one that will come back to bite him.
A candidate can say, "My opponent is a liar." Nothing usually happens. A candidate can say, "Since my opponent called me a RINO, I have received overwhelming support." Nothing usually happens. BUT, when a candidate gets very specific with questionable assertions, he may create a problem for himself. This kind of comment MAY have unintended consequences. Case in point:
In the County Council District 3 race, the newly organized group called 'The RINO Hunters' got actively involved. The group's stated mission is to educate the public as to which candidate in the various races is deemed a "true Conservatives" and which is not. They initiated their local efforts during the District 3 race. The group concluded the challenger was the "true Conservative". But, because of past affiliation with the more Liberal party and his recent voting record which sided with the Liberal Democrats on Council, the group labeled the professed "Republican" incumbent, Bob Call, as a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
When the press asked Mr. Call what effect the RINO signs was having on his campaign, the gist of his reply was, 'I'm not worried about the RINO signs. As a matter of fact, "since they went up, I have received five thousand dollars in campaign contributions"'. This is one of those potentially problematic situations referred to earlier.
All candidates in all races are obliged by law to file financial reports to the Ethics Commission on an established schedule, declaring all contributions and expenditures of their campaigns. Mr. Call did not declare this supposed 5 thousand dollars in donations on any of his financial statements to the Ethics Commission. This fact leaves this incumbent in a conundrum. Was his statement to the press untrue or was his financial statement to the Ethics Commission untrue? Logic dictates it has to be one or the other.
It seems the Ethics Commission agrees. There is a hearing scheduled in November to get to the bottom of this situation. It will be very interesting to hear Mr. Call's explanation.
Mr. Call may have problems on yet another front. There are rumblings that not all of those responsible for oversight of legal proceedings are entirely satisfied that protocol was followed concerning Mr. Call's court challenge after he lost the election. Since this issue is still being officially investigated, we will save that story for a later date.