Yes, I saw the Julie Smith by-line and clicked anyway, because the headline referenced Rep. Scott Wallace, whom I voted for. And I waded through the usual ego-trip of Why I’m writing this and How I intend to structure this, to get to the beef. Only, where’s the beef?
Thanks to Spike for the Op-Ed – Send yours to steve@granitegrok.com
o Rep. Wallace “misled his peers” about abandoning the Danville seat to seek the floterial seat? The local Constitutional candidates all played musical chairs to their own peril, and no one was misled or uninformed. A townie supporting his opponent knew about the switch and disparaged Rep. Wallace’s motives.
o Rep. Wallace stealing a Trump yard sign? That’s preposterous; when he visited my house with two of his, he made his support for Trump evident.
o Who is the plaintiff? His primary opponent? I carried an Emily sign all morning at the polls and heard from multiple sources that Rep. Wallace’s opponent was quick to run to the police over everything including harsh words.
o Failed to file a final campaign finance report? Meh! Do we need more evidence that campaign “ethics” law is as ineffective as a “gun-free zone”? It exists only to enable character assassination, generate violations, provide extra jobs for Democrats, and feed junk-mailers. Why do we lose the right against unreasonable search when we petition for redress?
o Failed to take down a campaign sign? I’ve seen it; guilty as charged. Again, meh!
o Arrested and charged? For what? The docket number fails a web search, both generally and in the Rockingham District Court. Might we have a link to the complaint? Or, as usual, is fleshing out a Julie Smith story “left as an exercise to the reader”?
o What is the link between these events? The fact that Rep. Wallace is a bad person, despite a 99% voting record, because he voted to limit the Right-to-Know law? What is the thesis? That one must never cross Julie Smith?
