David Smith: NOW He Tells Us
NOTE: This was originally posted at 1AM, but was moved to the top for most of the business day Thursday because of the importance of the topic.
_________________________________
All county endorsement processes in Ohio’s US Senate race, at least the open and fair ones, ended Tuesday night with the Fulton County shocker, where incumbent Senator Mike DeWine was defeated by his two challengers, both of whom earned a “qualified” designation.
So NOW, one of those challengers, David Smith, releases this “fact sheet” at his web site. I believe its content was posted sometime in the Tuesday-Wednesday overnight period (anyone with info to the contrary, please e-mail me).
How convenient. After forcing us to rely on this vague, platitude-laden bio for four months, NOW David Smith tells the world that:
- He’s lived in Ohio for no more than 19 months (not that you couldn’t find it, but from real estate records I’d rather not link to, the last purchase date listed at their residential address is August 24, 2005; however, since he ran in the June 2005 Second District Primary, you would think he had to have moved here sometime between August 2004 and March 2005).
- He ran for Congress in Utah in 2002.
- He ran for Congress in Tennessee in the GOP Primary on August 5, 2004.
- He ran for Congress in Ohio in the Second District GOP Primary that took place on June 14, 2005.
I think you’ll see shortly why Mr. Smith waited until now to let everyone know about those previous races.
Mr. Smith-Has-No-Chance-of-Going-to-Washington went to the Utah State GOP convention as a congressional candidate in May of 2002. The convention used what is known as Instant Runoff Voting:
In 2001, the Utah Republican Party adopted instant runoff voting (IRV) for elections that take place at its state conventions. Several counties also use IRV at their county conventions. The party uses IRV to elect officers and to nominate candidates — candidates can win outright at the convention or, if neither of the final two candidates has 60% support, advance to a runoff primary.
IRV was used to nominate congressional candidates in 2002.
Utah’s 2nd District began its IRV with twelve candidates. On each ballot, the last place finisher was eliminated. David Smith was ousted after the third ballot (the entire process of 11 ballots it took to get to the two primary opponents Bridgewater and Swallow is not shown for space reasons):
Apparently buoyed by the stunning success of getting sixteen (count ‘em) people to vote for him, Smith achieved the following result in August 2004’s First District Primary in Tennessee (available in a PDF that can be found at this link; click on “County Totals” under “U.S. House Republican Primary”):
And here is how he did, with the results of all other candidates listed, in the 2005 Second District Primary in Ohio:
Going from a bit over 10% of the vote in 2004 to less than 1% in 2005 is not something one would ordinarily define as “progress.”
Now let’s ask a few serious questions:
- Did David Smith disclose his complete residency history and electoral record to the endorsers listed at his web site before obtaining their endorsements?
- Would Smith have obtained their endorsements if he had disclosed them?
- How many members of county endorsement committees who voted for Smith, especially in Miami County (where he received 118 votes, or roughly 27% of the total) and Fulton County (where he garnered somewhere between 10-18 votes out of 28, and received a rating of “qualified”) would have voted differently if they had known his full residency history and electoral record? (I have one answer already from one of the two counties I just mentioned, which I will keep anonymous for the time being: “I DO think it would have made a difference.”)
More is coming, or as they say, “developing …..”
What we need to do now, at least those of us who support bill pierce, is bombard talk radio and the msm with queries about Bill Pierce. we need to bombard 700 wlw and other stations during talk radio to get bill on radio, and also on tv. i would encourage all your readers to assist in this endeavor.
Comment by Mark — March 30, 2006 @ 10:26 am
This may be a factual representation, but it says nothing about the issues or the candidates. Just because a candidate has run before, doesnt make them unelectable (Bob McEwen comes to mind) - in fact persistence and sacrifice for public service is ADMIRABLE. Who cares if he lived in another couple of states, I believe haveing a similar ideology and strong conservative principles is much more important. If you hear him speak you’ll understand why he gave both Pierce and DeWine a run for their money in Fulton. Just my $.02
Comment by Goes to DC In Your Dreams — March 30, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
#2, See this post for David Smith’s lie to a Cleveland PD reporter about his running for Congress in Utah:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=1746
See this post about either the FEC deadlines he failed to meet OR the untruth he told on the air about having raised $10,000, plus the untruth he has told about the scope of his responsibilities at P&G:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=1701
See this post for a discussion of David Smith’s promises to withdraw from the race under certain conditions that were met that he broke:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=1693
And you can’t deny that he let months go by not only without telling us about himself, but being evasive about it when asked, all of which “just happened” to work to his political advantage.
I happen think that long-time residency, esp for the Senate, is important. I believe the majority of Ohioans agree, which is why Sherrod Brown would hand him his hat if he by some miracle became the nominee.
David may have a long-term future as a politician, but he needs to demonstrate stability and integrity, has utterly failed this time out, and needs to regroup. And, trust me, he hurts his chances for a future political career with each passing day that he fails to do the right thing and drop out for all the reasons cited above, plus the strong need to defeat DeWine. I have spoken to several people who have said it will be their mission in life to oppose him tooth and nail in any future run for any office if he doesn’t drop out soon. Bluster? Maybe, but if I were David I would not want to find out.
Oh, and since “Goes to Washington” is not your name, I had some fun with it. :–>
Comment by TBlumer — March 30, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
Mr. Blumer -
You do post some interesting things about Mr. Smith, however, I don’t think that you are being unbiased. While you have factually reported the election history, I have failed to see any proof that Mr. Smith broke his promise to withdraw if it was determined that he was not the best candidate. In fact, Mitchel did drop out, right after the Miami County endorsement meeting - which was a disaster for him. Smith, however, came out on top of that endorsement (vs. Pierce). Shouldnt Pierce have been pressured to drop out at that point? Or was this a one-sided agrement?
I haven’t seen any credible data anywhere showing how Mr. Pierce is “leading” the race. In reviewing come of the coverage of the Fulton Co. endorsement, it seemed like Smith got equal or even preferential coverage. Also, with Burress saying he’s supporting Mr. Smith vs. DeWine in recent articles, that seem pretty compelling. President of CCV, thats a pretty influential group in the State. So, it may make more sense if you’re a bit more balanced in your coverage. But then again, its your soapbox.
Comment by Goes to Washington — April 1, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
#4, the second promise to withdraw is documented at the last link provided at #2.
The other promise to withdraw if he clearly is trailing to other challengers is on tape at a Columbus Townhall forum.
The rundown remains that Pierce has two wins, two ties, and a third. Smith has one tie and one second. And everything Smith has achieved is tainted by the lack of disclosure — if the various committe members had known what they should have known, they never would have voted for him in these various endorsement meetings.
I believe Smith’s lack of disclosure makes his web site endorsements suspect as well. If they knew all, would they still have endorsed him?
Finally, I’m not pretending to be “unbiased” on Mr. Smith any more because he has violated so many fundamentals of what a candidate should minimally be expected to do.
Comment by TBlumer — April 1, 2006 @ 11:09 pm