Bilbray Slams Roach for NOT Voting
Republican congressional candidte Brian Bilbray is once again hitting fellow Republican candidates.
This time he is out with a mail piece that smacks Republican candidate Eric Roach.
The mailer carries the title "INSIDE: The Truth About Mystery Congressional Candidate VINCENT ERIC ROACH"
The mailer then goes on to document election after election that Roach is accused of failing to vote in. The other day Roach admitted to the Roger Hedgecock Show that he had not made political contributions or backed other political candidates. He explained that his involvement in making for a better world was not through politics but through charity.
These allegations of failing to vote, if true, would be very harmful for Roach’s message. As a "newbie" candidate he is asking the public to instill trust in him to serve as their representative and vote on their behalf in Congress. Bilbray is alleging that Roach hasn’t even been bothering to vote in recent elections and participate in the democratic process.
If these allegations are NOT true then Shame on Brian Bilbray.
Roach is going to have to address these charges and tell us all whether they or true or not. Time is running out for the public to make up their minds and these charges are quite serious.
You can read more about this at the Flash Report blog. Jon Fleischman also has uploaded a pdf file of the Bilbray hit on Roach.
It’s all available here.
Hmm…so back while Bilbray was voting in Congress….Roach wasn’t voting at all!
Comment by Cross Tabs — April 7, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
Great, great, mailer. The more we find out about Roach, the more certain I am we need to go with a proven entitiy.
Comment by In n Out — April 7, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
So much for the Eleventh Commandment that Bilbray’s mouthpiece Hedgecock has been asking all the Republican candidates to adhere to. Bilbray’s tracking polls must show that he is fading fast for him to send out a desperation mailing of this sort. Shame on Hedgecock and Bilbray for their hypocrisy.
Comment by holier than thou — April 7, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
Um…how about shame on Eric Roach for being the first Rep to send out a negative mail piece?
Comment by Cross Tabs — April 7, 2006 @ 10:00 pm
Or shame on Eric Roach for not being interetsed enough to even vote.
And how does Roach explain to his closest supporters why he didn’t vote for Prop. 22 - one man -one woman?
Comment by In n Out — April 7, 2006 @ 10:22 pm
Well he is Mormon, so maybe it was the “one woman” part he objected to. (I know that was low…but I have such little will power).
Comment by Cross Tabs — April 7, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
Cross Tabs that was way below the belt.
You know I’m no fan of Roach. But the LDS church and its members were instrumental in the passage of prop 22. How long have you been in this state? Everybody knows that.
Comment by yeah right — April 7, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
It was a JOKE, ok? Obviously the true reason he didn’t vote was a lack of civic duty. That is the true reason he doensn’t deserve to represent us in Congress, as well.
Comment by Cross Tabs — April 7, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
I might be mistaken, but if your working at the World Trade Center and making your residence in NYC, you probably can’t vote in… I don’t know, say… California’s elections.
As I understand it, Eric was working in the Twin Towers from 1997 to 2001 and living in New York.
So who do I want in office?
(A) A successful businessman who happened to spend part of his professional life pioneering online trading?
–OR–
(B) A disgraced ex-congressman from Imperial (read: out of district) turned lobbyist who now lives in Virgina?
Give me option (A) any day.
Comment by One Hot Minute — April 7, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
Cross Tabs—I should have said, “The LDS church and its members–apparently minus Eric Roach–were instrumental…” I don’t want to get all gushy on Roach today or you guys wouldn’t recognize me! heh.
I’m totally not defending him not voting, but I’m justing saying leave his church out of it.
Comment by yeah right — April 7, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
He was registered to vote in California. If he was really out of the state at the time, why didn’t he vote by absentee ballot?
Comment by In n Out — April 7, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
Well did he vote in New York? This is a pretty awfully misleading mailer if he voted in all elections, just not in CA as he was moving around. But if he kept his CA registration and just didn’t vote, that isn’t all that comforting since he could have signed up for absentee.
Not voting because you move around is, eh, kind of understandable for a joe shmoe, but IMHO if you want to be in congress, that requires a higher caliber of citizenship.
Comment by yeah right — April 7, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
Then why did he sign an affidavit saying he was previously registered in Santa Clara, or San Jose, or wherever he falsely claimed he was? It also doesn’t explain his failure to vote in 2002 (if and IF what you are claiming is indeed true). And why is Bilbray “disgraced?” Because he lost to an opponent who spent millions of dollars in negative advertising, who was funded by the same unions who soon after bankrupted City Hall? If those union bosses wanted him out so bad, I would take that as a badge of honor!
Comment by Cross Tabs — April 7, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
Well, since I haven’t heard any of the Roach people saying that Roach voted in New York, I’m going to assume he didn’t. He could have easily gotten an absentee ballot, or, depending on his residency status, registered in New York. Being new, the local issues there may not have been very significant to him, but how could he pass up the chance to vote in a national presidential election?
Comment by yeah right — April 8, 2006 @ 1:13 am
Bilbray’s hit piece is not accurrate. Roach didn’t file that suit and cost San Diego taxpayers money (as his hit piece claims). It was filed by Duane Admire, a voter in the 50th. (notice he intentionaly draws a line through the Plaintiffs name and then blames Roach. Further, the Suit was filed in Sacramento County, not San Diego. So it didn’t cost the “San Diego” taxpayers anything. Also, the suit was to force Bilbray to put his real occupation as lobbyist on his ballot, as oppose to stating he is an “imigration reform consultant”. Further, the filing fees for the suit paid for the Judges 30 minutes of time he spent. If the rest of the piece is as accurrate as that portion, I would not trust it. Use your own judgment.
Comment by Bilbray's hit is in error. — April 8, 2006 @ 5:39 am
While I’m at it, Bilbray’s hit piece claims Roach is a San Francisco transplant and uses as evidence a voter piece (which he shows Roach’s birth place, social security number ending digits an his date of birth) that could be used by criminals to steal Roach’s identity.–Bilbray should’nt have done that. But further, the city last lived in is Saratoga–NOT San Francisco. Being From San Francisco, I hate to tell Bilbray, but Saratoga is Silicon Valley, not the City by the Bay.
Also, his final claim against Roach that he didn’t sign immigration reform “no amnesty” pledge. That is the organization that Bilbray cliams to have co-founded and took $80,000 from last year as thier lobbyist. Roach says all over his television and radio adds that “amnesty is not the answer”,
I don’t know about any of the other claims–although I do believe it was reported that Roach was the first of 4 millionaires in the race to break the spending threshold for campaigns that allowed others to raise more money per contributing party–but I would be suspect as to the other cliams, as three of the 5 are certainly not true.
Comment by Bilbray's hit is in error. — April 8, 2006 @ 5:50 am
So, “hit in error” I just have one question? Did Roach vote or not? That is the meat of the piece, and so far none of his erstwhile supporters have been able to point out to me when the heck this guy has voted in recent memory. That’s certainly not someone I want to send to Congress, where one of your primary responsibilities is, you know, voting.
Comment by DC Guy — April 8, 2006 @ 8:08 am
Look at the press clips. Roach’s people admitted his campaign paid for the lawsuit and it was filed by his campaign lawyer. And look at who he sued - the County and the State. They had to respond to this frivilous suit which was thrown out of court and that costs taxpayers’s money.
Comment by In n Out — April 8, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
The lawsuit wasn’t thrown out… The judge found Bilbray had two occupations. 1. lobbyist (in which he was paid for) 2. consultant (which he wasn’t paid for) and allowed him to put his second occupation. The judge made a ruling based on Bilbrays false declaration that he was a consultant–he certainly didn’t throw out the suit. Again, the suit didn’t cost taxpayers a dime..filing fees paid by the Plaintiff covered more than the court costs. I admit, Bilbray may have lost money for his own lawyer to defend him; I suppose if you consider that his Washington lobbying payments were essentially swindled out of our tax dollars from the Federal Budget, then paid to his lawyer, the lawsuit did cost the taxpayers. But certainly cost taxpayers a lot less than it would if we were to send him back to Congress. If we do that, then the taxpayers will really pay!
Comment by Bilbray bloggers continue his spin! — April 8, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
The judge agreed with Bilbray and dismissed the case by Roach.
The State of CA (TAXPAYERS) sent a lawyer to court to defend itself against Roach’s lawsuit, which was indeed thrown out.
If Roach thought he had such a strong acse, why didn’t he appeal?
Comment by In n Out — April 8, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
And if the state had to have a lawyer draft a letter then….bingo! Yes, it did cost the state money. Thanks for being so fiscally conservative, Vincent!
Comment by DC Guy — April 8, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
If people in the 50th are dumb enough to vote for candidate like Roach (lots of money, very very little substance) they deserve him as their representative. How shallow can these voters be???
Roach wins = I’m moving.
Comment by Encinitas Local — April 9, 2006 @ 2:44 am
Revoutionizing the financial industry requires an ability to execute if you ask me. It requires depth in vision, understanding, problem solving and brain power. Shallow is your term for “unknown” and “lack of political experience.”
Wall Street is just as political as Washington, except the barracudas are smarter. Political experience is worthless, unless in means knowing how to exchange money for favors to climb the political power ladder.
Roach will do just fine in Washington, wait and see.
Comment by Howard Can\'t win but won\'t drop — April 9, 2006 @ 7:26 am