Amidst the whirl and rush in the blogosphere, the folks at Roanoke Red Zone noticed that Gilmore changed his initial response on Everquest’s “earnings.” Initially, it was “$100 million in revenue” (WSLS) - an utterly meaningless statistic. After some folks starting noticing and asking questions, hesto presto, it’s now “$100 million in profit.”
As I said last night, I’d love to see Everquest’s books; that would settle the matter. Outside of that, though, we do have one other piece of evidence that make’s Gilmore’s “correction” look like something else again – the initial story itself. Take a look at what Everquest’s current CEO had to say about the firm’s situation (WSLS):
Gilmore remains chairman of Everquest, a private corporation whose CEO, Michael J. Levitt, said generated about $100 million in revenue for about a dozen shareholders last year.
There’s that word again: revenue – not profit - and from a fellow who was likely just trying to find the best spin for Everquest, not expecting the Chairman to order a rewrite to keep his U.S. Senate campaign afloat.
The more anyone looks at the Gilmore campaign’s reaction to this, the worse it gets.
March 26, 2008 at 1:06 pm |
This is the definition of a feeding frenzy we’re witnessing here.
This is the anatomy of a smear campaign.
March 26, 2008 at 1:15 pm |
Hi John! I was afraid you were ignoring me after all the time you spent at RRZ.
Then again, you put a lot more thought into your rants over there.
March 26, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
Hi Liberal!
Apologies for not haunting your blog, I hope you don’t feel like a jilted girl on prom night!
I don’t understand, though, how anything I posted to Ex Senator Bell and Mr. Moore could be considered a “rant”. Could it, perchance, be because I don’t agree with you?
Enjoy your smear!
March 26, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
Disagreements are one thing, but calling accurate and pertinent information a “smear” is what qualifies as a rant to me.
March 26, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
But alas Mr. Liberal, Only you and Brandon Bell consider what you’re writing pertinent. “I don’t consider your ‘wall street buddy’” neither a reliable source of information nor even relevant to the discussion. In fact, the very idea of two Bob Marshall supporters trying to attack Gilmore over this begs the question, what are your real motives?
If you want to do some actual leg work, why don’t you write the CEO of Everquest or their lawyers and ask if you can see all of their financial statements, day to day operations, or anything of that matter?
March 26, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
Wow, gotta love the double negative, allow me to revise (though I fear you’ll ignore this and just read the previous.)
I consider your “wall street buddy” neither a reliable source of information nor even relevant to the discussion.
March 26, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
Its not a smear campaign when facts are involved. I have read this blog extensively and nothing righwingliberal writes is an untrue smear. The more I see of Gilmore, the less appealing he becomes. We have 8 Republicans representing us in Congress and we can truly do no better than a former governor who is about as unpopular as they come. Truly pathetic. Thats exactly why we need to send him into permanent retirement at the convention and at least give Bob Marshall a fighting chance. I think many within the grassroots community are figuring this out as well.
March 26, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
My motive is not hidden – to get Bob Marshall the nomination.
I just have another reason why with this.
Oh, and many thanks, MTC.
March 26, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
John,
I have not declared for any candidate for the US Senate. As a good Republican I will support the nominee. I just would like to see us nominate someone that can win–it ain’t Gilmore.
Also I carry a brokers license along with a registered principal’s license. I don’t need another source to understand that this is a dog of an deal.
Really, read the 75 page Barclay’s lawsuit filed against Bear Stearns in December of 2007. If only 10% is true this deal big time stinks.
March 26, 2008 at 8:55 pm |
Amen on the “it ain’t Gilmore” comment, Brandon Bell. Bob Marshall is a principled leader who has enough appeal to garner endorsements (during the Delegate race) from The Sierra Club and gain crossover voter appeals. Gilmore has a lot of scandal swirling around him, and if he is the nominee for the Republicans, we are toast.
March 27, 2008 at 6:51 pm |
Crystal Clear:
Whatever it is you and DEEJ are drinking…can I have some? I’ll take mine up, with an olive and shaken not stirred.
You guys are absolutely nuts if you think liberal environmentalists and moderates are gonna vote for an extreme social conservative like Marshall just because he got an endorsement from the Sierra Club.
In fact, I’ll bet you dollars to dilithium that in a match up between Marshall and Warner, the Sierra Club will find a way to endorse Warner and that’ll be the end of this little bullet point for Marshall right then and there.
Get real folks. Gilmore has a 5% chance of beating Warner and Marshall has 0% chance of beating Warner. It’s time for you Marshall folks to pull your head out of your rectums and support the person that anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows has even a sliver of a shot at beating Warner.
March 27, 2008 at 8:10 pm |
“It’s time to . . . support the person that anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows has even a sliver of a shot at beating Warner.”
Actually, Jay, CC and I already do. It’s you who is backing the hopeless candidate.