So in your studied estimation, then, a householder that goes out, or a ten percenter that goes out, laden with the potential inferences, maybe perhaps specifically designed to raise inferences that are not partisan, per se, but really address the individual--the individual approach, from there, flowing back on a partisan issue--has crossed the line in terms of impacting on the member's ability to do the job.
There's no debate following it. I mean, once something is out there, it's out there in the public domain. One can't go out there and speak to another 10,000 households and say that this is wrong. There would appear to be a clear preponderance of fact and innuendo in one direction that obviously the individual cannot possibly fight back on in a debate environment. It's clearly impossible. So the intent would appear to be to cause the inference to explode beyond control.