Is this the pot calling the kettle black, the law of unexpected (or hoped for) consequences, or what? -- Progeny of accusation of being "duplicitous."

A couple of centuries ago Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott penned one of my favorite lines :

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”

(Sir Walter Scott's Marmion.)

Duplicitous and such word's first cousins deceive and deception were the words of the week in Atlanta last week, with the Democratic Party of Georgia Chair accusing mayoral candidate Mary Norwood of being a "duplicitous" Republican.

Some have accused the Chair herself of being the one out to deceive while on her search and destroy and take no prisoners mission. Those pointing the accusing finger and questioning the Chair's motive, sense of fair play and logic have been hard-core Democrats.

I live in a different area code in the Other Georgia, and regardless, would not likely be the recipient of any GOP originated robo call.

Thus I cannot vouch for the accuracy of what is reported in a Sunday post on Peach Pundit that a robo call billed as a “Republican Action Alert” is informing the recipients of the call

not to vote for Mary Norwood because “she doesn’t represent our Republican Values” and [going] on to play audio of Norwood stating she voted for Obama, Kerry and Clinton and then went to a GOP convention once and hated it.

Is this the reaction the Chair's was expecting and hoping for from her charge against Mary Norwood, or, and the Good Lord forbid, something more sinister, such as the accuser of another as being "duplicitous" herself being duplicitous and even being complicitous.

Do I believe such rampant speculation about complicity? Of course not, but I do so regret and deplore the unfortunate direction this race has taken in the last few days on account of actions of others besides the candidates themselves (just as happened in the New York special election as discussed in this earlier post).