Posted on 05/12/2008 10:15:21 AM PDT by Winged Hussar
[Placed in the public domain, copying and widespread circulation are encouraged]
The Democratic Party’s superdelegates, even those who have endorsed Barack Obama, need to do some serious reconsideration between now and the convention. Should Obama become the nominee, the Democrats are likely to find themselves in the same situation as they did with Robert Toricelli (D-NJ) in 2002. As described by Wikipedia (more information at the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20602-2001May12),
In the middle of an increasingly competitive race against Republican Doug Forrester, Torricelli decided not to run for reelection after disclosure of illegal contributions to his campaign by David Chang, a businessman connected to North Korea. In a speech, Torricelli stated that despite his leaving public office in a different way than he planned, he was proud of his service.
The Democratic Party then had to persuade the New Jersey Supreme Court to bypass the deadline for ballot changes to replace Toricelli with Frank Lautenberg. It is more than likely that the Democrats will find themselves in the same situation this year if Obama becomes the nominee, because of Obama’s questionable use of the United Church of Christ’s tax exempt resources to support his campaign. The Internal Revenue Service is currently investigating Obama’s church and, depending on when it announces its findings, it will render Obama unelectable or (should be be elected before the IRS announces its findings), leave him with a crippled and scandal-ridden Presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at husaria.wordpress.com ...
Riiiiight. ;-)
You’re always good for a smile, buddy.
I applaud your good work. Unfortunately, I am afraid that Obama, being black, is immune to all scandals.
I also agree with you. People know instinctively that the campaign finance laws are absurd. If anything, the very existence of these laws disqualifies McCain from office.
And, McCain himself fell afoul of his own laws.
So, no, this isn’t the knockout punch.
This post reminds me of Doug From Uplands long series about the Stan Lee / Peter Paul campaign finance bruhaha that was going to put Hillary on the stand and end her run. I told him, too, that's not going to happen. And somehow, mysteriously, the whole thing has fizzled out without any court dates. Peter WHO?
“This post reminds me of Doug From Uplands long series about the Stan Lee / Peter Paul campaign finance bruhaha that was going to put Hillary on the stand and end her run. I told him, too, that’s not going to happen. And somehow, mysteriously, the whole thing has fizzled out without any court dates. Peter WHO?”
That is why viral E-mails were invented. One good viral E-mail can do more harm to Obama’s campaign than a million dollars of campaign contributions from his impressive fundraising machine can fix. This is why we need to circulate this material and use it for letters to the editor.
And we don’t have to convict Obama in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt (in fact, since no one was accused of an actual crime, no one has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). We need only prove him guilty in the court of public opinion, and I think the facts I cited in this post are more than enough.
(1) He was told the rules in advance
(2) His written speech is a clearcut violation of those rules, and the fact that it was written shows a premeditated intention to break the rules
That ought to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.