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 ...
God blankety-blank BLESS America, McCain 2008.
IF this turns out to be true, it should only be highly publicized AFTER the Denver convention. Timing is key with Obama.
Why would you broadcast an October surprise in May? Doesn’t it lose its impact? Doesn’t it allow the Dems to take another path? Why the warning shot?
Larry Sinclair will sink him before this even scratches him.
I really don't see it being that big of a deal. Maybe a few days worth of bad press, but it is not a campaign-buster.
Re: “IF this turns out to be true, it should only be highly publicized AFTER the Denver convention. Timing is key with Obama.”
(1) It IS true; it is a fact that the IRS is investigating Obama’s church, and Obama’s speech with campaign related content is a matter of record. The only question is where the IRS will place the blame.
(2) The superdelegates are unlikely to act on this but, if they do, it will split the national Democratic party apart, perhaps fatally. Obama’s people will squeal “racism” (their answer to everything) and sit on their hands on Election Day. If the superdelegates don’t follow this advice, the scandal will destroy Obama’s candidacy as I have said. Either way, the bad guys lose.
Re: “ I really don’t see it being that big of a deal. Maybe a few days worth of bad press, but it is not a campaign-buster.”
It busted the Million Mom March in 2000. I know quite a bit about the details, by the way. :-) If the NRA had followed up with all its resources, Hillary Clinton might easily have lost the 2000 Senate election.
Thats the facts. This isn't the smoking gun, sorry.
“Why would you broadcast an October surprise in May? Doesn’t it lose its impact? Doesn’t it allow the Dems to take another path? Why the warning shot?”
(1) Because the CAUSE of the October Surprise needs time to circulate. If I posted this in October, it might not spread widely enough to stop Obama’s momentum.
(2) The Dems don’t have another path at this point. If the superdelegates give the nomination to Clinton, enough of Obama’s constituents will be so angry that they will sit out the election. (Remember that Toricelli stepped aside voluntarily, and was not forced out.)
To put it another way, I never tell my adversary what I am going to do unless I am sure he has no defense against it. I’m quite confident that there is nothing Obama’s camp can do about this issue.
“Sorry, but I disagree. Even if UCC is found guilty of campaign finance problems that won’t do diddly-squat to Obama’s campaign changes. It will be a total non-event.”
Having a national church (the ENTIRE UCC, not just the Chicago branch) lose its tax exemption because of Obama’s willful misuse of its resources will be a non-event??? Only if our side is too weak-willed (what Machievelli calls ozio, the opposite of virtu) to do anything with it.
No one will care about this.
I agree with you. This is not the coup de grace. It’s a minor cut.
Democrats only chase their own out of office for not towing a particular party line. Elliott Spitzer ticked off the wrong people. Teddy Kennedy didn't.
Democrats don't expect their pols to be honest, only communists.
I fear this Larry guy will be dismissed by the media and thus the public, but hope you are right.
You are just tooooooooooo wonderful for words. It is on my blog as of this very minute and sent to people who know how to use it wisely.
After all the “He is an ARAB not an African” it comes down to the IRS bringing him to his knees. And here I am wishing we could abolish the IRS. LOL.
THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart.
Especially so since neither John McCain or Hillary Clinton are involved.
Re: “Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others have used their churches as a political power base and for political activism for themselves and democrat candidates. The churches provided funds and location to speak for and against particular candidates. These churches still have their tax exempt status.”
(1) Unlike the churches you mention, the UCC might lose its tax exempt status thanks to Obama.
(2) Had someone acted on the alleged misconduct by Jackson and so on, their churches also might be in trouble. UCC is in trouble because someone turned it in to the IRS. The Million Mom March was in trouble because I exposed it personally.
If we don’t act on this, we will have only ourselves to blame when Obama gets inaugerated. Winners never quit, and quitters never win.
I was a democrat for over 30 years, but I love my country and I believe that I have a responsibility to my country to work to prevent Obama’s election. I have many questions about him that have remained unanswered.
I don't care about his skin color, that is not my problem with him and I want to get that out of the way to start. My problems with him mainly revolve around his questionable relationships. As far as I'm concerned, the information about Rev Wright should have destroyed his campaign and they did not.The Larry Sinclair situation should destroy his campaign and so far it has not. The Donald Young story has the potential but we still do not know.
I also worry about his relationship with Raila Odinga and muslims in general. I worry about his relationship with Brzezinski. I worry that he is possibly what we would describe as a “Manchurian Candidate”.
I have already made my decision, I will be voting for McCain in the fall. I realize that I have not been on a Republican path through this life, but in this matter we share a goal.
I have heard/read rumors that Obama took a 3 week trip to Pakistan in 1981.
I have read that Brzezinski took a trip to Pakistan in 1981 as well.
My question is: Do any of you know about this alleged trip to Pakistan? Is there any way we can verify this info and get it out to the public?
Thanks in advance for any info you can provide! In the end, we are all Americans regardless of our politics.
I very much hope this is true.
I am willing to bet that there are reams of Obama dirt just waiting to be uncovered. He has been handled with kid gloves by the liberal MSM because they do not want to seem rascist. So basically until few months ago, he made it this far by not properly being vetted.
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.