The Disappearing and Reappearing Columbus Townhall Forum Post
This is so much fun, I thought everyone should sing a song before reading the post in question:
(To the tune of “The Brady Bunch”)
Here’s the story,
Of a forum posting,
That went up at 8-4-9 on March 2-2.
It discussed the State GOP and a person.
And the person is one David you-know-who.In Columbus,
Was a Townhall posting,
That was up for maybe three (give or take) hours.
Then sometime, before the strike of midnight,
It was taken down and took an early shower.The forum post, the Townhall post,
That’s what happened to the C-bus Townhall post.
From Columbus Townhall last night (from “Peter”):
NEWS FLASH…
I have just personally met with the individual that was at the meeting and in the room when Smith went to the ORP Headquarters. This person was the original source of the buzz about Smith being a shill for the ORP.
This individual has indicated that Smith was listed on the meeting agenda and he was presented with a list of “contributors that will be donating to [Smith’s] campaign.”
At the time, this individual didn’t think anything of it, because he wasn’t aware of who Smith was.
The question for doubters: why would the ORP present a list of contributors to a non-endorsed candidate? Is this against the ORP’s charter? Is this potentially illegal behavior?
You now have the inside story.
I have had a conversation with a person other than “Peter,” the screen name of the original poster, who confirms that the meeting described in the post took place (but not the contents of the meeting).
Should the song be called “The Bennett Bunch”?
_____________________________________
UPDATE: I have received indications that the Columbus Townhall post needs revision, and that the only definitely conclusive point is that Smith was seen at the ORP (and there are two people who claim that). Regardless, there’s certainly enough here to make one wonder what was cooking in Columbus several months ago.
UPDATE 2, March 23, 2AM: Well, the post reappeared. It’s here.
UPDATE 3: March 2, 8:55 AM: I report, you decide — the post was revised overnight, and now says the following:
Boy, this has been a busy night.
The news flash about Smith being in cahoots with the ORP that was previously here has been removed.
The originator of the claim has confirmed that Smith was at a meeting with the ORP, but will no longer confirm the agenda of the meeting or what was or was not said.
I suppose there could be any number of reasons why Smith, a non-endorsed candidate who is going up against the ORP’s endorsed candidate, was at a meeting with the ORP. But without the originator’s backing, the story again becomes nothing more than heresay (sic). Therefore, I apologize to the members of Columbus Townhall, to the Smith campaign and to anyone else that read the story here first.
Tom, the reason it disappeared is that the original source didn’t want to go public with it. He contacted me after to post was put up requesting that I take it down because it could cause problems for him. Respectfully, I removed it.
But you are too quick! By duplicating the post here, the proverbial cat has punched his way out of the bag. So the post is back up.
Peter
Comment by Peter — March 23, 2006 @ 2:04 am
#1, Oh, so now it’s all MY fault. :–> G’night.
Comment by TBlumer — March 23, 2006 @ 2:08 am
LOL. Doesn’t it always seem to work that way?
(I didn’t mean to insinuate that it’s your fault)
Comment by Peter — March 23, 2006 @ 2:23 am
Yeah, Murphy’s Law.
Comment by TBlumer — March 23, 2006 @ 8:47 am
I have to say I was dissapointed with the on again off again nature of this post at CTH. At least, you guys have it documented here.
Rumor or not, true or not, I have concluded it’s all irrelevant. One of our other members summed it up best:
For the record, in my humble opinion, the notion that the Ohio Republican Party is spending one dime, or one second, to “stop” David Smith (or help him) is laugh-out-loud funny.
–MarcShare
As much as I would enjoy another scandel for the Smith campaign–you have to admit, like it or not, he has a lot of truth there.
Comment by Atreides — March 23, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
#5, the “stop” part I could (almost) handle. The “help” part has some circumstantial evidence supporting it (see above), and if (emphasis if) it’s being done, is certainly unethical (since the state party has formally endorsed DeWine effective Sept. 30 of last year), and could (emphasis could) be illegal.
Comment by TBlumer — March 23, 2006 @ 7:46 pm