Thursday, March 18, 2010

Smoking Gun: Document Shows Sipprelle Is Crying Wolf Over Republican Registration Flack

When the Halfacre campaign released a claim that Scott Sipprelle had not registered as a Republican until 2007 just before the Middlesex County Screening Committee meeting, Sipprelle fired back the next day with documentation that they claimed "proved" that Sipprelle has been a registered Republican since 1988 when he registered in Hudson County, that he was a registered Republican throughout his residency is Bergen County and blamed the Mercer County Clerk for a clerical error that did not carry over his party affiliation when he moved to Princeton in 2001.

The Sipprelle campaign accused the Halfacre campaign of either outright lying or of sloppy research. Even the usually skeptical "Wally Edge" of Politickernj fell for Sipprelle's gambit, scolding Halfacre for incomplete research because "The Sipprelle campaign responded with evidence that their candidate had been voting in GOP primaries since 1988 – documentation that’s not especially hard to find, if you want to find it."

Had Wally critically examined the documents that Sipprelle released, he would have seen that they are not "evidence that their candidate had been voting in GOP primaries since 1988." Sipprelle's documentation showed that he voted in Hudson County GOP primary in 1988, that he registered to vote in Bergen County in 1991, but that he did not vote in a primary until 2000.

Documentation from the Bergen County Board of Elections, obtained today by MoreMonmouthMusings, proves that Sipprelle was an unaffilated voter in Bergen County from 1991 through 2000 when he declared his affiliation at the primary polls.

Here it is:

If Sipprelle stays true to form, he will blame this on a clerical error on the part of the Bergen County Clerk in 1991, just as he blamed the Mercer County Clerk for not properly registering his affiliation in 2001.

When Wally finishes wiping the egg off his face, he should ask the Sipprelle camp if they had this document last week but didn't include it with the rest of the documents they released the day after they lost at the Middlesex County Screening Committee.

A commenter asked me last week if I thought this was a legitimate issue. At the time I said that I didn't think it was any more legitimate than Chris Christie's driving record or mamograms were in last year's election. In and of itself, I don't think Sipprelle's registration is necessarily a disqualifying issue. I don't think his donations to Democrats, in and of themselves, are disqualifying. Both are a legitimate matters of concern for Republican voters and should be addressed by the candidate forthrightly. That Sipprelle refuses to address these issues forthrightly and now in the case of his registration has apparently intentionally withheld relevant documentation while at the same time calling his opponent a liar should be a cause for concern for all Republicans. As Sipprelle would say, it makes you question the source.

Sipprelle has declared that his campaign is a honest one and that he is following Reagan's 11th commandment. He has said that he is a bona fide reformer and a champion of ethics.

As a young adult, Sipprelle came of age in the culture of Morgan Stanley, a once great investment banking institution founded upon the ideals of J.P. Morgan, Jr.

Speaking before the a subcommittee of the U.S.Senate Banking and Currency Committee in 1933, Morgan said,

The private banker is a member of a profession which has been practiced since the middle ages. In the process of time there has grown up a code of professional ethics and customs on the observance of which depend his reputation, his force and his usefulness to the community in which he works...If in the exercise of his profession, the private banker disregards this code, which could never be expressed in any legislation, but has a force far greater than any law, he will sacrifice his credit. This credit is his most valuable possession; it is the result of years or faith and honorable dealing and while it may be quickly lost, once lost cannot be restored for a long time, if ever. The banker must at all times conduct himself as to justify the confidence of his clients in him, and thus preserve it for his successors.

As we know all too well, few politicians live up to such a code. Now a days, few bankers do either. But Scott Sipprelle has been trying to lead us to believe he follows such a code while feigning righteous indignation about his opponent's "Half-Truths."

The cat's out of the bag. Sipprelle has successfully made mountains out of the registration and donation mole hills because he is not comfortable telling the truth.

There are lots a questions Scott Sipprelle needs to answer before the GOP considers his nomination for Congress. The most important one is "Who are you and what do you stand for?" Really.