Fred Thompson off to a bad start [Hmmmmmm, I'd say somebody else is]

ABC NEWS ^ | Jake Tapper

[ForEternity]

Moreover, when Thompson filed his disclosure form with the IRS, he revealed that $72,000 of the $3.4 million raised is to be used for the general election. Former FEC General Counsel, Larry Noble told the Washington Post "I think it's problematic. Clearly it's a red flag."

[Doofer]

This is ridiculous. He hasn't even formally announced that he's a candidate yet and is already being looked at for breaking campaign law. If you can't keep your nose clean at this stage how can we trust the guy. I will not vote for anyone that is not above board and honest. I'm voting for Mitt!

LOL. What a drama queen.

For your pleasure!

[Always Right]

Of all the attacks on Fred, this goes down as the stupidest. A total non-scandal played up by a Romneybot as if Fred gave nukes to Osama.

[ejonesie22]

I am sure the record will be broken soon...

[EternalVigilance]

Of all the attacks on Fred, this goes down as the stupidest. A total non-scandal played up by a Romneybot as if Fred gave nukes to Osama.

Or signed a permanent assault weapons ban as Governor of Massachusetts or something...

[TAdams8591]

fb....we usually agree. But not about Mitt. That comment really is over the top. Clinton was a used car salesman, I thought it the first time I saw him. Mitt is hardly in that category.

[Doofer]

[WFTR]

My first choice for the presidency is Duncan Hunter. If my choice were between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, I'd pick Mitt Romney based on what I know right now. However, I see nothing of substance in this article. This guy may say that the whole thing waves a red flag, but I think he's waving that red flag at the wrong end of the bull.

Bill

[jellybean]

We have temporarily misplaced the FR rulebook. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I brought the popcorn...there's plenty for everyone. :)

[Squidpup]

That is seriously hysterical

[Squidpup]

Kitty Slap by Admin Moderator:

[ellery]

You’re not helping Romney at all by posting typical gun-grabbing rhetoric in his defense.

[W04Man]

Bump! Go Fred Go!

http://FredForPresident.com

http://Vets4Fred.net

[Clara Lou]

Good morning!
Thanks for your insight on Fred’s funds. The article was so bad, I had no idea how to interpret what little info was there.

[Josh Painter]

Saundra Duffy wrote: “I’m sure he wouldn’t make such a stupid mistake . . . or would he?”

One of Team Thompson’s first hires was Michael Toner, a former chairman of the FEC. Toner is an expert on election law and advises the testing the water organization on what it can and cannot legally do. He should know.

Amazing how some who call themselves “conservative” join ranks with the first leftist moonbat to file a complaint. Their conservatism, it seems, is a mile wide and about an inch deep.

[Lovebloggers]

I want to preface this article by stating while I do support Mitt Romney presently, I am very open to hear what Fred Thompson has to say before I make a final decision.

That said, the bashing of the party who posted this article — instead of discussing this article, has really gone on quite long enough has it not?

Of interest in today’s N.Y. Sun:

A Case of the Vapors
New York Sun Editorial
August 22, 2007

Fred Thompson’s “testing the waters” status in the presidential race may have gotten him in some hot water. As our Ryan Sager reported yesterday, a liberal blogger, Lane Hudson, has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the former Tennessee senator has gone beyond what he’s allowed to do with his current committee under the law. While Mr. Hudson’s motives may be partisan, his reasoning appears to be sound, and Mr. Thompson’s campaign will have to give a serious answer to the charges 15 days after the FEC formally serves it with the complaint. That said, while Mr. Thompson must certainly follow the law as it is written, the law he’s fallen afoul of is rather silly. As an author of some of this silliness himself, having helped shepherd the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-regulation law through the Senate, he could go a long way toward restoring his good name by challenging these rules head-on.

What’s gotten Mr. Thompson in trouble is that in order to be considered in the “testing the waters” phase of one’s campaign, one cannot make “written or oral statements” that refer to one’s self as “a candidate for a particular office.” However, in order to keep up interest from voters, Mr. Thompson has had to play a little peek-a-boo with statements such as: “You’re either running or not running. I think the steps we’re taking are pretty obvious.” But why should our election laws encourage candidates to engage in such charades? The “testing the waters” status allows candidates to delay disclosing who their donors are and how much they’ve raised, but this only muddies the waters as voters and donors consider a potential candidate. The only other thing the status accomplishes is to create uncertainty for potential campaigns as to what they can and cannot do as far as raising and spending money and communicating with voters. Having gotten it wrong could end up costing Mr. Thompson more than $1 million in fines.

http://www.nysun.com/article/61064

[bcsco]

I hit the sack early and miss out on all the fun. Sheesh!

BTW, I’d question the correlation between ‘raising’ $72K in campaign donations, and the limit on ‘spending’ over $5k being problematical. Also, if he enters the race in September, as we all expect, and has to file his quarterly report on 10/1, then where’s the issue? It seems to me Fred’s within the ‘quarterly’ window of opportunity here. Anybody? Am I wrong?

[bcsco]

That said, the bashing of the party who posted this article — instead of discussing this article, has really gone on quite long enough has it not?

Nope! Not when he completely misrepresents the article by not posting an important sentence.

[brothers4thID]

Wait.. try reading for comprehension. Thompson will not have to specify where all of his money donated through the testing the waters phase came from until Jan 31, 2008. BUT according to FEC rules he will, every quarter, have to indicate exactly how all campaign funds were raised and spent. So if any of his general election money is used during the campaign (which.. duh!) then he’ll have to indicate where that money came from. Thus, if he declares in September he has to indicate all fund raising and spending activities for that month by October 31st ( 30 days after the 3rd quarter ends.) Then, like EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE, he has to make another disclosure in January 2008 for the 4th quarter of 2007.

I tried putting this in small words so you’ll understand, but I can’t detach my brain that much.

[Spiff]

For myself, I’ll have to think hard and long about the earthquake that will result from Moma spinning in her grave in North Texas if I vote for a man who identifies with a religion that holds that the only way for a wife to get out of hell is for her husband to use a secret name to call her “through the veil.”

You and your "Moma" have some bad information, apparently. That is not a belief of the LDS Church. Given the bad information you've demonstrated that you have here, you must ask yourself what other bad info you have about the beliefs of the LDS Church.

[Fawn]

OMG..I thought that was Ted Danson. Romney looks JUST like him.