[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]

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.

[Always Right]

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?

???? What is there to discuss? I could file some complaint against Hillary and it would mean as much as what this moonbat filed. The complainant may not like Fred and how Fred is running his campaign, but Fred played by the rules. Anybody whot tries to make hay out of this just being a mindless Fred opponent playing up to the moonbats. I would be ashamed if I was Romney and my supporters jumped on this.

[lesser_satan]

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?

I must respectfully disagree. He changed the title of the piece, and omitted the first sentence, which was critical. If you want to have an intelligent discussion of the issue, start a thread on this NY Sun piece and we'll discuss it in a respectful and intelligent manner.