Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tsomer
As far as I can tell, whether it's "dirty" in a legal sense isn't really the issue here. To the folks who wrote the letter, it's "dirty" by virtue of the fact that it's from "gambling interests."

The Lamborn folks kept track of the donation with enough accuracy to later allegedly return it.

All the Barthas did, was to write a letter to the editor. In response, they apparently got Lamborn being way over the top. A Congressman should expect folks to write things like that in the paper -- and he shouldn't respond as Lamborn is said to have done.

72 posted on 09/03/2007 8:12:18 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb
...and he shouldn't respond as Lamborn is said to have done.

That's certainly true... It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Lamborn folks kept track of the donation with enough accuracy to later allegedly return it.

They had records of the donation, but would they have kept a profile on all potential donors? How quickly did he return the donation?

Again, I don't know the details, but I find myself more sympathetic towards Lamborn than many of the respondents. Republicans of any kind are getting scarce, and I hate to see them undermined from within their own ranks.

There's a tendency our side to make--and I think Voltaire said this-- "the best the enemy of the good."

74 posted on 09/03/2007 8:41:54 PM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson