Posted on 08/21/2007 6:13:13 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
You made a jackass out of yourself with your post #205 — demonstration that you did not read the CBS blog which points out that the NYT pretty much screamed for someone to file a complaint with the FEC, prompting a partisan hack to take the bait.
But you keep patting yourself on the back, as long as you have your cheerleader here to rah rah you on then it’s all good right?
Thanks. My wife thinks so!
I don't know whether I can quote from the site or not, but I'll give a condensed version. Here's the nub: The story suggested that Thompson’s “testing the waters” Web site amounted to a “stealth campaign” in cyberspace, and that existing election laws didn’t cover such activities. Then there came a curious little factoid sixteen paragraphs in:
The [Federal Election Commission]’s regulations say a “testing-the-waters candidate” may not conduct campaign-type activities “in close proximity to the election or over a protracted period of time.” Mr. Biersack said the agency would need to have a complaint to act.
So they would “need to have a complaint to act,” eh? I remember reading that article last week and wondering how much time it would take for that shoe to drop, since the Times dangled it in front of Thompson foes so darn enticingly. Enter blogger Lane Hudson – you might remember him from such Internet-related stories as Mark Foley’s sexual instant messages and e-mails to a page – who, according to the Associated Press, has decided he’ll be the one to file the complaint and question Thompson’s tactic.
First, it's up to the FEC to determine whether a complaint is actionable. Just because a complaint is filed, there is no automatic obligation to act.
Second, it hedges on what is considered "campaign type activities". We certainly are NOT in "close proximity to the election", and the FEC would have to determine what "a protracted period of time" is. A week? A month? A Quarter? A year? Again, the FEC will not likely act unless it believes such activities were involved, and break the guidelines. Just because someone files a complaint is not sufficient evidence of said activity.
The balance of the CBS blogspot addresses how the NYT came up with an article, and how the blogger jumped on it within days. Nothing here to be concerned with.
You are assuming much. I am not. Now, let's get on with life, shall we?
WOW! You sure are getting feisty with the FRiberals today.
Keep it up!
So what if the Times did this? So what? Does that make it true? Does that mean anything? you're the jackass. Both in the use of your language and posture, and your obvious mishandling of information and misunderstanding of the issue.
Now, begone. You're not someone worthy of my time. Any future post to me will incur an abuse charge.
:) Unfortunately, my garden is calling. I’ll be back later.
Uh no. I merely pointed out where it stemmed from jackass, and my post was not addressed to you (the party it was addressed to responded that he was not surprised the NY Times did that).
That was my point.
You grouped me into this anti Thompson category because that is how you debate. I came into the thread to read about this allegation, and to determine if it has any credibility. I offered some links to articles that dicussed it in greater detail.
You are the one who made your nonsensical comments about NYT and CBS which clearly demonstrated you not only did not read the link, you are in this thread just to hurl insults.
Nice try on the abuse charge also. You made reference upon reference in my direction throughout this thread and when I take you to task you whine like the schoolgirl you are.
Pathetic.
AS I said earlier, why don’t you start a new thread with the NY Sun piece you posted earlier? If you come on a thread posted by a troll and take the troll’s side you’re going to catch hell, so start a new thread. And don’t change the title or omit sentences if you do.
It's funny how that logic escapes some people.
I never took his side, I just wanted to discuss the article and thought the attacks on the poster were getting excessive.
I added the NY Sun editorial because it specifically addressed this issue — which is that a FEC complaint has been filed. In this case, it really does not matter who the party was who filed it as it will need to be addressed regardless.
I am more interested in Thompson’s response, and wish he would just formally declare himself as a candidate so he is not open to these type of political games.
Bu-Bye....
I guess “ForEternity” was a misnomer.
Bad choice on his part. But, not as bad a choice as intentionally misrepresenting the title, and leaving the first sentence of the article out.
I think that's the longest I've seen an AdMod allow us 'kitty time' for quite a while.
*************
Yes. And I didn't post a single photo.
Having too much fun otherwise, I'll bet. Just like I was. It's been a fun afternoon for sure.
Gee he’s putting a lawyer who knows campaign law on his staff. Gee, this guy must be a complete idiot </sarcasm>
Why he want to be fair? That wouldn’t be “fair” to him and all of his mega wealth buds.
Geez! Now we’ve both been on two threads who’s posters have been zotted. And the other thread was pulled entirely by Admin.
WHOOOO HOOOOO! It’s really getting to be fun around here.
LOL! I expect to see many more before Nov.’08.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.