Posted on 04/21/2007 1:25:21 PM PDT by shrinkermd
Management Fees Exceed Political Donations From Tennessee Presidential Hopeful's Account
In the five years since Republican Fred Thompson left the Senate, he has maintained his political fund-raising account -- and it has paid more money to his son than it has contributed to help elect Republicans to Congress, records show.
Mr. Thompson, of Tennessee, announced that he would not seek re-election to the Senate in 2002. But since then, his political action committee has paid $244,000 in "management/consulting fees" to his son's consulting firm in Nashville, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
During the same period, the Fred D. Thompson PAC donated a total of $225,000 to Republican candidates and party organizations, according to the reports.
...Mrs. Clinton's HILLPAC has paid about $2 million in salaries since 2002, while contributing $2 million to Democratic candidates for office. Mr. Edwards's PAC paid about $1 million in salaries while contributing $200,000 to Democrats when he used it during the 2002 and 2004 elections. Mr. Edwards primarily used his PAC to fund his political career, rather than to contribute to Democratic candidates. Mr. Obama, who only had a PAC for the 2006 election, paid about $500,000 in salaries and donated $770,000 to Democrats.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I’ll give you a call the second I give a darn what you think about anything.
Sounds good. In the meantime, feel free to continue wallowing in your victimhood.
Are you telling us that if a candidate who opposed abortion was nominated by Republicans, you would vote in opposition in the general election? Are you of the opinion that opposing abortion renders a candidate "unelectable"? (Hint: of the last four presidents elected, three opposed abortion)
Folks who contribute feelings rather than facts. seldom survive in a political climate. Folks who consistently make up facts are guaranteed to be roasted on their own spike.
Those pesky little facts.
Where in my post of this: “This place seems intent on becoming an echo chamber for unelectable candidates (shades of Alan Keyes in 2000)” would you possibly read into the crap you posted?
Thanks.
Have to keep up. :)
Crap? My question was reasonably polite and you refer to perjoratives. Seems I've struck a nerve.
There are criteria for what constitutes a candidate who is "unelectable" in your opinion that I chose to explore. One of the chief distinctions between the candidate you consider "electable" and those you oppose is support for abortion. Further, you decried banning MiaT on that criterion alone (I question whether it was the sole determinant), which indicates that you consider the issue important. I therefore asked a perfectly logical pair of questions which I think will expose you as either opposed to any candidate who is opposed to abortion, or are willing to vote for a conservative despite disagreement, which indicates that a conservative is not as "unelectable" as you deem.
Alan Keyes was indeed unelectable, not because of his positions but because of his strident and condescending demeanor. Fred Thompson hardly fits that mold.
I haven’t even mentioned Fred THompson. Nothing you’re saying is responsive to my post, but that’s okay.
Explicitly, no, implicitly yes. Given that your post denotes conservative FReepers as preferring "unelectable" candidates and given that Thompson outpolled any candidate on FR you cannot avoid the association.
Nothing you’re saying is responsive to my post, but that’s okay.
Your avoidance tactics are characteristic of your ill-conceived preference in Presidential candidates. Answer the questions please.
Uh, not to be too sensible or anything, but since I said the word unelectable and since you admit that Fred polled quite high on FR (in other words, the opposite of unelectable) I don’t know how you’re making the associations in my post that you’re making. So I’ll stop responding to your posts now, since I can’t make sense of them.
For the record, I asked you two very clear questions which you refuse to answer:
"Are you telling us that if a candidate who opposed abortion was nominated by Republicans, you would vote in opposition in the general election? Are you of the opinion that opposing abortion renders a candidate "unelectable"? (Hint: of the last four presidents elected, three opposed abortion)"
Such questions are hardly impenetrable. Please answer them.
The reason I asked them is equally simple. You employ tactics in support of Rudy Giuliani nearly identical to those FairOpinion employed in support of Arnold Schwarzenegger. You have seen where that leads, and to be banned here would harm your effectiveness in supporting Rudy far more than it would harm FreeRepublic, I promise you. Thus, you dance around my questions like a coward.
You see, this dichotomy, between moderate and conservative has existed since the day moderate Republicans betrayed the party nominee in 1964. Moderates have refused to support conservative candidates as "unelectable" ever since, demanding we support their policy preferences while they refuse to incorporate ours. Exposure of that failure to reciprocate threatens them, just as it does you simply because conservatives may respond by staying home if a moderate is nominated in response to like treatment. I promise you, if Rudy Giuliani is nominated on the false pretenses he portrays today, the MSM will so loudly blandish his history that, considering the history of the GOP betraying conservative candidates, there will be no chance he would ever be elected.
I don't want to see that event. Should you portray a conservative as "unelectable" I will demand the criteria by which you support that assertion. Opposition to abortion is clearly a distinction that matters to you.
Please answer the questions.
Take a hike. I’m not here to answer your questions.
Especially compared to John Edwards' 200,000 donation to 1,000,000 salary ratio.
Thanks for the ping. An early birthday present for me. :-)
What are you here for if not to defend your candidate? To trash Jim, or other posters, or other candidates?
I’m here to defend this forum as a conservative site, to defend those who are tired of being attacked by people supporting the most liberal candidate. I’m also here to ask both sides for more civility, and to defend ANY candidate who is attacked by rudy supporters in this thread.
Why are you here? To gripe about how you fear being banned while posting dozens of times?
Why am I here on this thread? I was reading it and agreed with a poster’s comment. I think that is pretty clear. But maybe you don’t know how to trace back what a poster is responding to. You should learn before you further humiliate yourself.
Thank God. I was so sick of that liberal troll.
JimRob said that, eh? I'm glad to know, because I've always thought that the accused was a troll. I hadn't thought about the liberal part.
He did and he's right...
ping
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.