“Somebody” Is Unhappy with Me; The Feeling’s Mutual

I held back on this yesterday because I didn’t want to sully the solemnity of the 5-year mark since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But now it’s time.

Sunday morning, “somebody” sent me and five other illustrious members of the SOB Alliance what he believes is important and “disturbing” news about election-reporting violations by a candidate in Ohio’s 2nd District congressional race. This candidate (gasp!) may not have reported accrued payroll and/or professional services that would appear to amount to (oh my) several hundred dollars on their June 30 Federal Election Commission Expenditures report. This “somebody” also believes that a provider of graphic-arts services to this candidate may have a conflict of interest, because he is also a reporter at a twice-weekly publication in the eastern part of the district. But this “somebody” presented no evidence that the candidate, who, as noted, is using this person for unrelated services, knows that this person is a (probably part-time) reporter, or that said reporter is even covering the election or matters that might affect it.

I sent this “somebody” an e-mail response (copied to the other SOB recipents). First, I patiently explained that the amounts involved in the former matter are likely so small that no reasonable person would consider them important. Second, I said that the latter issue may have some importance, but that there is much more that would need to be known and was not provided. Finally, I asked this “somebody” — “Please, PLEASE, don’t bother responding to this e-mail. I think I can stand the suspense of waiting to see whether ______ (MSM reporter) considers all of this ‘disturbing’ stuff newsworthy.”

Did “somebody” listen? I should have known better.

“Somebody” responded. I intentionally didn’t read the response, and sent an e-mail back saying “I said not to respond, and I didn’t read.”

That brought forth “somebody’s” remarkable comeback:

Great to see you have an open mind. I guess I can drop your blog from my short list. I’ll be sure to pass the word about you. How much is Jean paying you?

This is a veiled threat (depending on what “the word” is), and an implied lie. If “somebody” wasn’t a candidate for public office, I would have just let it ride. But he is, so I won’t.

Of course, “Jean,” the person he unsuccessfully accused of falsifying a photo from a 13 year-old marathon race everyone acknowledges she actually ran, is incumbent congresswoman Jean Schmidt. No, I have never received any money from her, her office, or her campaign, not even a dime (or 9 cents, 8 cents, or 7 …..), nor have I failed to criticize her when I have felt she deserved it (here, at “Delayed Cunningham Interview” comments; here; and here, in the process of criticizing many Republicans). And I’ll just have to take my chances on the reactions of reasonable people to “the word” this “somebody” intends to pass about me — but I do think voters need to know that a candidate for Congress has said that he’ll “be sure” to do this.

Because of the veiled threat and the implied lie, I also felt I had to go back and read that response I requested this “somebody” not send. Here it is:

Thanks for the insight. The FEC law is very, very clear: “expenditure” includes: “a written contract, promise, or agreement to make an expenditure.” Whether it’s $5 or $5,000 it must be reported, and the expense is incurred when agreed to, NOT when cash is distributed. I’m sure you know GAAP and this is a liability that is legally required to be on the books. It sounds like you would have let Enron slide by from the verbiage of your response.

Not sure why you of all people would come to the aid of a tax and spend progressive that wants to bring abortions to Africa with OUR tax dollars.

I won’t bother you again with what you seem to think is “trivial.” However, there will be additional illegal activities I’ve already uncovered that I release to the press and the public, I guess you can read about it in the paper like everyone else.

There you are. In three paragraphs, “somebody” gave me three more reasons to believe he is the last person voters should send to Congress:

• Total lack of perspective — He takes my assessment of a most-likely trivial situation and blows it up into an Enron, and demonstrates a misunderstanding of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, to boot. You see, GAAP has a concept called “materiality” (which in essence says that if an overlooked or unaccounted-for item doesn’t involve a lot of money, don’t bother accounting or adjusting for it) that has totally escaped “somebody.” Technically, FEC law doesn’t have a materiality threshold, but in the real world the FEC and the accounting types who work on campaigns have to have one; otherwise we would have endless election-law complaints over the $5-type amounts “somebody” apparently fantasizes over.

• No sense of fair play — “Somebody” clearly believes that no one who disagrees with a political candidate’s issue positions should ever defend them, no matter how deserving they are of defense, and will engage in slash-and-burn tactics against those opponents over as little as five bucks. (Note: I do not know whether his characterization of the opponent’s position is correct; if it’s not, add “misrepresents other candidates’ positions” to the pile.)

• No coherent campaign strategy — Finally, his principal campaign strategy would appear to be uncovering opponents’ “illegal activities” to the apparent exclusion, or at least crowding out, of any kind of constructive campaigning. This should be considered a free preview of someone who would very likely be a singularly ineffective legislator.

I feel this post was necessary to ensure that voters have information they need to judge Nate Noy’s temperament and fitness (or lack thereof) for public office. I also feel that it should be on the record in case he has future political aspirations. So it is.