I’m puzzled. Lee Whitnum has the money to run campaign ads. She’s got the money to open campaign offices in at 457 East Main Street in Bridgeport. But she hasn’t actually RAISED much money. Nor has she filed her pre-primary report with the FEC.
Anderson Scooper over at 4th Street News did an analysis of her financial disclosure, which showed that in 2007 she had earned income of approx $4,200 and unearned income of approximately $10-15K.
This is someone who is supposedly living in public housing. So where’s she getting all the money from to lend herself to fund her campaign? Enquiring Minds Want to Know…
Other questions that remain unanswered:
Why her FEC disclosures do not include expenditures such as:
Google ads, which have been running for well over a year? (search for Lee Whitnum and voila! Top of the list.)
The costs of her mailing letters to all the delegates to the Democratic convention (I should know, I received one)
Creative accounting or something more fishy going on? I don’t know.
Two things I do know. Never one to miss a marketing opportunity, Ms. Whitnum is using her Congressional campaign to approach local Greenwich bookstores trying to shill her book Hedge Fund Mistress. One local owner revealed that Ms W. had left a most unpleasant message on her answer phone, after the owner had refused to promote the book because it was basically “badly written porn”. Perhaps a short Dale Carnegie course might help Ms. Whitnum’s Congressional prospects? No, probably not.
The other thing I know is that I’ve finally been replaced in the Media Figure I Love to Hate category on Lee’s website. I’d had place of honor there for months now, but I’ve had to give up my crown to the Greenwich Times’ Neil Vigdor. Maybe I’ll have to invite Neil to my exorcism party on April 12th.
19 responses so far ↓
Sara, you do such a great service for society by attacking Lee wherever and whenever possible. You’re such a good person. Not. Why can’t you just let it go?
Funny, I didn’t hear you telling Genghis he’s a bad person when he posted about Lee Whitnum. And I’m sure if either Chris Shays or Jim Himes had these sorts of campaign finance irregularities, you’d be completely disinterested.
‘’Anderson Scooper over at 4th Street News did an analysis of her financial disclosure, which showed that in 2007 she had earned income of approx $4,200 and unearned income of approximately $10-15K. ‘’
Which is to say DeanFan84/TrueBlueCT/PoopyScoopy — let’s not pretend for a moment he’s anything but the most partisan voice on CTLP sine CTKeith … Not that there’s anything wrong with that
But there has to be more to this story: on that much I will agree with ol’ DeanFan84 …
Don’t leave out Whitnum’s 2006 Financial Disclosure. (Click on download original, hit “open”, then under the view menu, scroll down to rotate if necessary.)
Including the $11,000 in unemployment from 2006, Lee’s total income, earned and unearned, averages about $20,000/year.
How is she paying her own bills, let alone dumping $10,000 plus into this vanity campaign?
What’s amazing is that the Connecticut Post, and the Norwalk Hour are going to let Tuesday’s primary happen, without ever letting their readership know about the pitifulness of Whitnum’s campaign.
RedFive, I’m not the most partisan voice here at CTLP. You’d have to fairly rank me behind the ‘wingers here, as I often find fault with not only the GOP, but also my own Democratic Party.
You can’t say that about CTLP’s Kool-Aid drinkers from the right.
If I’m counting correctly, 2 of Genghis’s last 41 postings have been about Whitnum, while 2 of Saramerica’s last 3 are. I don’ t think it’s a valid comparison.
And the financial irregularities are less relevant because I’m the one who is posting them?
How about a top 10 listing of the most partisan voices, poster formerly known as TBCT?
gerardw said:
You really need to use the term ‘posterS’ here to be accurate G.
There was zero integrity with that name, so it instead blossomed into a whole slew of reincarnates.
Kabong, please grow up and move on.
I’m certainly allowed to change my handle, I don’t do sock-puppets, and I’m not hiding a thing.
But you know that.
Can you tell me why you don’t post more about the issues, instead of the knee-jerk sniping at Democratic posters?
saramerica said:
Oh, absolutely not. I think your posting is fine. Perhaps a little strident. Probably unnecessary — there’s been sufficient evidence posted regarding Ms. Whitnum that we’re probably in dead horse territory.
I was merely commenting on the rhetoric regarding the frequency of posting.
AndersonScooper said:
So many simultaneous screennames is just another symptom of ctkeithidis.
Sadly, it’s incurable for some.
AndersonScooper said:
How about these?
1. Cutting marginal tax rates makes our tax structure more progressive.
2. We’re winning the war in Iraq.
3. The Earth is cooling.
You’ve been dodging these facts — not issues — for years now.
Here’s another one for you, too:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121798022246515105.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Are you going to respond or not? I mean, if you’re all about addressing issues and not ripping candidates, can you please respond to these demonstrable facts?
I don’t want to take you away from preparing your huge papier maiche rat for Minnesota, but come on… these are your bread and butter, and we’ve given you enough time to come up with SOMETHING.
We’re waiting.
Jack Dobb said:
I’ll jump in on this…
1. Let’s give the wealthy more money. Their wealth will obviously trickle down to us. I’m holding my breath for this one.
2. OK, let’s declare victory and leave.
3. Yes, the Arctic Ocean is freezing over with the same reliability it had for the last several centuries. Oh wait, it isn’t.
How’s about them apples?
CT_Bob said:
Hey, thanks. TrueBlueCT/AndersonScooper just ignores facts and complains about irrelevant stuff. You’re willing to take on issues, uh, facts, and offer something in return. I appreciate it.
1. It’s not about giving the wealthy more money, it’s about taking more money from the wealthy, isn’t it? That’s what we’ve done since the 1980s — every single class of incomes has seen its share of contributions to the IRS decrease, except the top 1%. Is this a problem? As someone who is one of the 99%, I think not. I say, let’s keep cutting taxes to maximize the contributions of America’s highest earners, and find the peak of the Laffer curve. Obama (and TrueBlue, and many others) would rather choke the economy just to try to f__k the select few who make a lot of money. This increases unemployment and drives us toward economic calamity. Is that what you want? Again, I’m not making stuff up here. Until we find the peak of the Laffer Curve, cutting taxes increases tax revenue. We owe it to ourselves not to stop until we find that peak.
2. I said we’re “winning,” because we are, not that we’ve “won,” because we have not. We’ll have won when Iraq is a stable democracy with a functional government (and a functional economy) that is no longer a terrorist threat to the United States — you know, the same terrorist threat that George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton and Albert A. Gore and just about everyone else acknowledged well before 9/11. We’re on our way.
3. Look to Antarctica. I’ve never been there, but some other people have:
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/08/04/ancient_moss_insects_found_in_antarctica/
Anyone else? CT Bob, thanks for your interest. Sorry to burst your three bubbles. Next.
Jack, I’d love to further engage you on this fascinating discussion, but I’ve got two weddings to attend this weekend, so I’ll take my bubbles and bid you farewell for now.
Only in the blogs has Lee Whitnum been exposed as the fraud and anti-Semite that she is. The newspapers have done an absolutely miserable job of reporting on her. And Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate have for months published inexplicably favorable and disturbingly sanitized articles about her. No mention in those papers about her self-professed semi-autobiographical novel “Hedge Fund Mistress”, nothing past a single line about Whitnum’s failure to file SEC returns. Nothing about her use of fake attorneys to intimidate bloggers.
Only Sarah and some others at MLN have had the courage to expose this bizarre character. And yet we’re supposed to revere “professional journalists”, while they denigrate “lefty bloggers”. Seems clear as daylight that the bloggers have performed an enormous public service in exposing Whitnum. The newspapers have demonstrated once again why readers are abandoning them in droves.
You must log in to post a comment.