Marylee writes that  "The senator's response to the objection over the Christmas cards - that he had contributed $15,000 from his own campaign fund to the (anti-sludge) foundation and therefore had covered the cost of the cards - was disingenuous at best.

Marylee  offers a "friendly suggestion" that, "the political prudent thing would be to transfer about $10,000 from his campaign fund back to the campaign fund back to the anti-sludge fund..." 

he did, she said.

I never claimed to be a Zack Schrivner fan.  I am a big fan however, of spending ones own money anyway one feels.  If the cards offend you throw them in the trash.  Then get over it.  

If I spent my time worrying about every trivial thing that ticked me off, I'd be back on blood pressure meds so fast, I wouldn't know what hit me.  I don't want to be angry all the time.  Receiving a card from someone I don't like for a holiday I don't celebrate isn't worth risking my health and well being.  If I'm going to get angry, let it be over something that really matters. 

If I spent my time worrying about every trivial thing that ticked me off

Whoa now.  I didn't deserve that, but I hope you feel better.  I'm gone.

DG says:  I didn't deserve that 

TK says: 

You called my post trivial. You value money. But not my right to express an opinion. What did you expect? Flowers, candy and a parade.

You want peace and harmony. Make sure you bring some to the party.

When you buy your kid a candy bar do you think "Why am I wasting my money just to make my kid fat; I should have donated it to the `save chester ave. foundation`?"

If Zach Scrivner spent his campaign money to send me a "Happy Quanza" card it probably would have been greeted by a "WTHeck" and the round-file. I would not lose any sleep over it.

I think the issue with cards is when a campaign accepts money to fight a certain issue that has nothing to do with a campaign and uses the "surplus" to send out campaign literature. I wonder if that has ever happened before...

I'm offended by election junk mail in my mailbox but I just throw it away.  I'm wondering why what the guy does with his money is such a big deal?   Is it his money or is it campaign money?  And yes..it does make a difference.     If it's HIS money..what he does with it is his business.  If it's NOT his money..then it becomes the business of whoever supplied it.

We all know it's a political move and not sentimental, I don't think anyone is naive enough to think it's personal. 

Semper

Your going the misguided way of DG. The point of the blog is that Shrider, put out a hateful propaganda poster.. Directed at Florez. Without regard to the actions of other politicians. Including Zack.

My proclamation about the mass mailings.. ’ It is about sending impersonal greetings as if they came from a honest heart.. These mailings are actions more becoming of a shill. A confidence artist.’

Are still valid points.

Kind of like buying your kid candy. So he will wash your feet.

I don’t know of any politician, including Florez or Zack, that used illegal money to make the mailings. But why did Shrider directly and hatefully attack Florez? Propaganda.

As far as surplus political money. B. Thomas has 100’s of thousands of dollars of surplus money. That he is spending as he sees fit.

Nancy says:  I'm wondering why what the guy does with his money is such a big deal?

TK says:

It’s not. My suggestion, for better use of the money, were an aside from the main topic.

The topic was Shriders hateful attack on Flores.

DG got off topic. Started hyperventilating and her blood pressure went sky high. Her vision blurred and needed someone to read the blog to her.

DG says: Forget the 409.

TK says:

Don't think any clean-up on my part is necessary.

You hit on several things other than Shriders attack on Flores..you mentioned a waste of money and then you mentioned that religion should be kept out of politics.  Why is it necessary to attack people who address the things you mentioned?

I find it very odd that on these blogs, if a person states their opinion they can be accused of being angry, hostile, hot headed, or upset when it isn't  the case at all.  Sometimes a statement is just that.  A statement.  There doesn't have to be any negative emotion at all.  I talk about all sorts of things but it doesn't mean I'm about to have a stroke.  I was accused of it the other day and now DG is accused of it.  How do you know her mood when she posted her opinion?

Do the rules only apply to some and not all?  Are only select people allowed to voice their opinion without being accused of  having some emotional outburst?  Someone needs to post the rules of opinion.