by David Safier
Having coined the term "Scarp" — attack dog, logic-challenged rants written for Paton by Daniel Scarpinato (can you take out a trademark or copyright on something like that?) — I'm taken aback that Scarpinato's comeback to accusations that Paton stuck his hand in the Senate campaign account cookie jar is so . . . well, so weak.
The Weekly's Skinny has a piece about the AZ Democratic Party's complaint against Paton for his last minute "travel reimbursement" of $8,350 when he decided he wasn't running for re-election.
In a letter from Dems' attorney Rhonda Barnes to state elections director Amy Bjelland, Barnes wrote that Paton "had a surplus of over $12,000 when he announced he was running for Congress. But rather than disposing of the money in compliance (with the state law) … (his) campaign wrote him a few checks totaling $8,350 for 'travel reimbursement,' which accounted for 94 percent of his expenditures in the latest reporting cycle."
I'm sure Scarpinato has a quick retort that both exonerates Paton and slams the Dems to the wall, hard, right? He does, doesn't he?
Looks like the answer is, No.
"The main thing is, we think the complaint itself is bogus," Scarpinato said. "They are digging for something here and really reaching."
The complaint is "bogus"? Great word, that. As in, "No way, this is BOGUS, man!" (the character Putty on Seinfeld, and probably some guy in every doper movie ever made).
Hmm. I wonder. Could Scarpinato be at a loss for a clever comeback because there's actually something there, and it's more prudent to dismiss the travel reimbursement thing with a grunt than actually address it?