Click here to read the post.

-ed.

We were fair enough to withhold publishing some of the sleaze because it was coming from Donahl, not Reynolds; we also needed to move on to writing about issues and about great candidates like Sullivan. Still, if people forget to worry about Reynolds, he may squeak by in this election. He\’s already won it once. We\’ll be more than happy to stop worrying late Tuesday night.

You’ll find that most candidates don’t charge back for a portion of their heating bills. You just assume that you would still have to heat a building, be it for your home or your business, regardless of whether you were in office. If a candidate were to charge the campaign, it would usually make sense to charge for the printing and we can reasonably sumise that the printing includes expenses related to production. Why did Reynolds have to make a big production out of it on his campaign finance statements if it was not a problem? And if it was cleared, did they just dismiss it as another Reynolds eccentricity?

I’m not worried about Reynolds — he has provided an opportunity to do some interesting writing both in the blogosphere and in the mainstream media. A member of the MSM once commented that it would be a shame to lose him since his zany antics make great copy.

As for the truth of the matter with the Ledesma case, I think I summed it up pretty well. For anyone who wants more details, they’ll have to read the full document which I provided as a free service online. That document, as well as other things, rings a clear indictment for some of the folks who have been using innuendo against Ledesma and Sullivan in this race. I wouldn’t be shocked if one of those two sues those responsible for the lies that were told about them.

Sorry I can’t answer more… break’s over…

Thanks for responding on Jim’s behalf. Hopefully his business is in Ireland.

You note that your beef was that Reynolds’ crew were not doing their paperwork well, and that they made themselves look bad. Fair enough. But I have to wonder all the more why your site would then celebrate the vindication of Ledesma. Maybe if she had done her paperwork better, her whole problem could have been avoided. But I suppose there is some convoluted reason, full of side issues, why one is entitled to the truth here on Watchdog and Reynolds is not.

The truth and fair play always matter. Here’s just a little chance to say that some things are more important than victory.

After all, you’re not worried about Reynolds, are you?

I don’t think Jim ever said Reynolds paying his heating bills out of campaign funds was illegal. It does look bad, but, then, Bryan Kennedy is paying baby sitters and himself out of his campaign fund as he runs against Senselessbrenner. The difference, of course, is that contributors are giving Kennedy to make a run against Senselessbrenner; Reynolds is an incumbent and should pay his bills out of his taxpayer funded salary.

THe more damaging statements actually came from Bob Dohnal, who stated to us that the heating bill money was for a building that is used for the Reynolds campaign and is also part of Reyndolds’ printing business. I then wondered how Reynolds makes all this wash on his business taxes, balancing back and forth between when the building is used for his campaign and when it used for business. As a former small business owner myself, I really wonder how he makes that work.

Bigger question is JJ Blonien’s work. There is no campaign finance item in the Reynolds report representing Blonien, which means the taxpayers are footing the bill. Our beef was that these guys - Reynolds, Blonien, Donahl et al, were not doing their paperwork well, and we suggested ways they could have done it differently to avoid any issue being raised. Reynolds made himself look bad, not us.

Take a good look at Jim Sullivan. He’s a great guy who would be a responsible and great representative for that district. I think he’s earned his votes and will get them from Republicans and Democrats. It’s time to stop worrying about Reynolds and make way for Jim Sullivan.

How I know you’re essentially a good guy–family man and all that. And I know that there’s no way you’re ever going to endorse Reynolds. In truth he is a bit quirky and wierd, but I think you do need to acknowledge two things–really just small caveats.

First, Reynolds is to be commended for standing up against the gas tax indexing which is clearly an example of how politicians–republican and democrat both–wanted to hide from their responsibility to go on the record regarding tax increases. As both parties are clearly in the pocket of the road-builders, Reynolds is to be commended for standing up for honesty. And in doing so he has made himself the target to those same road-builders and their insidious little pac.

Secondly, and more importantly, I note here that although you posted an informative column about the Waukesha clerk cleared of wrong-doing in the minor Sullivan double-vote flap, there is no such post celebrating the fact that Reynolds has been cleared of charges made regarding the misuse of campaign funds. Further, since you made a big deal about the charges, shouldn’t you take the high-road and do a column explaining to the readers who come here to be informed about the truth of the matter?

Isn’t that what that Irish talk show guy would do? After all, you’re a scrapper and a scrapper should have the guts to say: “Things are not as we said?”

The beatdown is already on Reynolds, that garter hating, big pier loving, nut. Now its time for you to do your thing and show the world you’re open-minded enough to play fair.

I’ll be looking for that post.