S.C. Republicans Pay For Chairman’s Christmas Card?
DAWSON SENDS OUT SNAZZY CHRISTMAS CARD USING PARTY’S NON-PROFIT STAMP, RETURN ADDRESS
FITSNews - December 27, 2006 - South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson and his wife sure did have a snazzy-looking Christmas card this year.
It looks like it must have taken a long time for someone to design, especially the way those holiday presents and the State House are so expertly blended together.
We wish we could have afforded such a nice Christmas card here at FITSNews, but unfortunately the revenue from Sic Willie’s imaginary consulting firm doesn’t permit such indulgences.
Nor do we have a roll of non-profit stamps lying around like they do over at the South Carolina Republican Party, which by the way is who this Christmas card is supposed to come from, technically.
Wait a minute … Yup, there it is. “SC Republican Party.” We see it now. Sorry … it was in the fine print.
Other political parties in South Carolina - or at least those that did not send snazzy Christmas cards to God knows how many people on behalf of excessively narcissistic Chairmen who aren’t even supposed to be running again - were pleased to see that at least some party resources did not end up assisting statewide campaigns that lost races by mere fractions of a percentage point this November.
“I’m glad they didn’t use that money to help Karen Floyd,” said S.C. Democratic Party Executive Director Lachlan McIntosh.
Of course the supreme irony here is that it really is neck-and-neck to determine whether Katon’s or Karen’s Christmas card was the dumber idea.
Anyway, click on the thumbnail below to view the non-profit stamp that was used on the back of Katon’s Christmas card:
Maybe he at least reimbursed the Party for all that reduced postage (and the design, and the printing …)
Comments
By Mike Green on December 27th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Where is the proof?
By Mike Green on December 27th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Oh yeah I am sure it took so much time to design. If you would get out of your house you would know those packages are under the tree at the statehouse. They simply went down to the state house and took a picture. It is not that hard.
By Mike Green on December 27th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Do you have nothing to better to do than to complain that we only won 8 out of 9 races this year. That is only an 88.8888% winning record. What does Katon have to do walk on water as well.
The old saying is you can’t please all the people all the time. There will always be some malcontent around.
By Emily on December 27th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Wow Mike, you seem to have as much on your plate as Will does. Three comments in almost 3 hours. Impressive
By Joshua Gross on December 28th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Actually, it’s not “well-designed” as much as “well shot”.
I happened to drive past them while the photog was getting the shot. They were next to/in front of the State House and Christmas Tree on Gervais Street.
By tammy on December 29th, 2006 at 1:31 am
why would these people think anyone wants to see their asses on a christmas card?
regardless…whoever is paying CVS for these cards should ask…who wants to receive it…you know?
By Sand Hill on December 29th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Will,
You are right. The SCGOP should have put the new building the party owns on the card instead. It would have served as a better reminder of all that Chairman Dawson has done for the long term health of the state party. Unlike your McCain buddy McMaster, Katon is looking out for the party’s finances.
By fitsnews on December 29th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Dear Sand Hill,
Actually we’re glad you mentioned the building. The party doesn’t own it, but thanks for playing.
Look for that story coming soon.
Until next time, enjoy your service.
By Sand Hill on December 29th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I’ll be looking forward to you getting the facts wrong as always.
By Todd on December 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Katon should have signed the card, “Candy and Katon” - not “Katon and Candy.” Where are your manners, Katon? Mark Sanford made the same mistake signing their card, “Mark and Jenny, Marshall, Landon, Bolton and Blake.” The real irony here is that in both of these cases, the wives are much more qualified to hold their husbands’ jobs.
Trackbacks