March 23, 2007 08:27 AM UTC

LAMBPORNOGRAPHERS: Sleaze Brothers, Pat Tumor and others. Here's my "away notice":

• 6 Comments
• by: DemoGirl

TO ALL DISTRIBUTORS OF LAMBPORNOGRAPHY, . . . er . . . what Doug Lambporn and you called “campaign literature, political information, etc.” . . . I hope you will not miss me; however, I am temporarily going to be “out of the office”–maybe even out of the country, depending on my dear mother-in-law’s caprice.  Her traveling companion recently passed away, and, with my husband’s blessing, she has extended an unexpected offer for me to travel with her for six weeks.

I must confess, though, that I am somewhat disappointed about the timing–especially since reading the Coloradopols article on the Club for Growth’s making “doe eyes” at Bob Schaffer.  I was soon to publish a three part series devoted to Doug Lambporn, but now have set it back to May, possibly June.  The series covers the following:

1.  Lambpornography:  An incurable addiction from 2006 for Lambporn’s local endorsers, or, will some enter political rehab in 2008?  What are their risks if they continue to give endorsements to Lambporn?
2.  The flip side on endorsements:  Are any other Colorado Republican candidates who accept endorsements from The Sleaze Brothers and Pat Tumor at risk?  [Timely, in light of the Club for Growth’s making “doe eyes” at Bob Schaffer.] Were the Sleaze Brothers so Lambpornographic in 2006 that it is now politically unwise in Republican or Democrat circles in Colorado to claim an endorsement from the Christian Coalition of Colorado?  The Club for Growth?  [Democrats endorsed by Club for Growth? Surprise, but, Pat Tumor has no problem endorsing Democrats who cater to his political viewpoints.  Tumor–and thank you very much, Patrick–contributed to the Democrats’ U.S. House majority in 2006 by the CFG’s endorsing and returning to office Henry Cuellar, Democrat, Texas–while at the same time the CFG and Doug Lambporn–hypocrits that they are–said not to elect Jay Fawcett–so as not to contribute to a Democrat House majority!]
3.  Doug Lambporn’s denials on running a sleazy campaign:  Is he believable?  As an example, just exactly what consideration should be given Lambporn’s pre-endorsement interview with Pat Tumor in evaluating his believability or not?

P.S.:

On my return, I hope to find whether the mystery has been answered as to whether Dick Wadhams had enough “mojo” to have cleared the field for just one of Schaffer, Suthers, or some other major “brand name” Republican, to get the nod for running in an uncontested primary race for the U.S. Senate. Or, is there going to be a political miscalculation and the CFG gets involved, causing a contested primary?