President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 01, 2007 02:10 AM UTC

Lamborn Comes Unglued

  • 82 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


You have reached the mind of Rep. Doug Lamborn. I’m not here right now, and I may not be coming back. Leave a message at the beep. Thanks.

Yesterday we linked to a story on State 38 about a he said/she said argument involving a campaign contribution from a gaming company. Today The Colorado Statesman  published a story about Lamborn threatening the Republican couple that started the whole mess, and, well, break out the crazy juice:

When it comes to counting your “brothers and sisters in Christ,” Anna and Jonathan Bartha may consider eliminating Congressman Doug Lamborn from their “ecclesiastical family tree” after his threatening phone calls last weekend.

Simply exercising their First Amendment rights, the Colorado Springs couple wrote a letter of concern about Lamborn’s vote against a bill to strengthen penalties for dog fighting as well as two contributions he’d received from gambling interests.

Their concerns were based on public records – and in part on Lamborn’s public statements last year. What they didn’t anticipate were two phone messages personally from the 5th District Congressman demanding retractions or else!

“Something serious has happened,” said Lamborn in a high pitched staccato voice. His phone message referenced the couple’s letter published by The Woodmen Edition, a community newspaper in northern Colorado Springs. He said the letter contained “blatantly false” statements that had to be corrected immediately. “I’d like to get together with you as brothers and sisters in Christ,” said Lamborn, adding that if they don’t meet and settle the issue on his terms there would be “serious consequences.”

Would those consequences involve a lawsuit, being ousted from the party, or worse, a mediation visit from Lucifer?

“It’s 2:40 p.m. Saturday,” said Lamborn. A few minutes later he called the Barthas again to underscore the urgency of resolving this matter before he returned to Washington. He was doing them a big favor by calling and working with them before taking drastic action – and noted they had not conferred with him before sending their letter to the newspaper.

“It’s critical that you get back to me as soon as possible!” Lamborn said he would “rather resolve this on a scriptural level” than be forced to take other serious measures.

“Call me by tonight,” Lamborn instructed before leaving his phone number on their answering machine. Twice.

Wow.

Just…wow.

It’s a good thing that Lamborn is making threats now, because at this rate it would be a virtual miracle if he were re-elected in 2008. We could be seeing a political collapse here of unprecedented swiftness.

Comments

82 thoughts on “Lamborn Comes Unglued

  1. This is just amazing! If he comes this unglued over a little letter in small newspaper, what else does he have to hide? By “limited government,” did he mean eliminate free speech? This is shocking!

  2. the link here isn’t working, but I found the entire story on the statesman web site. Enjoy the “thriller chiller” – and then weep if you voted for this guy.

  3. having witnessed Mr. Lamborn come unglued at a public debate with opponent Jay Fawcett last year in Canon City. 

    I was absolutely sure anyone seeing that debate or any of the other debates could not possibly vote for this incompetent man and then look at themselves in the mirror.  The whole (but we have to stop Pelosi crap was adolescent spin).  What kind of people could possibly feel comfortable having this man represent CD-5?  Sad commentary on the citizens here.

    We get what they voted for…an incompetent idiot.

    1. he did not come unglued in Canon City.

      I heckled him, and he told me to shut up. 

      I was out of line and did shut up. 
      I believe I told you to your face that it was an unplanned spontaneous outburst. 
      I am very active in trying to limit the Army’s use of Mercenaries (cf, Wikipedia) and he had just said there were no Mercs in Iraq.  I shouted out that that was a lie. 

      end of story.
      /

      1. . . . coming unglued.  Let’s just say it’s a very unusual thing for a candidate to do during a debate.  Audience control is up to the moderator, and does not require a candidate to raise his voice and point his finger at an audience member.  At the least these incidents make me wonder about the man’s impulse control.

        1. I think he might have been coached to expect heckling. 

          So, looking back, I think he was shrewd to shoot right back at me.  I think I inadvertently boosted his image for toughness.
          /

              1.   I just vividly recall the televised news coverage of that debate, including Daddy Bush’s lame expression as Reagan paraded Howard Baker, Bob Dole and John Anderson onto stage and demanded that they be included in the debate after Bush got the moderator to exclude them so he could go mano a mano with the Gipper!
                  Although it was a week away, Reagan won the N.H. primary that night.

        1. …..but I apologized to him after the debate, and he apologized to me.  I can’t remember which of us apologized first, as if that mattered. 
          He offered to shake my hand, but I declined because I had a cold, and didn’t want to make him sick as the campaign was gearing up. I explained that, and he thanked me. 

          But before that happened, Mr. Hotaling tried to keep me away from him by shifting his position to stay between us.  I got the impression that he thought I intended to verbally abuse his candidate, or worse. 
          I don’t think I look threatening, I’m an old fat guy.  But it is understandable, because its a crazy world. 

          Congressman Lamborn is a civil guy, as near as I can tell.  I respect him, but he is just wrong on several key issues. 
          We’re both strident fundamentalist Christians. 
          He thinks the best way to serve Christ is by using his position in government to give Christian teachings the force of law. 
          I don’t agree. 
          He thinks it is a Christian’s duty to support our Christian President. 
          I cannot see a connection between claims to being a Christian President and knowingly starting an unjust war. 

          .

          Off On a Tangent
          I believe Doug’s and my motives are very similar, but our understanding of how to work to realize the Will of God is very different. 
          I can’t speak for him, but I pray that I am every bit as radical and fundamentalist as the Islamic terrorists who set off car bombs. 

          I differ from those fellow radicals mainly in understanding that Jesus calls us, all of us, including Muslims, to use sacrifice to bring about God’s Will, using the weapons of forgiveness and service.  I believe people must choose Christianity, not have it imposed. 
          My Christian mission, in general terms, is to set up conditions so that people can make the right choice when Jesus asks them to follow.  I believe He asks each of us, repeatedly, and each responds in their own way. 
          My specific Mission, assigned to me directly by Jesus Christ, is to end the Iraq War, and I think He wants me to do that by helping George Bush make better choices. 

          People who submit themselves completely to the Will of God (that’s what “Islam” means) but use violence to coerce other people to comply with their understanding of that Will – these folks have a very different view of what God has called them to do than most of us other religious fanatics. 
          To most of the world, they are crazed killers, terrorists.
          To me, they are worse.  They have perverted their Call from God (“Dawa,” the name of the political party of Nouri al-Maliki) into a path to personal glorification (martyrdom) and benefit (I don’t think there is an official teaching about “72 young maidens,” but other personal benefits are supposed to accrue.) 
          Most Muslims I’ve talked to who are religious have an outlook and an approach more like mine. 

          /

          1. that stands for “If I recall correctly.” In all the brouhaha over the “shut up” (and all the times that video above was posted here and other political blogs) I never heard about the outcome. So thank you for sharing.

            But do you think that someone would coach a candidate to respond to hecklers with “shut up?” It seems like they’d teach him some kind of zinger to make the heckler look like a fool. (Remember Mondale shutting down Reagan’s “There you go again” line in their 1984 debate? Not that it affected that election’s outcome any more than this video did with this one, but that was something Mondale clearly prepared for.)

      2. “became unglued” part, Lamborn’s debating skills were an embarrassment at best, a joke.  He couldn’t debate an average 8th grader and win.

        His “rubber stamp” mentality and his constant need to see himself as a representative of God is frightening.

        But if you were there and still defend the election of this fool, ’nuff said.

          1. I’d forgotten that poll that had the race in a dead heat. 

            What happened for Lamborn to pull away at the end ? 
            After all, losing by a 20-point margin is pretty big, especially in what had been called “The perfect Storm.” 

            Was there some Fawcett faux pas that I’m forgetting ?

            I didn’t think Doug won any of the debates.

            In fact, I thought Jay had the momentum toward the end.
            /

  4. And maybe even get re-elected. The Repubs re-elected Bush and granted Kerrey was nothing to write home about but Bush was so obviously incompetent even then – and yet got the vote.

    I’m convinced that for whatever reason stupid & fundamentalist gets votes.

  5. I dont find it surprising that Lamborn is this incompetent, but I always thought that at least his handlers could keep him in check. Where are his PR folks?  What kind of imbeciles allow a US Congressman to threaten a constituent… not to mention doing it on an answering machine where there is proof? 

    I dont see Lamborn resigning over this.  He will finish out his term, but he will have trouble making the ballot next year.  Then his supporters will scream bloody murder while the rest of CD5 will throw a huge party!

    1. That’s like when I posted 1 link about Stan Garnett being a lousy candidate for D.A. up here in Boulder and there were what, 4 or 5 posts by different new members about what a terrific guy he is. Garnett is not stupid but somehow it set him off to do something dumb.

      Everyone does dumb things. Lamborn apparently more than most but they all do things that looked at rationally are just flat-out dumb. But it does make watching all of this more entertaining.

  6. Cost of government sponsored mailings-$45,000

    Cost of threatening a constituent- Priceless

    There are some things money cant buy.  For everything else, there there is franking.

    Vote Doug Lamborn and you get a government so small that you will not even have your first amendment rights.

    “Paid for by the one CD5 resident who gave money to Doug Lamborn last quarter and is now wondering if Lamborn will return his check as well.”

    1. Just this week I *FINALLY* got a piece of mail from Do-Nothing-Doug.  Numerous phone calls and e-mails to his office both during the primary and since he took his seat in congress… never a single reply… ever.  But I got a spiffy color flyer from him this week!

      I like this part about how he is working to cut wasteful spending.  “I have voted against every appropriations bill that has been brought to the floor except for the military and veterans appropriations bills…”

      After he gets all done telling me all about how much he’s working to cut wasteful spending, I look at the small print in the corner of the card… “This mailing was prepared, published, and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

      Nice job, Doug.

    1. We oould use solid, proven expertise in job development, but don’t think gambling is on the table. Much less why would you even consider approaching a guy who comes unglued over freedom of speech by a young couple because they really revealed that he freaks out over his own pain in returning contributions from anyone or anything connected to gambling to sha (save his arse). Took him many months to relinquish the check back to Nevada, spent the $500 from Cripple Creek – after election and Ollie Ollie home free  he writes a refund check to Cripple Creek (Bonco Billy’s). What a courageous guy – well not exactly in my estimation. What next? A lawsuit from the Barthas for intimidation and harassment?

      1. First off, CSprgs airport is NOT the right airport for this.

        DIA is. Why? Because about 2/3 of the ppl moving through DIA are from out of state AND have concourses closed off from the outside world. That means that by putting the gambling out on concourse D and E, the money that is gambled is coming from out of state.

        So, DIA gets new concourses that handle the shopping that they desperately need, an increase in revenue, AND have several concourses on tap for future expansion. Denver/Colorado gain by constructions jobs for the next 1-1.5 decade. If enough gambling occurs, it is possible to make a mejor dent in DIA debt. That would mean that DIA will be VERY attractive for future expansion. In addition, the state as whole gains in that once DIA is paid for, then the money is spread around the state. The local casino’s gain by having a new avenue (and I believe that this should only be open to local casinos and citizens). IOW, this is a case of NOBODY losing. It does not suffer the issues that CC and BH did. The gambling can NOT take over the airport, or the shopping. It can not lead to prostitution (other than having a congressman/senator make a stop at the restroom). It can not lead to anymore gambling problems as the distance is the same to CC/BH, and you would have to buy a 100+ ticket; Strong discouragement to local gamblers.

        I have already approached more than a few politicians about this. Each has told that the idea is brilliant, but that they do not want to be the one to take it on but will support it once it is out there. The trick is to find a politician who has leadership, balls and can see the future, or is in gambling’s back pocket, and would like to expand gambling at little to no risk.

    2. I believe people should be allowed to gamble if they choose to. But gambling is basically a tax on people who are bad at math. It hits the poor hard and it tears families apart. So the state should not sponsor it.

      And the fact that we are hurting people from other states does not make it any better.

      1. The state ALLOWS gambling in 3 locations (disregard the sw) and it is taxed. None of that is “state sponsored”. In addition, what I am suggesting will not encourage ANY more gambling, because locals will not be going there (out on the concourses). It is far cheaper to go to BH/CC, then to buy a 100+ ticket at the airport.

        In addition, since this is limited stakes gambling AND any traveler is time-limited, it is not likely that they will fly into DIA and stay there an additional 12 hours gambling, when they could simply fly into a number of different airports and gamble at MUCH high rates ( Las Vegas, Reno, etc). IOW, your objects are not applicable here.

        This is a win-win all the way around.

          1. The concourses would be built by the gambling association. That makes them their property until the airport takes their ownership. Obviously they would have to lease the land.
            But then again, gambling occurs at lotto and bingo on state property.

  7. Colorado Springs deserves a congressman of integrity and respect for individuals. In this case, he stepped way over the line in threatening them.

    As for gambling – most folks here feel just like the Barthas. Not in our town.

    1. If a fellow Christian libels or slanders you, go directly to him and try to get the matter resolved.

      If that doesn’t work, take some brothers and sisters along and try a second time.

      If that still doesn’t work, then use the judicial system and sue the pants off them to force a retraction and maybe be awarded damages, plus costs. 

      Getting sued after committing libel is a serious consequence, and the one I assume Doug was talking about. 

      So, I went back and looked at the First Amendment. 
      I can’t see where libel is form of protected free speech.

      Now, I don’t mean that this couple actually libeled Doug, that’s for a court to decide. 
      But that is pretty clearly what Doug thinks. 

      ….

      And if folks understand that, but twist things around in a baseless gratuitous attack,
      what does that say about their character and integrity ?
      Their respect for individuals ?

      Congressmen are people, too.

      By the way, several regulars here have demonstrated a better knowledge of Christian scripture than me, and I’m a Christian fundamentalist.
      So how is it you forget this scripture when it would serve to back up Doug’s position ?

      And several others sound like Constitutional lawyers.
      How do you forget the limits on Free Speech concerning Libel when it would tend to back up Doug ? 
      /

      1. You are WAY off track here about both the Libel and invoking Christianity.

        First, this is clearly not libel by any sort of legal definition.  For libel to occur, there must be malice and acted with reckless disregard for the truth.  In this instance, when the Barthas sent their letter out, Lamborn had not returned the check from the gambling companies despite having received it nearly 6 months earlier.  Their contribution showed up on public records readily available and interpreted by a normal person exactly as the Barthas interpreted it. 

        The bar for libel is set VERY high for public figures and this comes nowhere near meeting it.  While it is reasonable to assume that someone without legal experience like yourself or the Barthas would not instinctively know that, anyone who has had legal experience would know that right away.  Doug Lamborn is a lawyer and would know without even looking at the statute that this is not libel.  Yet he called up a constituent and threatened them with libel… and because he is an attorney this probably scared the heck out of the Barthas. 

        Doug Lamborn was not acting out of Christian love when he contacted the Barthas, he was acting completely out of self protectionism.  If you want to discuss the Christian principles here more, that is fine.  But I have a feeling that the “Christian angle” is being used here for political gains by Lamborn and I disagree with that.

        Finally, I would not suggest attacking the character of Jonathan and Anna Bartha.  They are well known in the political and Christian community and dont have a malicious bone in their bodies.  No one who knows thee Barthas will buy the Lamborn smear tactics about them.  They are good people who wrote a letter to the editor and were threatened by a US Congressman for their actions. 

        1. then I did not make myself clear. 
          I retract any perceived denigration of their character or their integrity,
          and apologize for creating even the possibility of impugning them. 

          To me, the Barthas are not the issue at all.  The only issue is how the Congressman responded. 

          I was only intending to speculate about the state of mind of Congressman Lamborn. 
          And my inclination is to defend him, unless the taped messages are released and reveal some misconduct. 
          As of right now, I have not seen any such evidence. 

          .

          And after reading what you say about Libel of a public figure, I confess ignorance.  I admit I am wrong about what the law has to say, but that doesn’t mean I was wrong about Doug’s state of mind.

          But please don’t ask me to read law books. 
          I’m better off coming to this forum and getting feedback from the wonderful community here, including you. 

          .

          But saying I’m wrong about Christianity, I’m not going to concede that point. 

          There really is a teaching in one of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul that says something like what I wrote. 
          That is what Parsing Reality is referring to below, and he is an honest-to-goodness expert on Christian scripture and theology. 

          I think that the Congressman could have been acting out of BOTH self-preservation AND Christian love when he made those calls. 
          Remember, his normal speaking voice is shrill. 
          My guess is that the voice on those recorded calls is no more shrill than when he speaks lovingly to his children. 
          /

          1. Robert’s got you there, Barron. A lawyer threatening people with a libel suit when any lawyer would say there is plainly no libel is not an act of Christian Brotherhood, all of your Bible Thumping aside.

            This is priceless:

            My guess is that the voice on those recorded calls is no more shrill than when he speaks lovingly to his children.

      2. and wake up in a freaking theocracy?

        It’s getting scarier and scarier here in this part of the state.  I don’t want anyone, not Lamborn, or Bush or any other citizen making political decisions based on religious beliefs.  If the history of the middle east, the history of what has been done in the name of someone’s God by every major religion is not enough of a cautionary tale, then we are in trouble here.

  8. http://www.denverpos

    I have to agree with Barron X. Lamborn sounds like he sincerely believes he’s innocent. His letter, however, doesn’t address the IGC filing with the FEC, however.

    I’ve been away for about 24 hours and haven’t gone down all the diaries yet, so pardon me if this has been discussed already. But Gecko brought up an important point the other day – is there any evidence that Lamborn deposited the check that IGT reported on their FEC filing? It sounds like that’s going to be what determines the truth of the matter.

    I do have to disagree with Barron X about one thing. I can’t see that Lamborn is being libeled if they were going by the FEC filings.

  9. framing issues, etc.  I have never even heard of the small paper that the letter ran in and would never have even known about this had he not left VOICEMAIL messages.  Seriously.  Now its a statewide story. 

    What a LameBrain.

    1. but making an unwise decision to call and try to work things out in a way that could be interpreted as threatening

      is not the same as being an evil person. 

      Not if an examination of the recordings supports the possible alternative explanation that he could have been just trying to give the Barthas the chance to meet with him and hear his side of the story, maybe write a retraction, and avoid the Garcia investigation that Doug later requested. 

      I assume the Garcia investigation is the “serious consequence” mentioned in the messages.
      /

      1. The text of his messages has been up for all to see.  We aren’t stupid; we can see they are threats.

        Calling to work things out sounds something like this: “I was disappointed to read your letter to the editor.  Can we meet and discuss the issue?  I hope you’ll keep an open mind, and I can explain my votes and the fundraising issues.  I also think you’ve misinterpreted some facts regarding my campaign contributions.”

        Threatening, on the other hand, might include giving deadlines and vague mentions of escalation if the situation doesn’t change.  Whatever Lamborn meant to threaten (I don’t believe it was physical violence, for example) he clearly meant to threaten something.  When he wrote Garcia after the fact, he clearly meant to carry out those threats.  Ignoring this fact doesn’t make it go away.

        The essence of this story is this: some constituents reached a reasonable, even well-documented, conclusion about what Lamborn’s been doing in Congress.  He responded as if they had no right to do so, took personal offense, and left threatening messages on their voice mail.  Anything you say to credibly defend Lamborn on this matter would have to start by admitting those obvious facts, becaue as I said, we’re not stupid.

  10. If you want to talk about libel, talk about taking a headline from the Colorado Springs Independent like Chuck Gosnell and the Christian Coalition did to falsely state that Crank had endorsed Skorman!  This is precisely what Lamborn would not repudiate nor disavow.  Jon Hotaling and he seemed to think it was not such a big deal.  And, never mind that Jeff Crank’s children were also personally attack, as reported by the Colorado Statesman.

    Now, fast forward, and Lamborn gets fair criticism on both the dog fighting and the gambling issue, and Lamborn comes unglued!  What an asshhole!

    Someone needs to put Lamborn on a cake with Michael Vick and a pair of fighting pit bulls, and accuse Lamborn of being part of a radical homosexual dogfighting cartel!  Then, I think Lamborn would have some sense of why Greg Garcia issued the letter that he did.  What the Bartha’s did was not improper.  What Lamborn did, does, and apparently will continue to do, is improper.

  11. Why is it ok for the Bartha’s- who support Jeff Crank- to say whatever they choose about Doug Lamborn but not ok for Doug to respond to their erroneous allegations? I have to assume you are all Crank supporters. Sure sounds that way. Since there is absolutely no proof that Doug accepted that money the Bartha’s were wrong to accuse him. Doug is right to demand a retraction. This is just more whining from the side that lost. I guess it’s easy to say you are not involved in dirty campaigning if you let other’s (in this case the Bartha’s) do your dirty work for you. Jeff should be a stand up guy and have his people stop this stuff NOW! 

    1. Check out the FEC reports.  The Bartha’s have a legitimate issue they wrote a letter to the editor about.  Never in the their wildest dreams could they imagine their Congressman calling them to threaten them.  Obviously you aren’t following this story if you still think their letter contained erroneous  information.  Check out http://www.coloradostatesman.com for the facts. 

      1. Why don’t you look at Doug’s FEC filings and see for yourself. This was simply another attempt to smear Doug Lamborn. And you all went for it. If the shoe was on the other foot you would all be crying foul!

        1. then there’s no legitimate way for you or Mr. Lamborn to call this a smear.

          There are a few conclusions one can reasonabley reach jump to:

          * That Lamborn received the check, cashed it and didn’t report it

          * That Lamborn received the check, DID NOT cash it and did not report it

          * That Lamborn did not receive the check, so the donors have misfiled.

          All of this means that we need more info. CD-5 Line has stated elsewhere on the blog that he read that it was the second scenario but we’ll have to wait and see.

          But claiming that a smear is going on? No way.

          1.   Doesn’t the fact that they checked the FEC website and that yielded information that Lamborn had not yet rejected the tainted donation when the letter was published get the Barthas clear of the “reckless disregard for truth” requirement for a public figure/official to maintain a defamation action?
              He can’t be serious about these people.  How can he afford to pay a retainer to a lawyer to sue these people?  He’s not going to find anyone to take it on a contingency basis!

            1. and he knows it.  The Barthas probably did not know it which is why they were rightfully quite scared with Lamborn’s threat.  It makes it even more serious of a political and PR offense that Lamborn should have known that he could not sue (if he is a competent attorney, which might be a stretch) but still threatened them.  That implies that he is just using is position to bully a constituent. 

              1. I was guessing what he may have meant by “consequences,” and I suggested he was making a veiled warning that he might sue to protect his good name and reputation. 

                Now it looks like he was making a veiled warning that he would report them to Greg Garcia if they didn’t call back. 

                I would retract the suggestion of Libel, now that other bloggers have explained to me how off the mark I was.  But I can’t.  There it is, posted above, for all eternity. 
                /

  12. I verified that the Federal Elections Commission does indeed have a filing made by International Game Technology of a contribution to the Lamborn campaign. For those interested in viewing this for themselves, navigate to http://images.nictus…. Under Year 2007, Mid-year report, select either the “Display Image” or “PDF” link. Page 33 shows a $1,000 contribution made to Doug Lamborn.

    Mr. Lamborn’s vehement denial of this contribution seems to warrant some kind of reconciliation with the filed document. If the document is wrong, IGT has filed faulty information with the FEC, which I’d assume has legal repercussions for them. If the information is correct, Mr. Lamborn’s assertions are wrong, which would warrant a reasonable explanation from him. It is reasonable that all voters in his district be apprised of developments from this point forward.

    1. There is no question that IGT PAC sent the check to Lamborn, it was issued and reported in January 2007. Lamborn’s campaign didn’t decide to return the check until after a few weeks ago. If anything is faulty, it’s the Lamborn campaign’s delay in returning this check – and not reporting that they wrote a check to refund money to Marc Murphy of Bronco Billys casino. Apparently, Lamborn’s campaign had no trouble in cashing that $500 check last summer. Still unknown is whether the campaign actually refunded that money to Murphy after the general election.

      1. If you don’t deposit it, does that eliminate the requirement ot report it? If so he can claim that the office forgot to send it back and should be in good shape.

        If he broke rules, then he will see this continue to dog him.

            1. But it would require someone to make a complaint.  He held it for much longer than 10 days.  He even blamed it on his wife for not taking care of it sooner in one article.

              1. Have the Barthas’ not made a complaint? Has no one in the Springs made a complaint? I find it odd that there is this much discussion, let alone information, and yet no one has filed a complaint.

                Is there some sort of statute of limitations on this? Surely, if there is they have not expired.

  13. Last year, after the primary, CD-5 still had the opportunity to put a logical and intelligent individual in Congress but the “oh no, Pelosi might become Speaker” crowd won out.  Well guess what? Pelosi became Speaker anyway and we have virtually no representation in Congress now.

    To use one issue as an example, Jay Fawcett might have been the very voice of reason we need now on the Pinon Canyon expansion.  With his military background (especially his liason with the Army during DESERT STORM) he would have understood the Army’s new training requirements and could have been a moderator with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

    But no, we have to have a Congressman who thinks his time is more valuable attacking people who had the audacity to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

    1. Other possibilities have been suggested, though. 

      For example, one possibility is that, to over half of those who actually vote in CD-5, they think it is unacceptable to vote for a proponent of gay marriage or expanded access to abortion. 

      Yes, there were many other issues in play during that election.  The War.  GOP corruption. The economy, education and health care.  Immigration. 

      But isn’t it possible that, for more than half of CD-5 voters, nothing comes close to those two nominally “morals” issues ?  That is what my narrow, anecdotal experience shows.  IIRC, that’s what polling shows. 

      And as long as one candidate is clearly on THEIR side on those two issues, and the other candidate is outspoken on the other side, it is truly a “no brainer” for them. 

      So, Dems have a choice:
      they can feel good about nominating a cutting-edge progressive, and lose.  Every time.

      Or, last election, they could have nominated a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Dem, and at least had a possibility of winning. 
      This could have made it possible for the Dem candidate to get the votes of that majority block.  Without any votes from that block, winning is mathematically impossible. 
      Such a Dem asked for and ran for the nomination, and was soundly defeated at the District Assembly. Repudiated. Branded a “DINO.” 
      Some even suggested he (I) leave the big tent, that there was no room for a fundamentalist Christian in the very party that comes closest to advocating the values taught by Jesus.

      Where could I go ?
      Back to the GOP, the party that is pro-life AND pro-unjust-war ? 

      Is it reasonable for a Christian to feel more comfortable in the party that calls for no limits on abortion, which I oppose under pretty much all circumstances,
      than in the party that does not believe that part of the Declaration of Independence that talks about all of us being created by God, equal in His sight ?

      When the Declaration says “all men,” I think it means every person on earth, not just those born here, or who moved here. 
      I think it applies to Iraqis. 
      When GOP presidential candidates talk about the war, though, all but one rejects that founding principle and core American value. 

      Well, unless Congressman Lamborn is renominated, there will not be another “perfect storm” opportunity for Dems in our lifetimes. 

      …..Its like Zappatero posted above –
      El Paso Dems don’t bother polling because they understand that there is no possibility of an ultra-progressive winning. 
      That poll that had them in a dead heat was commissioned by the Fawcett campaign, and they never released any details.
      There was probably a good reason. 
      I speculate that the only way Jay was found to be in a dead heat was probably when possible voters were asked to choose between the two,
      without knowing anything about Jay’s party or positions on key issues,
      and after being told all of Doug’s negatives. 
      That poll appears to have been merely a fundraising tool.

      It is my belief that both Jay and Wanda knew that there was never a chance of Jay winning. 
      But it was a great experience, shaking things up. 
      And sometimes that’s the best you can do. 

      Some people call such a campaign a “vanity” campaign, when everyone knows there’s no chance of winning. 
      I prefer to think of it as a campaign of principles, where the point is to get people thinking and talking.
      On that score, it was a resounding success. 

      But how satisfying is that, when a real prospect of winning is squandered ? 

      Last cycle, the “Conservative Dem” candidate (me) was even less of a serious candidate than Jay.  Not one dollar raised. 

      But this District has solid Conservatives in the Democratic Party.  I think they are mostly former Republicans who got tired of the GOP’s squabbles and power trips. 
      Other Districts across the country, if they’re conservative, pit a Republican Conservative against a Democratic Conservative. 
      Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Democrat, is more conservative than Chuck Hagel, the Republican Senator from that state. 

      The main reason that this extremely conservative District is solidly Republican is because Democrats have conceded, when it could be won by competing smarter. 
      /

      1. person is neither a democrat nor quite frankly, in my opinion, a Christian as they love to claim. 
        True Christians, the ones following the teachings of Christ, the man who preached love, tolerance, and DOING SOMETHING for their fellow man, instead of condemning and cursing them, would be inclusive.
        Your use of phrases like “pro life and anti gay” speaks volumes.

        Most of those using those phrases are really not pro-life. They are pro birth.  They only care about making sure a fetus is born. Once that child is alive and needing stuff, suddenly the pro life forces are quiet and could care less, voting for people who would cut health care for children, and punish them  for the sins of their parents.
        Anti-gay?  Christ was not actively anti-gay.  But he was actively anti the discriminatory practices of his religious leaders, the ones who refused to let women, or poor people, or cripples into the temple.

        Over 500 times Jesus spoke of helping the poor. Once he spoke of homosexuality. Yet people like Lamborn and those who voted for him are comfortable with voting against everything that helps poor people; like an increase in minimum wage, expansion of SCHIP, health care for all. 

        Some of us believe that lables like Christian, Jew, Muslim” are meaningless and in fact, totally hypocritical, when people are consistently going against any and everything those labels might have meant in the beginning.
        I am not a religious person but I have read and studied most of the religious texts.  I truly believe in my heart that if Jesus Christ did come back today, with the same ideals he pushed during his lifetime, he would be derided and condemned by most Christians of today, who seem more interested in going into the public square and like the Pharisees Jesus condemned, making sure everyone knows that they are a Christian, bragging on it, than doing anything for the “least of us.”  I have listened to many Christians angrily cursing the homeless, the “dirty immigrants stealing services they shouldn’t get, and taking away from us Americans.  Too many so called Christians could care less about how many Iraqi babies die while spending hours of energy and gobs on money making sure the rest of us have no choices when it comes to our beliefs.

        When a person shows by actions that their telling of everyone that they are a Christian and going to represent God is  more important than doing those things Jesus himself said were most important, they are hypocrites.  Lamborn and his ilk are Christians in name only.  And they are hurting people, especially poor people, the one Jesus was most interested in helping,  with their exclusive  and selfish views of government.

        I am sure you know the verse. ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.’  The right wing, money loving, bragging on their “Christianity”,  greedy party of feeding the rich is about as anti-Christian as it gets.

        Nothing shocks and troubles me more than hearing folks defending the likes of Lamborn based on his “Christianity” which is my view is nothing more than an empty label.
        As far as having an” anti-gay, pro-life” Christian as a dem candidate, no thanks.  If a candidate has to preach his beliefs, I want no parts of him/her regardless of what political label they choose.

          1. when one has no point to debate makes the obvious jump off the page.
            Who are you to decide which citizens are allowed which rights?

            Yea, I am better than a lot of things.
            I don’t tell others what to believe and demand they live their private lives based on another’s tunnelvision determination of morality. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

52 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!