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
December 02, 2007 06:51 AM UTC

El Paso Co. Repubs indicating Rayburn & Lamborn will petition on ballot, by-passing 5th CD caucus

  • 184 Comments
  • by: CD-5 Line

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

I have been told that trial balloons were sent up today by the Lamborn and Rayburn camps at the El Paso County Republican Central Committee meeting that indicate they both plan to by-pass the 5th CD Congressional caucuses and will not seek nomination at the 5th CD Congressional Assembly, but, will instead, petition on to the ballot.  

This appears to be a recognition by both Rayburn and Lamborn that their support among party regulars is very weak, and that they fear if remaining within the party caucus system and going to the Assembly, they would each get less than 30% of the ballots at the Assembly and then  be barred from petitioning onto the primary ballot.  [I believe 30% is the magic percentage that if a candidate fails to get that at the assembly, they are barred from petitioning on the ballot.]

Remember this diary Deal to Seal Lamborn’s Fate?

http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…

It quoted from a Colorado Springs Gazette report that:

Both Rayburn and Jeff Crank, who this summer announced his primary challenge to GOP Congressman Doug Lamborn, have said that just one of them will face the freshman lawmaker in the primary next August.

Though no official pact has been signed, both of the candidates and their supporters have hinted that whoever gets fewer votes at next year’s congressional assembly – attended by party delegates chosen at caucuses – will be expected to drop out of the race.

It looks like those who feel Rayburn is a carpetbagger might want to change that to weaseling carpetbagger. There’s no dealing with Bentley Rayburn.  We are assured of having a 3 man primary now.    

My sources say Rayburn, who was speaking directly for himself today at the Central Committee meeting, was the one sending the message he is petitioning on once again in 2008, as he did in 2006, and, once again, playing the role of the spoiler.  

Lamborn wasn’t at the meeting, I was told, but, it seems the message was being sent he is thinking of by-passing the Assembly and there was interest in gaging the reaction to the trial balloon. I understand the idea was not well received.    

Comments

184 thoughts on “El Paso Co. Repubs indicating Rayburn & Lamborn will petition on ballot, by-passing 5th CD caucus

  1. .

    failing to get 10% bars a candidate from petitioning on.

    Failing to get 30%, but exceeding 10%, means they can still go the petition route.  

    May be similar for GOP.  

    ………….  

    I’m pretty sure that petitioning on puts the candidate below those who got on through the assembly,

    when listed on the primary ballot.  

    ………………….

    If both Doug and the Bentster really do avoid the Assembly,

    I hope Rich and Greg,

    the Write-in candidates from 2006,

    go to the assembly to scarf up the anti-Hefley votes.  

    .  

  2. I would think that Rayburn was doing this completely on behalf of Lamborn.  This is getting ridiculous.

    By all appearances, Rayburn is a smart guy; but there seems to be zero logic behind his campaign.  First, you have his tactics which are questionable.  Why would you run in a 3 way race against an incumbent and against a guy who has the party establishment behind him?  Has he thought through a way to win, or is he just running for the sake of running?  

    Second, why do you stand up in front of a bunch of party faithful, the ones who walk precincts, and thumb your nose at them?  You could at least TRY to put a positive spin on it.  

    The only thing I can come up with that makes sense of all of this is that Bentley Rayburn’s ego is so large that it overrides whatever common sense and intellect he clearly has.  His personal opinion of himself must be so high that he is actually able to overcome all logic and believe he can win a 3 man race without any local political support, local fundraising, or local connections.  

    This being said, I have always believed that Rayburn has the least to lose as well.  He may figure he will burn a few hundred thousand dollars on a long shot and simply move to another district upon losing to try to run again.  Since he has always been “from” Colorado, he could easily reinvent himself and be “from” any of the other places that would better suit him.  But his legacy of arrogance will likely lead to Lamborn becoming entrenched for 20-30 years and accomplishing nothing.  

    Thanks Bentley Rayburn!  Way to place the welfare of your “constituents” ahead of your own ambition!

    1. An amazing development.  I’ve talked more to someone who attended.  Apparently, County Chair Greg Garcia made an appeal for working within and honoring the caucus and assembly process.  Rayburn then got up and in direct reference to Greg Garcia’s comments on the caucus and assembly process said to the entire audience in a 3 minute speech, “I am going to tell you something a whole lot of you don’t want to hear.  We are divided because of two campaigns who went negative . . . who went through the assembly process.”  Rayburn then trashed the caucus and assembly process.  He laid the foundation that he intends to petition on to the ballot.  He will not honor the results of the 5th CD Assembly, if it means he is not able to make the ballot by Assembly.  And, I have to disagree with his attempts to mischaracterize Jeff Crank’s campaign in 2006.  Fortunately for Crank’s reputation, he did not have the Hotalings working for him.  This is where Lamborn may have the office today, but not a good reputation, and, I submit, with his campaign finance violations from the gambling donations fiasco, his frank(enstein) mailings at our expense, dogfighting votes problems, and national and international ridicule on his attacks on the Barthas, this is why Lamborn by-passed the El Paso County Central Committee–and must be considering petitioning on the ballot like Rayburn.  Neither of them are popular, one is loathed, and, Rayburn will be more loathed than Lamborn if we get Lamborn again because of Rayburn petitioning on again in 2008 as he did in 2006.  

      In fact, if Rayburn wants to be correct, we have Doug Lamborn not because of two candidates (Crank and Lamborn) who went through the Assembly process in 2006, but, because Bentley Rayburn petitioned onto the ballot in 2006 and split the vote, giving the seat to Lamborn as a result.  That’s one general who will never accept blame for either his military or political blunders.  

      1. Are we reading too much into this, or is this what happened?

        I am in total disbelief that we could virtually hand Lamborn a second election because both times people from outside our district wanted to play politics in CD5.  First it was CFG, now Rayburn.  Cant we just take care of our own business and get this clown out of office???  

        Sorry for the rant.

        1. Unlike Rayburn, here is what Crank said, “I am running through the caucus and assembly process. . . . I will respect the result of the Assembly process. . . . You can’t build unity in the Republican party by ignoring the process.”

          You can go to the bank with this one.  Rayburn is maneuvering to reneg on any prior pledges to go through the caucus and assembly process.  His speech before the El Paso County Republican Assembly as I have heard it now, was pretty damned cheeky.

          What you really have here is someone (Rayburn) who is NOT at all a 5th CD Republican.

          He is an Independent carptebagger, who wants to be a U.S. Senator, who is using the banner of the Republican party to try to get elected as a Congressman as his stepping stone for his 2010 U.S. Senate run.  

          Since he only registered for the first time to vote Republican in Colorado in 2006, he is nothing more than a Johnnie-come-lately Independent only recently declared as a Republican in the hopes to advance his ego and career–and this is why he feels no ties to the caucus and assembly process.  I hope that party regulars who have considered supporting Rayburn will finally get the wake-up call from his speech yesterday and for those who were there, that they will spread the word that if they want to keep the party unified, respecting the caucus and assembly process is indeed the way to go, instead of Rayburn’s Independent way.  That’s my honest opinion about what was a damned shocking speech yesterday by Rayburn that showed his true colors.

            1. What is Greg Garcia and the republican insiders going to do about their guy, Jeff’s, derogatory comments about both Doug Lamborn and Bentley Rayburn at the central committee meeting yesterday? Will Greg actually call his pet on the carpet or are his threats only aimed at Doug and Bentley?  

              1. I cannot speak to what was outside the 3 minutes speeches, but, I’ve heard the speaches now.  If you want to say that Crank’s discussing the franking by Lamborn as “derogatory” then you confuse factual with derogatory, and try to suggest that being factual is equivalent to lying.  Calling a drunk a drunk when a drunk is a drunk is the truth, and if relevant to a political campaign, appropriate to mention.  For Doug Lamborn, who tries to present himself as a fiscal conservative, to have abused the franking privilegs in the manner as he has to make up for his poor fundraising, isn’t what Jeff Crank said, but, he could have, and it would have been the truth.  He didn’t go that far.  I wish he had.  And, when it comes to derogatory comments about Rayburn, you’ve really got a problem!  You’re saying that Jeff Crank, by defending the caucus and Assembly system, has said something derogatory about Rayburn.  The real derogatory comments were the ones from Rayburn, and not nearly so much as against Crank, but, the 300 people at the Central Committee meeting!  My God, man!  If every candidate running for office said what he said to the party regulars, there would be no party, but complete disunity!  Once you beat up the people who walk the precincts, who get people to come to the caucuses, once you impugn their integrity in the manner that he did, as if they were not representative of Republicans, you’re not deserving of any consideration whatsoever.  WHAT RAYBURN DID YESTERDAY WAS SHOOT TO HELL HIS U.S. SENATE RUN IN 2010!  He would need El Paso County as desperately as Bob Schaffer does in 2008.  He is going to LOSE the 5th CD primary in 2008, and he is NOT going to have those El Paso County party regulars he desperately needs supporting him in 2010 to walk precincts, support him, etc.  If he wanted to attack the party regulars in a small rural county that was largely inconsequehtial to his Senate race in 2010, his Congressional race in 2008, that would be one thing. BUT you simply are STUPID to do that in El Paso County!  Dumber than a box of hammer handles! A complete political neophyte and rookie.  

                  1. and he was Lamborn’s campaign manager in the last election.  Picture someone with no ethics, driven only be political ambition, and willing so say or do anything unethical to get his candidate elected.  That is Jon Hotaling.  

                  1. tell them to go to the Assembly and vote for him there.  If Rayburn is really persuasive as you assert, he should have the guts to make his case to the Assembly and win there.  Right now, I have to believe he is wimping out and is scared of being defeated.

          1. Are you saying that Rayburn was an Independent until recently?  I have never heard that.  Also, I went to the carpetbagger report and did not find anything on Rayburn.  A little help for those of us less savvy in political internet research would be useful.  

            If you got it, post it!

          2. Rayburn is far from independent.  He is a strong conservative who has the best chance of winning the primary.  Unlike Lamborn and Crank, Rayburn has not alienated the Republican base (by base I exclude all the precinct elites).  No wonder you are so upset…Rayburn poses a real threat in the primary.

            Furthermore, I personally take offence to you calling Rayburn a “carpetbagger.”  Rayburn graciously served our country for thirty years and spent more time in Colorado than in any other place he was stationed.  He has a right to call this his home.  How dare you call him a carpetbagger for wanting to return to this community and continue to serve in a new capacity.  If Rayburn is a carpetbagger then so is every other service member who has spent significant time away fulfilling his or her duties. I do not believe this to be the case, and I hope you reconsider your reckless use of labels.  

            1. How dare we? We dare because the fact is he isn’t from Southern Colorado. That might not mean much to you, but whether you like it or not that is what people are going to continue to say about him. People still say that Gov. Owens was a carpetbagger today, and he was GOVERNOR!

              It happens, deal with it.  

              1. It is a weak criticism and an useless and inaccurate label…

                It is disengenous and as such should rightfully come from the mouthes of the other campaigns.

                I have dealt with it.

      2. .

        I was not aware of the Bentster having a list of military blunders.

        Please list a couple of them.

        That should torpedo his bid.

        …….

        also, if you want him to drop out,

        don’t publicly credit him with determining the outcome in ’06.

        That might just encourage him.

        .

          1. .

            Don’t remember reading about him surrendering in battle,

            or bombing the wrong target.

            That’s what I think of when I hear “military blunders.”  

            Help a brotha out.

            Gimme a hint, or a link.  

            .

          2. CD-5 Line, my most sincere congratulations on your cowardly attack on General Rayburn’s distinguished military record.  Dirty, unfounded, and disgusting.  There are no blunders, and you cowardly criticize Barron X’s research skills for questioning your claim and asking for support.  The Carpetbagger report? Ridiculous! Shame on you!

      3. ..”Spin Spin, lets do it again,

        Dogfighten, Kid Raizen,

        Pacs and his kin..”.

        If you want to talk about issues, STAY ON POINT. Stop throwing the kitchen sink at every issue involving Lamborn.  We get you don’t like Doug Lamborn.

    2. There are mixed feelings about the caucus process.

      On the positive side, the caucuses give you the opportunity to meet your neighbors and candidates.  That’s why I like it.

      But, on the negative side, the caucus and the party apparatus tends to be dominated by the same relatively small group of people who show up at meetings and regularly participate.  It’s a reality that most people do not participate in party politics or meetings.

      If a candidate is not firmly plugged into the small network of regulars, the caucus/assembly process can exclude them even if the candidate has broader support among party members.

      I don’t think Rayburn is thumbing his nose at the process.  He may believe that his base of suppport is stronger outside the group of regulars who dominate the party.  The process allows a candidate to make such a decision.

      In my rural county, in one of the last county commissioner races, a candidate declined to participate in the primary because he realized most of his support was not part of the regulars.  He ultimately won the election and no one viewed him as disloyal or dishonorable for his campaign choices and tactics.

      I think the same applies to Rayburn. It’s his campaign choice.  He’s entitled to make that choice.

        1. that many of the posters are supporting or opposing a particular candidate and weigh in by trashing anyone who opposes their guy.  Just look at all the recent negative posts about Jared Polis.

          A novel approach for one of these CD-5 guys would be to post a comparison of the positions of Lamborn, Rayburn and Crank on the top federal issues they will face as a Congressman representing CD-5.  (I doubt whether that will happen in our lifetimes.)

          For what it’s worth, here’s what I think are the top 6 FEDERAL CD-5 issues.

          National Security — what will each candidate do, if elected, to deal with  Iraq and the threat of terrorism?

          Pinon Canyon

          Gas Prices — high energy prices trash CD-5 economy which relies heavily on tourism

          Sub-Prime Market Collapse — loads of builders in CD-5 are bankrupt (or nearly), foreclosures affect property values and area wealth

          Health Care Costs

          Illegal Immigration — compliance with recent changes in illegal immigration laws promise to be really nasty for businesses of all size

          1. I’d add that:

            1.    Opposing whatever the Dems propose or “here are the committees I’ll serve on” are not substantive positions on the issues.

            2.   Gas Prices and Global Warming are linked at the hip.

          2. If we could keep things on issues, we might actually get things done.

            The problem is in primaries the candidates differences on issues tend to be incremental at best and it boils down to personalities.  I count myself as guilty of focusing on personalities in the primary, even though I am more interested in policy.

            1. As voters and political activitists, our #1 job should be to force candidates to substantively address policy issues and tell them directly when we believe they are off course.

              The best and brightest ought to represent us and not a bunch of empty suits elected in a political beauty contest.

          3. There are virtually no substantive differences between the three candidates and how they would vote.  

            We have to decide how we want to be represented, viewed, and lead by our congressman.  The differences between the candidates boil down to effectiveness, character, public perception, and little else.  

            1. I’m pretty sure that Crank and Rayburn would both violently disagree with the assertion that there is viturally no substantive difference between them and Lamborn and how they would vote.

              Crank and Rayburn may agree on many issues, but I’m also pretty sure that they would disagree that there’s no difference between them on policy issues.

                1. The Nov 9 issue of the Colorado Statesman was about Jeff Crank’s announcement of his candidacy.  It was titled “I’m no Doug Lamborn” and the article was about the differences between the two on various issues.

                    1. If there were no differences between them, then why bother to hold elections at all? If there were no differences between them, then why do people bother to contribute to one but not the other?

                      By your logic — they will alll vote the same on the issues and do the same thing in office — we should just leave Lamborn in office and save the costs of the primary.

                    2. When I asked if you thought there were any differences on how they would vote, I was sort of implying that you would answer the question with something specific.  You get an “e” for effort, but take another crack at it.  How would any of their votes differ from each other???

                    3. unless you wrote the article, I dont really care.  What differences do YOU see.  By you, I mean original thoughts, not regurgitation of what is in some article you wrote.

                    4. You are the one who asserted that Crank, Lamborn and Rayburn held identical views on the issues and would all vote the same.

                      Apparently, you’ve made that claim without evidence of any kind and are unwilling to consider any evidence contrary to your conclusion.  What I believe about the three candidates would make no difference to you.

                      Read the article in the Colorado Statesman.  It does a nice job of comparing Crank’s views on issues to Lamborn’s.  The title of the article is “Crank: “I’m no Doug Lamborn””

                    5. answer the freaking question!  Either you dont know how to think for yourself or you have no response.

                      I said that they would all vote the same.  If you have ever studied or worked in logic, you would know that proving the negative of that would require someone to propose an area in which they are different.

                      Clearly you are either not bright enough or not schooled enough to present any sort of intellectual argument of how these three differ in policy using your own brain.  I just dont know what else to say…

                    6. .

                      it is to your benefit to say nothing.  

                      Depending on your level of maturity,

                      I’m hoping you already regret that post.

                      .

                    7. I just wanted to point out how a couple posters here are not quite dealing with reality yet and are unwilling to have any sort of intellectual discussion.  I applaud NEWSMAN for finally starting to produce his own work, but we have a couple others who think that cut and paste campaign slogans will cut it here.  

      1. The point is that we need to run one and only one candidate against Lamborn to win.  The Assembly is the logical test of who that candidate is.  Normally I would not care about a candidate going “outside” the party, but in this case it will lead to Lamborn for 3 decades.

        1. Your statement presumes four things that are not necessarily true:

          (1) Republicans in CD-5 do not want Lamborn as their candidate;

          (2) the Assembly vote will be representative of what the majority of Republicans in CD-5 want;

          (3) that Lamborn would automatically win a 3-way race if an Assembly is not used to nominate a candidate; and,

          (4) Lamborn will remain in office for 30 years if not defeated in this election.

          A three way race is definitely rougher than a 2 way race, but that’s politics and Rayburn has as much right as Crank or Lamborn to run for office.

          One of the core principles of the Republican party is a belief in the benefits of competition.  From where I sit, it seems like those opposed to Rayburn are saying “We believe in competition, except when it comes to elections where we need to stack the deck.”  That ain’t my Republican Party.

          1. 1.  Lamborn is one of, if not the most unpopular politician in El Paso County.  Rumor has is that both challenging campaigns have polling showing this.

            2.  As CD-5 pointed out, the Assembly voters picked the top two candidates.  I’ll go one step further and say they picked 1 and 2 in the same place as the voters who voted on election day.

            3.  My point was that Lamborn will almost certainly win a 3 man race regardless of how it comes about.  I wouldn’t care if Rayburn and Crank cut a deal, used the Assembly, or flipped a coin.  Right now, I think Crank is much stronger than Rayburn and should be the candidate.

            4.  Dont you remember Lamborn’s campaign ads?  “The best way to tell what someone will do is by what they have done.”  If his time in Denver is any indication, he will do nothing.  Lamborn is a Lazy man who just wants to sit in office and pick up the paycheck.  So long as he votes the right way, PACs will keep his pockets lined with campaign dollars and he will continue to run.  He will probably never even show up half the time, but he will occupy the seat.  

            And if you have ever read any of my posts, you know that I am an adamant supporter of free markets.  But that is not what we are talking about.  This is about taking out an opponent in a political campaign, not driving costs down.  I think you have confused issues.

        2. He wants to imply that party regulars who are elected delegates from the caucus process are not representative of the vast majority of Republicans who clearly do not actively participate in the caucuses, which, having set up that canard, he then wants to say that by his then by-passing the caucuses and petitioning on the ballot, he will effectively represent that vast majority of the Republicans who do not participate in the caucuses.  

          Well, here’s the point that Rayburn won’t make:  The top two vote getters in the 2006 primary were the top two finishers in the 2006 Assembly.  The distant third place finisher in 2006 was the one and same of the three declared candidates in 2008 who did not go through the Assembly!  It would appear to me, contrary to Rayburn’s egotistical and fallacious arguments for bypassing the Assembly in 2008, is that the vast majority of Republican voters who do not participate in the caucus and Assembly system actually prefer to vote for those candidates who have gone through the Assembly and earned a position on the ballot.  

          And, that is what the Assembly is designed to do–to choose the best candidates to run against each other in the primary.  

          Those who bypass the system admit they are not the best, and, fearing the worst, they do their worst by splitting the votes in the primary and giving us an inferior choice such as Doug Lamborn.  

          [And, I wish Bentley Rayburn would take that “Colorado Native” sticker off his car.  What a poser!]

          1. Rayburn (and anybody else for that matter) has the right to choose their campaign tactics.

            You stated: “Those who bypass the system admit they are not the best, and, fearing the worst, they do their worst by splitting the votes in the primary and giving us an inferior choice such as Doug Lamborn.”  

            In my county one of the county commissioners bypassed the primary/assembly process and won.  I think he would disagree that he was not the best choice or the choice that the voters wanted.

            I can understand and appreciate that you may be opposed to Rayburn.  But oppose him because you disagree with how you believe he will serve us or disagree with his policies.  Throwing rocks at him because he made a perfectly legitimate campaign choice is inappropriate, in my view.

            One of the problems with the Colorado Republican party, in my view, is that it’s leadership is prone to making decisions for the constituency without asking them.  The assertion that Rayburn has no right to run for office because it might weaken Crank’s prospects is an example of such elitist decision making.  

            1. All this talk about Lamborn and Rayburn petitioning on is pretty off base. No one said they were going to do that. BUT they all have the right to petition on. It is a legal part of the political process and for the Republican Party and the Chair of the 5th Congressional District to be putting pressure on these candidates to go through the caucus is WRONG. Besides there are many insiders who are concerned the caucus and/or assembly won’t happen since the people elected to run the party have no idea what they are doing. As County Secretary, Dick Macleod admitted at the last executive committee meeting. And Lamborn and Rayburn aren’t the only candidates who have been in contact with the state to find out the exact process for getting on the ballot if the caucus/assembly goes up in smoke.  

                1. If Rayburn is “prepared to enter the caucus” why won’t he say so? I was at the Saturday Central Committee meeting and he appeared to set the stage for NOT going through the Caucus process.

                  1. If you were at the meeting you would know that Bentley was addressing the attempt made by Jeff and Greg to brainwash the precinct committee people who were in attendance into thinking that the caucus is the only legitimate way to get on the ballot. There were a little over 300 people at that meeting. Do you honestly think those 300 represent all registered Republicans in El Paso County? If you were at the meeting you must be on the Central Committee which means you are well aware of people stacking the caucuses to support the candidate of their choice. Not the best candidate, just their choice. If you are on the Central Committee you are probably one of the people who came up with the entire slate for the executive committee which was almost entirely made up of Crank supporters, including Greg and 9/10ths of the Bonus Members. So, really, why should anyone, other than Jeff, go through a stack caucus.  

                    1. If what you say is true about stacking the exec committee (which is just plain tinfoil capped crazy-talk), then why was Bentley one of the people on that slate?

                      Why didn’t either the Rayburn or Lamborn campaigns/supporters say something about it or try to do the something then?

                      You can make up all the excuses in the world to try and cover up Bentley’s arrogant and selfish interests, but at the end of the day it is pretty transparent to us the voters/volunteers.

                    2. “Us voters/Volunteers.”  As if you are the only ones?  You Crank supporters should come out of the box every now and again and realize that things are not as transparent as you would like.

                      Here is a beginners list of Crank supporters in the Exec Committee:  Greg Garcia, Chair.  Nathan Fisk, Exec. Dir. Chuck Broerman, Former Chair.

                    3. I’m pretty sure that the State bylaws preclude any elected party leader from actively supporting any candidate involved in a primary. (not to say that it doesn’t happen) But in this case I don’t think that label can really be applied. I haven’t seen Greg or Nathan actively out there doing anything.

                      And remeber I was undecided on who I would support until Bentley decided to spit on my face Saturday. But no, CC members are not the only ones who volunteer, but we are the ones who show up more in the end.

                      “New blood” is great (and I am always happy to welcome new faces), but it typically takes them a cycle or two to get used to the demand and the regimen.

                      Why would Bentley want to spit in my face and then expect me to show up and help him next August or October, November?

                    4. Rayburn’s intention was not to spit in your face.  He was simply responding to Garcia’s setup.  I assure you, Rayburn is doing everything possible to get on through the assembly, and has a great deal of respect for the institution.

                      As for Nathan, I personally watched him hang Crank signs on the morning of the central committee meeting…Others have claimed to have seen him taking photos for the Crank campaign, a charge that he denies of course.  As for Garcia, he has not yet done anything blatent, but I know for a fact that he is a Crank supporter.

                    5. Are you sure it wasn’t Kyle hanging signs and taking pictures? They do look a lot alike. I believe that Greg’s continued talking about people petitioning on is aimed directly at Bentley. I guess you can’t call it blatent but I call it close enough.  

                    6. After how Bentley acted at the CC meeting (defensive and petty) and how his campaign (you) have conducted themselves on here by refusing to answer anyone’s questions, I have no where else to turn besides the Crank campaign.

                      Now you’ve learned your first lessons in posting on liberal blogs…watch what you say, ALWAYS defend your position, and don’t say anything that you will regret later!

                    7. I doubt that you were truthfully undecided.  I took a defensive stance against the pro-Crank spin that plagues this thread, and I do not regret a single thing I have said.  If you fail to even consider that Rayburn was responding to Garcia’s speech, then it reflects upon only your stubborness, and not upon Rayburn, myself, or the campaign.  

                      As for questions, I have yet to recieve any legitimate questions that elicite the effort of a serious response.  Give me a serious question about Rayburn and I will do my best to give you an answer.

                    8. That is the same defense Nathan used when he was accussed of taking the pictures.  I know that the person I talked to and later saw hanging signs that morning was Nathan and not Kyle.  Kyle was not even there yet, and Nathan introduced himself to us as Nathan Fisk with the GOP.

                    9. I know that the person I talked to and later saw hanging signs that morning was Nathan and not Kyle.  Kyle was not even there yet, and Nathan introduced himself to us as Nathan Fisk with the GOP.

                    10. This issue has come up at Republican Headquarters and their answer is always the same. It’s Kyle, not Nathan. If Nathan actually introduced himself to you that kind of eliminates the mix-up theory, doesn’t it?

                    11. Hi I am Nathan Fisk and someone alerted me to this thread. As the full-time Executive Director of the El Paso County Republican Party I want to be clear that I do not support one candidate over another in the 5th Congressional Primary – or any other contested Primary for that matter. Any candidate, staffer, or supporter who feels otherwise is invited to address that issue with me immediately as I am happy to answer any questions they may have.

                      To set the record straight – In my position, I do not, have not, and will NEVER publicly support one Republican candidate over another in a Primary struggle. Any report to the contrary – including those on this thread – are blatantly false. Anyone who believes something other than that is more than welcome to contact me at ExecDir@gopelpaso.com or 719-578-0022.

                      I take my job extremely seriously and therefore treat every candidate as equally as I possibly can. I therefore urge gopstudent, epblogger, or any other interested party to personally stop by my office any time or to phone or email me directly.

                      Thanks – Nathan Fisk

                    12. Let me be the first to acknowledge that what Garcia, Fisk and the other CC exec members have accomplished is impressive.  They have set the party in a new direction and I admire their passion and professional organization.

                      That being said, I am just reporting what myself and others saw.

                      If Mr. Fisk did not want to be criticized and thought of as a Crank supporter then perhaps he should not have been seen hanging Crank signs before a GOP event.

                      This is not a smear campaign on Fisk, but what I saw and what others have reported is what it is.  I advise everybody to be their own judge, and will say no more on the issue.

      2. Hearing all of the speeches yesterday I believe Bentley’s speech was in response to the El Paso County Republican Party’s obvious attempt to keep him off the ballot. I heard many people praising his speech. I also know many people who believe Bob Balink should resign as chairman of the 5th CD because of his obvious bias. In fact, I also heard people remark on how nervous Jeff sounded. So maybe all of you Crank supporters should be concerned. On another subject, how many times are we going to have to listen to Greg Garcia blow his own horn. And what’s with him praising Nathan for all his hard work when the guy is paid staff?   They have taken in $90,000 since taking offic last February and only have $10,000 in the bank. Why won’t Greg give his executive committee a financial report that details where the money has gone?

        1. As an undecided person going into Saturday’s meeting, I have to admit that I was shocked and disgusted that Bentley had the nerve to stand up in front of the crowd and spit in their face. I could barely control my outrage. To stand up in front of the only people who actively participate in any type of GOTV program year after year (critical for state-wide success) and tell them that their opinions don’t matter and that you are in the race to appeal to unaffiliated voters was just plain outrageous AND moronic. He says he wants to unite the party, and then he goes in front of one the largest activist groups I have seen at an El Paso county CC Meeting in a long time and tells them they are worthless AND then uses state GOP talking points about how important the unaffiliated voter is? Idiot.

          Go away Bentley, as an admitted moderate republican; I can’t stand you or your campaign. You’re not going to unite anyone; all you are going to do is perpetuate the growing rift in our party.

          1. I mean, in light of the “growing rift in our party”, is he trying something new with an eye on achieving victory first, and unifying the party after?

          2. It seems as though you have a lack of first hand knowledge.  As a student involved in local politics, I have some level of experience or have friends involved with each of the three campaigns.  Here is my assessment of Saturday’s meeting.  Greg Garcia and the rest of the El Paso GOP elite are obviously in love with Crank, interestingly enough I personally watched Nathan Fisk hang Crank signs early Saturday morning before the meeting started.  What I want to comment on however is Rayburn’s speech.

            First of all, Rayburn was set up and forced to respond in a defensive manner.  Greg Garcia preached against petitioning onto the ballot, which was a direct shot at Rayburn.  Furthermore, he indirectly criticized a newspaper article (letter to the editor) from last week, written by a friend of mine in which the author defended Rayburn from attacks in a previous letter (I assume this is what Garcia is referencing since it was the only cd-5 related piece to appear that week).  Garcia called this divisive, and threatened to not support any candidate that continued to act in this manner, another shot at Rayburn.  I found this to be odd.  Does Garcia actually expect a candidate or his supporters to lay down and die when criticized or attacked.  Garcia never would have mentioned this if it was an article in support of Crank.

            After these criticisms, Rayburn had no choice but to divert from the issues he intended to speak on and defend himself.  Rayburn has not said he will petition onto the ballot, actually far from.  At this time, Rayburn is actively courting the votes of the esteemed precinct delegates with every intention of running through the caucus, and judging from the bigger applause he received over Crank, he is having some success.  It sounds to me like the Crankers are worried, and have stooped to playing dirty with the assistance of El Paso Central Committee members.

            Side note, this is my inaugural post.  I look forward to arguing with you all in the future!

            1. There are obviously two groups of people here.  One group saw a completely different event than the other group, or was on a unique set of drugs that night.

              I’m guessing that the long-term posters probably have slightly better grasp on the event than some of the blatantly pro-Rayburn newcomers.  But that’s just IMHO…

              1. Check the dates that these guys logged on to this site.  Just a couple of hacks from Rayburn’s campaign, nothing else.  They will be off in a week like NEWSMAN was last month.  

                  1. But then I got another frank mailer from Lamborn, and I remembered that all you do is parrot his literature anyway.  It’s held me over until now, but thanks for your concern:)

            2. It’s nice to see some Rayburn people here, I was starting to think that they weren’t out there.

              First off, I think you’re reading too much into Garcia’s comments.  The only major spat I saw in the paper was Bruce’s rant about how Perry wasn’t an electrical engineer.  I mean, Garcia came out and referenced “people questioning resumes”.

              I’m sorry, but yours and EpBloggers accounts just don’t add up with what I saw.  To be fair, it’s worth noting that the only person Garcia lavished with any sort of praise was Lamborn, when he referenced Lamborn’s “hard work”.

              Really, you Rayburn people are the only ones that seem to think Garcia is openly supporting Crank

                1. and it reads like a Rayburn campaign press release. In fact, I’ll simply state that that’s exactly what your diary is.

                  Who cares what Rayburn thinks? What do YOU think? (If it’s something along the lines of “I agree with the general” then you can spare us.)

                  Expressing your OWN opinion will gain you credibility. Parroting your candidate will only enhance your reputation as a shill.

                  1. My thoughts fall between the lines of the quotes.  I believe that granting the detainees the constitutional rights to challenge their detainment in non-millitary courts would be a disaster.  It would set a precedent from which thousands of other current and future detainees could file suit.  I think this would hamper the war effort and is just completely irrational.  These people are enemy combatants, and for the few that “happened to be” in the wrong place at the wrong time, well too bad.  We can’t base a decision that will forever affect the United States’ ability to capture and detain enemy combatants on a couple of cases.

            3. “First of all, Rayburn was set up and forced to respond in a defensive manner”?

              Last time I checked, each candidate was given time to talk about their CANDIDACY for office…it wasn’t a debate son. Why would I want to support yet another defensive Repub anyway? Crank’s statements weren’t defensive. And if he is going to go through the assembly process as you assert, why did he spend almost all of his time talking about how little my (delegate/volunteer) opinion is and how much unifying the R and U voting blocks in El Paso county are?

              Bottom line, it was a shame that he didn’t tell me more about why I should vote for him and less time defending some sort of Garcia/Crank conspiracy drummed up by his fear of continually being referred to as an arrogant carpetbagger.  

              1. Look, all I’m saying is that Garcia’s speech was less than cordial to the Rayburn campaign and as the Chair he should not be taking any shots at any of the candidates!

                The bottom line is that Rayburn has not yet been given the chance to discuss the issues.  The reason for which is that he is put on the spot by people like Garcia and the rest of the El Paso GOP Central members.  

                Perhaps, I am young and naive…Naive enough to believe that the best man should win!  Naive enough to fight an up hill battle!  Naive enough to let the voters decide in the primary!  Oh to be young and naive indeed! It is wonderful!

                1. Naive enough to not realize, Bentley petitioning = Doug Lamborn elected back to congress. Which I think we can both agree is NOT in either of our interests.

                  1. Here is the way I see the situation developing in Crank’s strategy vs. Rayburn’s.  Crank wants to get on the ballot through the votes of only 500 people, whereas Rayburn wants to target the broader Republican base and build the party, which is something I do ot see Crank or Lamborn as capable of accomplishing.  It is time to get back to conservative values and ideas and focus on the real enemy, not to waste our efforts with political infighting.  Rayburn is the only returning candidate to emerge from the last election cycle without any ugly campaigning.  The base is tired of the Party politics!  Rayburn is the only Republican candidate who has not yet resorted to eating his own.  I believe that the cleanest campaign will ressonate with the voters come primary time, and I do not thnk Crank or Lamborn are capable of running such a campaign.  It is through this way that Rayburn will succeed in building the party and uniting the factions.

                    1. Because whatever it is, it’s pretty strong!

                      Rayburn is not trying to broaden the party, he is trying to get elected.  His ego has rubbed so many people in the party the wrong way that he probably has no chance at the Assembly.  Therefore, his only chance is to go outside the Assembly to people who have never met him.  It has everything to do with him getting elected and nothing to do with building the party.

                      Also, put your money where your mouth is.  Pony up and give an example of how Crank had ugly campaigning last cycle.  

                    2. Crank wants to get on the ballot through the votes of the 500 people who know about the party process and are the same 500 who show up every October/November to get “normal/lazy” Repubs out to the polls!  

                      Don’t get me wrong here, I think that petitioning onto the ballot is a very reasonable and important option that “most” candidates should not be ashamed of doing. But in this case, when talking about one of the largest republican bases in the state (crucial to victory), the thoughts and opinions of the troops on the ground fighting in the trenches TRUMPS the idea that ignoring them is a “good” idea.

                      And the only reason Rayburn wasn’t campaigning ugly was because his only competition last cycle was Jon Anderson…

                      That’s like saying 4 years from now, “Duncan Hunter was the best presidential candidate because he didn’t resort to negative campaigning like Mitt and Rudy did!” (I’m sure SOME Repubs will say that anyway, but those people probably wear tinfoil hats too)

                    3. Ideally, the caucus should be more highly regarded and followed over the petition,  but in a county where the GOP leadership has stacked the exec. committee in favor of one candidate, that is not necessarily the best option.

                      Why else would an incumbent congressman even consider petitioning on?  Because he knows that the El Paso GOP is stacked for Crank.  

                    4. What ARE you smoking? The Caucus Process includes more like 5000 people dude. Wow… you are off base. WAY off base.

                      Oh and ugly campaigning? I’m a Crank supporter and I would like a couple examples of his “ugly campaigning.” Thanks.

                    5. .

                      and I don’t recall anything underhanded by his campaign.

                      Mostly I remember the “Wedding Cake” mailer that Mr. Hotaling dreamed up.

                      Not saying it didn’t happen, but I could use a little reminder.  

                    6. I failed to realize that 5000 people get to vote at the assembly.  Thanks for the civics lesson GOPpundit.

                    7. Where in the world did these 5000 people come from. They typical caucus averages about 10 people. Of these about 500 (in el paso county) are selected to be delegates at the higher assemblies. Those 500 along with those from other, smaller counties in the 5th CD meet to choose who is on the ballot. Certainly NOT 5000. In case you forgot, the 5th CD assembly was held at the Sheraton, now the Crown Plaza Hotel in one of the ball rooms. This small subsection of potential Republican Voters is certainly NOT representative of the entire 5th CD.

                    8. The turnout on caucus night being the ones that make the choice.  IIRC, you are correct in you statement that only about 500 or so make it to the CD 5 assembly

                2. I feel inspired and ready to take on the world! Or maybe that is just some vomit rising.

                  Anyway, someone clearly pissed off gopstudent and EPblogger so whoever did that should apologize because their posts aren’t really saying much other than “Don’t ever say anything remotely bad about Bentley because it hurts our feelings!”  

                    1. I said your arguments lack substance. I don’t have a dog in this race yet so I am can not be following “the line” to which you refer. I am waiting to see what the candidates say about important issues like water, energy, and Ft. Carson before I blindly follow one to the end of the earth. Hopefully they will all learn something about those issues before talking about them though.

        2. You know what, I could give you some credibility, or, at least the benefit of the doubt, for what you said, as I was not there; however, having heard the wav file of Crank’s and Rayburn’s comments, you have lost all credibility for anything you say here, IMHO, at least with me.  The attacks that Rayburn made on party regulars and the caucus/Assembly process that he prefaced with his, “I’m going to tell you something a whole lot of you don’t want to hear,” was stunning.  He got no round of applause for those attacks, as I am sure you will admit, if you were really there.  

          1. And there was definately applause for Bentley’s speech. I certainly didn’t feel offended by what he said. He is right. There were about 300 people there. There are over 100,000 Republican voters. You do the math.    

            1. You would know that just about everyone got a polite applause after their speech, we’re a respectful bunch.

              Even Ron Paul’s guy got a nice applause after he was done.

              Maybe Ron and Rayburn got their applause for the same reason: maybe people were happy they were done.  

              1. Please, How can you compare Paul and Rayburn’s applause?  Ron Paul’s guys barely got anything accept a slightly uncomfortable goodbye.

                Rayburn’s applause was more impressive than Crank’s, which is pretty good considering the Garcia-Crank lampoon job that preceded Rayburn.  Hell, Rayburn even got applause in the middle of his speech…Did Crank?

                It sounded to me like Rayburn was alive and well in the minds of the precinct people (aside from the Central Committee Executives).

                Crank and Lamborn should be worried.

                1. How can you compare Rayburn’s and Paul’s applause when they left stage?  They were pretty even from my vantage.

                  And yes, Crank did get applauses during his speech.  If you couldn’t even answer your own question, then you weren’t paying attention to anything other than what you think affected your candidate-making you a completely unreliable source on this subject.

                  Were you really there, or are you purposely trying to twist the facts?  

                  1. Rayburn and Pauls guys applause as not even close!

                    I asked if Crank recieved applause during his speech because I could not recall.  I’m not twisting facts here, but you seem to be distorting applause.

                    1. Am I right in my thought that after speaking, both Rayburn and Paul got about the same applause?

                      But as a suggestion gopstudent, if you want to be taken seriously try paying attention to what the other campaigns are doing.  You can’t just look at what your guy is doing.

                      Anyway, to go on a more friendly track, what year in school are you?  Are you going to CC, UCCS, or PPCC?

                    2. Thanks for the advice.  I can’t say what school I attend, because I don’t want certain people to guess my id.  I’m in my fourth year though.  Sorry if I’m a little over zealous…It’s finals time.

                    3. I can appreciate that.  Best of luck on the finals.  With my work schedule I can only do school off and on.  Hopefully I’ll be able to get back in next semester.

                  2. Furthermore, Crank’s speech was flat and devisive!  He stooped to attacking Lamborn rather than roll with the nice setup that Garcia so graciously set in his lap.  He was less than motivating and as a student of public speaking and speech I observed him to be angry, flat and unsteady.  This is not what I would expect from a man given such a comfortable position in the speaking order (After Garcia and before Rayburn).

                    1. That Rayburn’s speech sucked too-he wasn’t very motivating, came across as a lecturing general, and was obviously flustered by Garcia’s comments, then he had no fizz too, right?

                      Regardless of what you think of that, I’m not looking for fizz.  Is is a nice bonus, but my primary desire is someone who is right on the issues.  Crank was the only one that talked about issues (immigration, war on terror, etc).

                      I want someone who can give the Democrats hell, not someone you think could pass one of your speech classes-which based on your criteria, neither would pass anyway.

                    2. that Crank lacked fizz.  As for Rayburn, he handled the setup he was given with the supreme tact and restraint that could only come from a General.  

                      My criteria for a good speaker is very simple…

                      1. Do not yell at the audience (Garcia).

                      2. In a friendly forum, do not reduce yourself to weak criticisms of your opponent when they are not even in the room to defend themselves (Crank).

                      3. Respond to attacks in a polite and effective manner, while maintaining the respect of the audience (Rayburn).

                      Only one candidate passed.

                    3. Is that neither pass your orginal criteria.  I suppose that’s why you changed it  🙂

                      But in all honesty, by way of fizz…I hope we can agree on this subject….the only speaker that had fizz in my opinion was the guy who presented the media campaign.  THAT guy had FIZZ!  I’ve sat through a lot of people that have tried to whip up the troops, deliver sermons and speeches, and he was the first person in a long time who literally sent shivers up my spine!

                    4. I talked to him afterwards.  He said that the campaign would cost about 150k-hopefully this primary business so we can focus on raising money for that!

        3. And what’s the party’s obvious attempt to keep Rayburn off the ballot.  I don’t think I feel asleep yesterday, but I can swear I didn’t hear Garcia get up there and say “ok everyone, let’s have party unity and keep Rayburn off the ballot.”

          Though I did hear Garcia talk a lot about unity.  A message that you apparently don’t think applies to you.

        4. EPblogger – First off I have spoken to precisely zero people who agree with your Crank/Rayburn assessment. Out of curiosity, what exactly is the party doing to keep Rayburn or anyone else off the ballot?  Two, I don’t know what you’re referring to with regards to Greg Garcia. I walked in his office two months ago and got a 60 minute detailed budget/P&L explanation and, if anything, am impressed as hell. (And I’m not even on the Executive Committee.)

          1. If you are not on the Executive Committee why would Greg show you the budget? You must be the poser. So, since you know it all where has all of that money gone?  

      3. But, for someone who runs around saying that he’ll not be the one responsible for getting Doug Lamborn re-elected in 2008, his choice is a very poor choice.  Rayburn’s reasoning for his apparent decision also neglects to mention that the top two vote getters in 2006 primary were the top two at the Assembly in 2006, and that the distant third place finisher in 2006 was the one and same Bentley Rayburn who did not participate in the caucuses and Assembly in 2006.  Rayburn will finish third again in the 2008 primary when he bypasses the Assembly.  The problem is, he may well assure that Doug Lamborn finishes first by virtue of Rayburn’s being third, that is, by virtue of Rayburn’s being in the race.  

          1. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the “right thing” to do, and you could argue that, having done this race just over a year ago, Rayburn should now have enough political clout to go through the caucus process rather than petitioning on as an unknown.

        1. Why are you Crank supporters so affraid that Rayburn will petition on?  I think it is best to let the voters decide on the best candidate in the primary.  If petitioning on is a legal way to make this happen then what is the harm?  The only thing the petitioning candidate has to worry about is offending a handful of self-important local elites, who have already chosen their bedfellows.

          Perhaps I am an ignorant young idealist, but I say let the voters decide.  Unity will come through them.

          1. Come on, do you really think Crank’s people are scared?

            Let me try and explain.

            The caucus system is highly regarded in this state.  Grass roots campaigning gives people the chance to look candidates in the eye and ask questions.  Most states that don’t have our system learn about candidates from mailings and commericals.  The only precints that get walked are the ones considered “close”.  Here, people get elected by knocking on doors and sitting in people’s homes.  In other states the candidates that campaign that way and win are considered rare occurances.  Having lived here and in states that don’t have our process, I can say that this system is the best.

            So when someone doesn’t even try to go through that process people really consider it a slap in the face.  

          2. let me take the opportunity to educate you now.  In a three way race, the incumbent will win.  If he does not, the guy with the party machine behind him will.  Try to find one example where non-resident candidate has taken on an incumbent and a popular party guy and won.  Rayburn will be last on the ballot, has no one who walk precincts, no local political endorsements, and no party support.  You are freaking nuts to think that he has a chance in this race.

            The reason I want him to go through the assembly is because it’s probably the only way to get him to quit.  He cant win, but he can sure as heck help Lamborn win.  

            1. Robert, you will not be rid of that easy!  I have always been around…I just now became active in actually establishing an account and posting.  I’m only here to give you Crank people a nudge here and again, and let everybody else know that the entire El Paso GOP is not on the Crank or Lamborn bandwagon!

              1. that gopstudent completely dodged my question.  The reason is that he has no earthly idea how someone from outside the district can run a successful campaign against Lamborn and Crank.  So rather than facing reality, he sticks his head in the sand (common for Rayburn supporters today) and pretends I didn’t ask it.  

    1. He does not want to lose to Crank.  Lamborn would probably get around 30% and possible as high as 40%.  He just wants to avoid the possibility of a sub 30% finish, losing to Crank, and having to petition on after going through the Assembly.  It’s actually pretty logical from his point of view.  In a 3 way with Rayburn running spoiler, Lamborn wins by 10%.  

      Lamborn wants to take his case to the less informed primary voters.  That is why he is franking the hell out of us.  He knows it pisses off the really involved folks, but most people are too naive to realize how many hundreds of thousands of dollars he spent of their money to campaign.

      1. I’m not sure that in a 3-way Lamborn wins by 10%.

        Crank and Rayburn are both very smart campaigners and, given the results of the last election, have a 20/20 hindsight understanding of Lamborn’s campaign tactics.

        The turn out in a Presidential election year will also likely be much heavier than the turn out in 2006.  The winner will have to appeal to a broader base than who turned out in 2006.

        I think either Rayburn or Crank could beat Lamborn if they simply told voters what they will do if elected.  Just as Gingrich’s Contract with America was effective because — for the first time — it set political objectives and deliverables, Rayburn or Crank could do the same.

        On the other hand, Lamborn can only point to what he has done (or not done), so Rayburn and Crank may be in a stronger campaign position.

        1. Incumbents win somewhere around 98% of the time (my number might be off, but I am pretty sure I remember that right).  In a head on race, fighting an incumbent is a strong uphill battle, even if the incumbent is as pathetic as Lamborn.  For Rayburn to think he can take a three way when he is not the incumbent, the top of the ballot, and does not have a local political machine to back him is perhaps the most moronic thing I have seen in politics.  It’s about as promising as Kucinich running for president.  At least Kucinich knows he does not have a chance…

  3. Rayburn only makes the grade of “news” for his display of the size of his ego in front of the party faithful…

    Lamborn not petitioning on seems huge.  When’s the last time an incumbent decided to bypass the caucus/assembly process?  By default, this decision vaults Crank to the top of the primary ballot.  How many people vote for the incumbent because he’s the first name on the ballot, and how many vote for him because he’s their current Congressman?  This may be a unique opportunity to find out.

    1. I find it interesting that at the meeting on Saturday, there were a lot of candidate tables.  One had a sign-no literature, bumper stickers, nothing.  Just a sign and a nice lady.  It was Lamborn’s table.

      Someone dropped the ball there.

    2. I was at Saturdays meeting. I talked to the Lamborn Folks.  I got no such vibe.  They had only a table and no big campaign because the Congressman has not officially announced yet.  He is currently working in DC, and doing what you criticized him last month for not doing, …fundraising.

      BTW. I also had a nice conversation with Jeff.  And I did not think he sounded overly “nervous”. Why should he.  That was the “home crowd”.  He and his campaign helped put many of them in the positions they hold.  That’s the way Jeff sounded when he used to speak for the chamber urging us to SUPPORT ref. C and D.

      SO What does he have to be nervous about NOW?  Well except that some former Crank supporters are quietly starting to whisper that Jeff will be the cause of Schaffer’s loss if he continues to divide the EPC GOP.  Except for that.  But then who listens to those pesky former CRANK supporters that are now supporting Doug Lamborn or Bentley.

      No need to worry about that.  Just keep auguring amongst yourselves about important relevant issues on the top of the voters minds, like FRANKING.  

      1. You’re saying that Lamborn’s empty table at Saturday’s meeting was so pitiful because he hasn’t announced yet?

        So the big sign was for what, window decorations?  Just to remind people he was there?

        And what about the woman there that when asked said “someone is bringing the stuff”-did that person not show up because someone called them and said “don’t bother, Lamborn hasn’t announced”?

        Are you usually this full of BS?

        1. What I am saying is, The Lamborn campaign did not put up large banners, plaster the roads leading to the event with yard signs, or have anything but a low key information booth by intentional design.   Read into it whatever you must.  

          Doug Lamborn is and will be your next Fifth District Congressman whether he had more yard signs on Cresta Road than Jeff Crank or Not, one Saturday morning in December 2007.

          1. You have to be kidding me! Please elaborate on what “campaign strategy” has virtually no campaign presence at a CC meeting in the COUNTY where he represented for years? I mean, the least the guy could have done is sent someone to give some BS line like “the Congressman was in Washington DC voting” or something!

            If I hadn’t read it on here, I wouldn’t have even known he had a table. And I was there from very early in the morning!

            So he intentionally didn’t come to “send me some sort of message”? Maybe he is going to mail me what he planned to say…

            Either way, Message taken!

            1. I am NOT a part of the Lamborn campaign, and have no relevant inside information.  So as I said, make of it what you will.

              BUT.  Hypothetically speaking.  If I were advising the congressman, I would say in advance of that meeting:

              Mr. Congressman, you have little to gain and everything to lose by making a big flashy showing at this meeting.  Most of the people attending have already selected a candidate. The best you can hope for from this meeting is if Jeff Cranks supporters get a boost of hope and hang in for the long haul.  If it’s just Bentley Rayburn alone in the primary, you may have a close challenge on your hands.

              But if both campaigns can be convinced that the one with the most yard signs and the best speech at this insignificant meeting* has any real significance, then they will beat each others brains in to try to take the high ground.

              (* insignificant  to the campaign outcome for an incumbent.)

              Plus, It will lower expectations for you and you can once again have your opponents underestimate you.

              Besides, robert at coloradopols.com knows everything, and he says in a three way race, you win.  Do what you have to do to keep Jeff Crank in the race.  

              Now I know you think I am Joking, and I am, but only partly.

              Go back and look at the buzz on all the threads on the CD-5 subject since Saturday.

              Its Rayburn vs. Crank.

              Think about the speeches.

              Rayburn vs. Crank.

              I know the conventional wisdom is that Crank is the stronger candidate, and Rayburn is the poser.  But is it true?  

              A significant number of former Crank supporters have been saying privately that Jeff is to blame if Schaffer looses because JEFF CRANK divided the GOP in EPC.  They aren’t saying that about Rayburn.  

              The perception is that its Cranks selfish blind personal ambition that has been driving this bloody showdown since the morning after the last primary.  The General gets a pass, cause JEFF CRANK dove in first.

              Jeff Crank has higher negatives and a record that is easily assailable (See 2006 CFG campaign lit. for details.)  This only scratches the surface.

              IMHO, Jeff Crank will not beat Doug Lamborn for Cd-5 in his lifetime.

              The General on the other hand, well about the worst you can say about him is that he is a carpetbagger.  But that really won’t stick because he actually lived in Colorado, he just named another Home of Record in a lower tax state.  Among strong conservatives, that’s not a negative, that a badge of courage.  Way to go Bent.

              But inevitably someone will say, but Jeff got more votes than Bentley last time.  True, but that is because he started late, and the massive Lamborn/Crank ad war was sucking up the oxygen.  Rayburn never really got his message out last time.  But 2 years later, the upticks are going to Rayburn, and to Lamborn.  

              Lamborn now has some nice coveted committee assignments, a quotable  designation as a reliable Republican with a strong conservative voting record.  AND he’ the incumbent  REPUBLICAN REP in Conservative  EPC Colorado.

              I don’t think either of these guys can beat him one to one.  But Rayburn has the best shot. Bottom line. robert at coloradopols.com knows everything, and he says in a three way race, LAMBORN wins.  

              Robert, please do what you have to do to keep Jeff Crank in the race.  Doug Lamborn is counting on you.

              NEWSMAN

                1. Most of these posts are the authors personal opinions.  Whether its spin or not depends on the context.

                  I think its clear that when I said “BUT. Hypothetically speaking” , everything that followed was my personal opinion.

                  A Lamborn staffer (Above the level of the nice lady at the table) gave me their reasons for the low key presentation.

                  My opinion is that the lack of volunteer’s waving yard signs at a Dec 1, 2007 meeting of the Crank dominated EPC Central Committee will not change one vote one way or the other in the Republican primary.

                  I have no inside information on campaign strategy, just my personal theory offered for entertainment value.

          2. You’ve GOT to be kidding-you accuse me of spinning?  You who are basically calling Lamborn’s volunteer a liar?  You who say that Lamborn didn’t have anything but one big sign, an empty table, and ONE volunteer making excuses was intentional?  HAHAHAHAHAHA!  Please, please, I would love to hear how that was intentional.  Once you do, please pass that along to the poor nice lady who tried her best-she really was a nice lady.

            You would treat your own people like that?  How sad.  

            You know, when you showed up I was glad to have a Lamborn person around.  But Lamborn should find another spokesman for his campaign.  If you’re the best they can do, you’re going to do more damage than good.

            HAHAHAHAHAHA-“intentional”

  4. that suddenly three new posters appeared on this site today and they all support Rayburn (but they are unbiased in their assessment) and we are all biased?

    I give these guys one week tops.  It would be fun to have a Rayburnite on here on a more regular basis, but once they finish their talking points I doubt they will stick around.  

    1. You and Haners have loads of credibility as opinionated but fair posters, and I’d extend that to CD-5 Line, GOPPundit, and other longtime CD-5 debaters. These pigeon posters (flapping in, cooing loudly and shitting all over everything, then flapping away) are a different breed. It’s like the old clichГ© says – if I had a dime for every noob shill who came on like gangbusters only to fade as quickly as the campaign they work for does….

          1. I saw that story and wondered if anyone would think that was me.  My heart goes out to those involved, but the tagname Haners has nothing to do with my name.

            I appreciate the concern.

      1. It would be nice to have a long term Rayburn poster here, but these posts smack of campaign staff who have been told to stop the bleeding by Rayburn’s campaign.  I have never really understood why campaigns would try to infiltrate a liberal blog.  Do they really think that a bunch of Republican primary voters read our posts and are influenced by our debates???

        1. is that, “liberal” or not, this site is exactly what they say it is – the state’s most widely read and regarded political blog, and unless there’s a well-maintained blog in EPC, this is the place for y’all to come and talk about the primary race. Lord knows that the conservative blogs I know about don’t talk about this or let users create diaries. For that reason, shills of all campaigns in all races find their way here sooner or later.

          1. I can’t find a Conservative blog that touches these subjects.

            Conservative blogs in Colorado ?  They don’t post regularly;

            for some, the most recent post was in September.  

      2. I’m not a Rayburn staffer…I’m just a local political activist who has traditionally used this site for information rather than commentary.  I am a local university student who has been a volunteer and leader in the Colorado Springs conservative community.  After seeing this post I had to say something!  You few Crank supporters are trying to control who gets on the ballot…I will not stand for it!  I have seen a few posters here included amongst your tally of regulars who seem fair, but for the rest of you Crank people, I will try to represent the candidate you are trying to sweep under the rug.  I think you will need a bigger rug!

        1. I’ve been posting long enough to recognize the pattern. New posters come along, often in two’s and three’s, all posting essentially the same thing, always in regard to certain political races, always in support of their guy. “Local political activist[s] who [have] traditionally used this site for information rather than commentary” don’t follow that pattern – they create their accounts long before they ever comment because they know it’s easier to keep track of the new posts by logging in. They also comment on occasion because, being interested in politics, something pushes their buttons sooner or later and they share their thoughts.

          Also, if you are a longtime reader you’d probably know more about my politics. I’m a frequent poster and don’t exactly keep my persuasion in disguise. (But maybe you meant to call others “Crank supporters” and just did it in your response to my post. If so, disregard this paragraph.)

          If I’m wrong, you’ll be able to prove it easily – simply comment on something else. Go to another thread, talk about which presidential candidate you support and why. Or tell us what you think of Douglas Bruce’s appointment and the shenanigans he’s been up to. Or talk about Ritter’s collective bargaining executive order.

          This, of course, is a free speech kind of site and you can tell me to get lost and not answer any of this. (Or follow the shill pattern and make no reply at all to this post.) But keep in mind that you made the impression that you’re a shill. It’s up to you to dispel it.

          1. Newsflash:  Aristotle is a LIBERAL. But I’ll give him that he is a pretty darned logical and fair one at that.  For those of you who decided to suddenly start posting, Aristotle is a regular and is not on any Republican’s side here.  

            1. I might as well reveal that I live in Denver so the CD-5 infighting really doesn’t affect me… except that it hurts to come from the same state where an embarrassment like Lamborn is a representative. I’d like to see CD-5 have a competent representative, even if that means someone effectively furthering a political vision I disagree with, if only because of state pride.  

    2. It’s nice to have more Republicans around, and I don’t like it when someone only posts for their candidate.  I would like to think that someone’s thoughts were deeper than one candidate.

      1. (and I always hold out hope that they’re more than that, although I’ve yet to be wrong when I’ve gone on the record), you’ll never know how deep their thoughts go because, as campaign workers acting under orders, they’re limited to  making their talking points and occasionally insisting that they’re just ordinary citizens who only want to talk about one thing.

    3.  

      Robert,

      That is the same BS you laid on me over a  month ago when another Lamborn supporter posted the same day I did.  Why don’t you just welcome the new guys, and leave your arrogant self serving know it all predictions in the drawer with your CRANK bumper stickers.  

      Stick to the facts, and try to resist your knee jerk tendency to spin spin spin when you can’t win the aurgument.

      1. My favorite Lambornite.  Where have you been buddy? I’ll quit making fun of you when you demonstrate over time that you have your own intellectual arguments and are not a campaign shill.  And if you want to really demonstrate that you are a regular, get my handle right.  

        1. I know what your “handle” is, I have had your “number” from the second day I posted.

          Just because some people on this blog have no life and stay glued here every waking moment does not mean those with jobs or education responsibilities  will (or should.)

          Does the value and wisdom of opinions grow by seniority on this blog?  I’ve seen no evidence of that.

           How can you be so sure the new Rayburn guys did not do just what they said they did, read here for a while, and then were motivated by a hot button issue to post.  I was, and you were wrong about me. You gave me the same ration of BS over a month ago you are dishing to these guys this week.  I’ll bet true to form you are wrong about gopstudent and epblogger too.

          You are so sure you have all things political figured out, can spot a new posters true soul just by reading a few lines of text, but are so wrong on so many levels when it comes to CRANK/LAMBORN issues, and so often right on so many other things.  That’s why I like you.  There’s hope for you yet.  (And yes I read other subjects (often) and post occasionally. )

          After November 2008, when Lamborn wins the election and after you come out of rehab for all the CRANK KOOL AIDE you have been drinking, you may be a fun guy again.  But as for now, your heavy handed tactics with new posters that don’t agree with you stinks.  LIGHTEN UP.

          Best of Luck to you robert.

          NEWSMAN

          1. But really, I am enjoying reading your posts now that you have run out of Lamborn talking points.  Just use your brain and not what you get from Lamborn’s campaign and you will do just fine here.

            And you have to admit (if you really have been keeping track) that it is pretty easy to spot new hacks on the blog.  You pulled the same stunt, but seeing our three new friends here you probably realize now how ridiculous it looks to show up with a couple friends by “coincidence”, say the same thing, and expect that people will not think you are connected somehow.

            1. Dry your tears, so you can re-read my message, you missed it the first time.

              You said…..”it is pretty easy to spot new hacks on the blog. You pulled the same stunt,….. ”  

              No robert, No I did not.  The other guy who posted the same day of my first post read the same newspaper article I read.  We were not even remotely co ordinated. I was given no marching orders or talking points. I would know something like that. I only now know who he was because he used his own name to post.  

              That’s my point.  You were wrong then, and you well may be wrong now about our new posters.  You may be right, but SO WHAT.

              Give them a break for goodness sake.

              Disagree, argue, fuss, fume, debate, but PLEASE STOP insulting and running off all the new posters that you in your infinite wisdom have dubbed  “hacks”.

              You were once a rookie hack here as well.

              You should be welcoming these new guys.  Cause this site is BORING if all we hear from are the CRANKy KOOL AIDE drinkers congratulating themselves on spotting the latest Lamborn or Rayburn “plant”.

              Who are you kidding.  If anyone from any campaign pays any attention to this narrow bunch, they should stop wasting their time and go back to work….

              Now play nice with the other kids Bobby.  Or I am going to have to take away your Crank for President Teddy Bear.

              NEWSMAN

              1. but they will probably be gone in another week.  

                As a point of order, people use the pronoun “who” unlike inanimate objects that use the pronoun “that”.  “Posters” are people too and should be referred to as “who” not “that”.  

                Also, it’s been a LONG time since I was a rookie on this blog (I think a couple years now).  You have to earn your reputation here, not just show up and be respected.  

                I like your Crank for President Teddy Bear comment though.  You are gaining a sense of humor finally.  

                1. I realize this blog is left leaning but I thought Dems believed in freedom of speach. If one believes Robert the only people worthy of posting to this site are those he approves of, long time posters who must have nothing better to do than search blogs. I am not a staffer for ANY candidate. I do believe in fair treatment of all candidates. If we are all gone in a week, so what? It doesn’t change the facts that the GOP elite are biased, they are mostly Crank supporters, they were put in office by Crank and his crew, and they will do whatever it takes to get their guy in office.  

                  1. robert gets a little testy when he can’t get the new kids to share his CRANK KOOL AIDE.  But on other subjects, he often makes decent well reasoned arguments.

                    I want to respond to your last few lines…..”  If we are all gone in a week, so what?

                    1) Don’t let the know it alls run you off.  This blog needs more committed conservatives regardless of who they favor in CD-5.  

                    …”It doesn’t change the facts that the GOP elite are biased, they are mostly Crank supporters, they were put in office by Crank and his crew, and they will do whatever it takes to get their guy in office.”

                    2. You have got to hand it to Jeff Crank and his team.  They won the delegates and committee votes fair and square.  But they controlled the Central Committee last time, and lost when it was an open seat.  All that buys them is the party insiders.  That is nothing to sneeze at. That is worth something .  These are the dedicated workers who make calls, hand out campaign lit, talk to friends and get out the vote. Crank, is the consummate insider.  A former Hefley staffer, Joel’s designated heir apparent, and a successful Denver lobbyist.  He knows how to work the crowd and stack the deck.  But one thing he’s not, and that’s the 5th District’s US Congressman.  WHY?

                    One thing the 3 way race in EPC has done is bring more former political observers off the fence, and out of their easy chairs and into the campaigns.  That’s mostly a good thing in the long run for most.

                    It would be nice if ALL the motivated conservatives in EPC, (CRANK’s, LAMBORN’s and RAYBURN’s ) were all working on and for a new Colorado Republican majority.  

                    Now that would be a positive thing.  

                    Maybe someday.  

  5. I just heard the wave file of Rayburn’s nose thumbing last weekend.  He accuses Crank of going negative early in the last campaign.  My challenge is for any of you to come up with an example of Crank’s negative campaigning.  I did not support Crank last go around, but I could not think of any time when he was negative.  Be specific in your response. (I’m humming the Jeopardy music while I wait).

  6. Hi I am Nathan Fisk and someone alerted me to this thread. As the full-time Executive Director of the El Paso County Republican Party I want to be clear that I do not support one candidate over another in the 5th Congressional Primary – or any other contested Primary for that matter. Any candidate, staffer, or supporter who feels otherwise is invited to address that issue with me immediately as I am happy to answer any questions they may have.

    To set the record straight – In my position, I do not, have not, and will NEVER publicly support one Republican candidate over another in a Primary struggle. Any report to the contrary – including those on this thread – are blatantly false. Anyone who believes something other than that is more than welcome to contact me at ExecDir@gopelpaso.com or 719-578-0022.

    I take my job extremely seriously and therefore treat every candidate as equally as I possibly can. I therefore urge gopstudent, epblogger, or any other interested party to personally stop by my office any time or to phone or email me directly.

    Thanks – Nathan Fisk

    1. .

      Could you also please address whether or not you helped someone hang a poster ?

      Now, by itself, I don’t think that would be improper.  

      Just good manners.

      And yes, a couple folks who post here will blow it out of proportion.

      But it is best to put this sort of thing to rest quickly, even if its something you now regret.  

      And, of course, if it never happened, a denial should be prompt.  

      .

      1. I did not help any campaign with their signs or related campaign material.

        Particularly given the history of the CD-5 Race the Party Officers and staff are excruciatingly cautious about our activities and the Central Committee meeting was no exception.

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

56 readers online now

Newsletter

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