Bentley Rayburn’s “open mike” moment.

(Is this real? – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Lamborn’s catspaw caught on tape.

54 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. gopstudent says:

    The only person who will be responsible for getting Doug Lamborn re-elected is Jeff Crank.

    He is running a dirty campaign and has alienated Lamborn and Rayburn supporters to the point that neither would consider him to be an option.

    Jeff Crank has zero chance of winning this race and is grasping at straws in a weak attempt to prove some odd point.  His campaign has nothing to offer and people are taking note.  His empty rhetoric and talking points will not translate into votes.

    CD-5, it is hard to believe that you have a recording of a candidate saying that he will not be the guy to get his opponent re-elected.  Oh the scandal!

    • Haners says:

      Do you not realize you are commiting the same sin you are accusing Crank of.  If you are really about clean campaigning and being above the fray, why not commit to stop calling Crank a dirty or sleazy campaigner?  Come on, be above the fray.

      • blah says:

        by that logic, Crank was the dirtiest politician last cycle, because he was the one always harping on percieved slights, filing bogus FEC lawsuits, and trying to get Lamborn’s sons arrested.

        Last cycle Crank’s MO was character assassination, this cycle it’s no different. Crank’s negativity could cost the Republicans a Senate seat, just like it helped lose us the governorship in 06.

        Jeff Crank, the democrat’s best friend.

        • blah says:

          Listen to yourself Haners. Who started this whole “brand the opponent sleazy” movement?

          What did Hefley say about Lamborn after the primary? And who put him up to that? Crank Crank Crank. I can’t even wrap my head around that hypocricy.

      • gopstudent says:

        Just because I tell a skunk he is stinky does not in turn make me a skunk.  Crank is running a dirty campaign.  There is plenty of evidence to support this.

        • Haners says:

          You accuse Crank of being a dirty campaigner because of what he says (generally speaking) about Rayburn.  In response, you attack him, calling him all sorts of names in return-Crank and his supporters think that what they’re saying about Rayburn is true just like how you think what you post about Crank is true.

          If that’s what you want to do, that’s fine.  But that doesn’t make you or the Rayburn camp the “clean campaign” you always say you are.

          • Western Way says:

            and even I think CrankY is dirtier the “Slick Willy”

            • NEWSMAN says:

              I don’t live in the District

              and even I think CrankY is dirtier the “Slick Willy”

              It is apparent from the talk at the local grocery store, from neighbors, and from local talk radio, that Cranks whisper and e-mail spear campaign has and continues to backfire on him.

              Poetic justice.

              I am not willing to call Jeff Crank akin to Bill Clinton in any way but this:  Both try to deflect criticism of their campaign tactics by accusing their opponents of what they are actually doing.

              That said, ASAIK Jeff is a faithful husband and father, an otherwise good Republican, and a successful lobbyist.

              I started this campaign with more respect for Jeff than I have right now.

              As of now, after seeing his carpetbagger campaign against Rayburn, his dirty dogfighting campaign against Lamborn, I wouldn’t vote for Crank for DogCATCHER, until he apologises to both men for his outrageous distortions.  

          • gopstudent says:

            Just stated that his campaign is dirty and grasping for straws.

            Just the facts.  I don’t need to peddle sleaze about Crank or Lamborn for my candidate, I have plenty of good to say about Rayburn.

            Spin it how you like Haners, but we are the “clean campaign.”

            • Western Way says:

              dude, don’t attack you supporters, you can’t control “the message” on the blogs, this isn’t Communist China.

              • Haners says:

                I am a Crank supporter, but one who is very concerned about the CD-5 fight dividing the party any further then it already has

                • One Queer Dude says:

                     Two years ago, the party in CD 5 was pretty badly split but got together to keep the Congressional seat in GOP hands.

                    Unfortunately, it will probably do the same thing again this year regardless of how nasty things get.

                  • Haners says:

                    Whoever wins the nomination for CD-5 will win in November.

                    But the problem comes in disaffected Republicans staying home and not voting for Bob Schaffer or John McCain

                    • One Queer Dude says:

                         Focus on ’10 when you guys are gonna run Tancredo against Salazar and Josh Penry against Ritter.

                • Western Way says:

                  You are supporting a congressional staffer for life who is only slightly better then Lam(e)born.  

                  The incredibly sad thing about the post I made is that everyone missunderstood it terribly.

                  a) Lamborn and Crank are the reason why the Republican party in El Paso are divided

                  b)I was trying to give gopstudent a lesson (which was stupid here, my bad)  

            • Haners says:

              While you have never used the word “liar” when describing Crank, you have certainly suggested it on a number of occasions.  You have used the term “sleazy campaigner” and/or used the term to describe the campaign.

              Sorry, but let’s be honest here.  Bad mouthing another campaign isn’t “clean campaigning”.  It isn’t sleazy to do so (sleazy is making stuff up), but it isn’t clean either.

          • CD-FIVE says:

            and wouldnt make up lies about Crank, just to make him look bad.  Rayburn is running a campaign based on his experience and leadership, not attacking Crank or Lamborn with things that are not true.  Although Rayburn is not reciprocating Crank’s integrity-attacks, I question Crank’s integrity and wonder if his scruples aren’t really a match for the district, I suggest he run in Chicago for a better fit.  Attacking a veteran when he retires to where he grew up and has his family by calling him a “carpetbagger” is the definition of slime in my book.  I used to think that we would be fine no matter who got elected, but this race is starting to show Crank’s true colors.  Too bad he can’t just run on his own merits rather than throw mud.

            • Haners says:

              I wouldn’t make an assumption on that one way or another simply because I don’t know him personally.  The question is whether attacking a Rayburn supporter calling Crank sleazy can be considered clean campaigning.  I don’t think it can.

              We can’t control what Crank says about Rayburn or Rayburn says about Crank, but we can control what we say and whether we are being clean, sleazy, or somewhere in between.

          • Discernment in CD5 says:

            This kind of defense of Cranks dirty campaigning proves the Crank operatives have completely lost all objectivity. They have been to the well of Crank cool aid too many times.

    • Discernment in CD5 says:

      Agreed.  Crank will come on 3rd place.

  2. repsjohnso says:

    i heard rayburn broke his word in the deal and wouldn’t back out after the poll was done like he promised???

  3. gopstudent says:

    I do not believe this to be a “open mike” in any respect.  This was likely recorded at a personal meeting between Jeff Crank and Bentley Rayburn that took place sometime in last June/July.

    What kind of guy records a meeting with the intent to use the recording for ill purposes nearly a year later?  Talk about devious; very politician like.  Not exactly the type of guy I want representing me in Washington.

    I think this lends further evidence that the Jeff Crank campaign has lost its mind and is desperately trying to find ANYTHING to slander Rayburn and Lamborn with.

  4. CD-FIVE says:

    This thing is getting ugly.  Crank is desperate and is bringing out his pile of recordings from personal meetings over a year ago.  Havent people gone to jail for making secret recordings?  Is Crank willing to break the law in order to get this seat?  He is certainly willing to throw mud, but how desperate is he?

  5. Western Way says:

    to be re-elected, what is CrankY going to do with his life?  Hopefully Lam(e)born is grateful and gives CrankY a job getting coffee and franking the district after the deadline….

  6. One Queer Dude says:

       Now that Doug Lamborn has won the coveted O.Q.D. endorsement, I’m expecting him to break 50% this year.

      As for who ends up in second and who in third, it doesn’t really matter. Neither can claim the title of spoiler.

  7. Dawg48 says:

    It would suit me fine if all three were eliminated.  Vote for Hal Bidlack

  8. Half Glass Full says:

    I can’t even guess from the comments here what was said and by whom – although I’m sorely tempted to “imagineer” a suitable transcript.

  9. H-Dog says:

    This whole meaningless donnybrook aptly symbolizes the decline/decay/futility of a once-dominant party.  Partisans of the three candidates have contributed hundreds of thousands, and to what purpose? To electing one of three conservatives, whose actual philosophies are virtually identical, to one of the safest GOP seats in the country. That’s money that could have-and maybe would have-been better spent in other Colorado races.  But instead, Republicans spend their time in vicious infighting & namecalling, while Dems send their money, time, and support to Mark Udall & Betsy Markey.

    Somewhere up there, Harry Truman is smiling…

    • RavenDawg says:

         Look at the pissing war going on for the CD-2 nomination–very little substantive discussion there.  This is what results, IMHO, from drawing up safe one-party districts.  

        Another contributing factor is that most politicians are very risk averse–it is much easier to run by demonizing your opponents than to actually stand up and articulate and defend your ideas.  

        I think more impartially drawn districts would help, but the voters also have to take responsibility and weed out some of the lowest-common-denominator types.

        I don’t live in either CD-5 or CD-2, and am very unimpressed with both races.  

      • DavidThi808 says:

        …the big difference between the candidates is how they will do their job, not how they will vote on most bills. But that’s a really hard thing to discuss in an election – the electorate doesn’t really listen to that.

        As to “negative campaigning”, most of what I have seen in CD-2 is legit points. Candidates point out the differences between themself and the others. They do that on issues where they look good and their opponent does not. That’s discussing the differences, not negative campaigning.

        • RavenDawg says:

          How they will do their jobs, not how they will vote on most issues, does seem to be a parallel between CD-2 and 5.  

          And “pointing out differences between themselves and others” pretty quickly goes to pointing out how the other guy is hired by Satan and you’re divinely ordained–ie negative campaigning.

          Like I say, my outsider impression has been that the quality of discourse has not been very high in either race, precisely because the candidates are respectively similar.

  10. Laughing Boy says:

    I never knew Republicans could act like such a bunch of pussies.

    Seriously, Lamborne’s a horrible embarrassment.   Can’t we please do a little better down there?

  11. Win Ah says:

    I am a Rayburn supporter because I believe the most important issue in our country today is that “We Are At War.”  And, Gen. Rayburn has concentrated his efforts the past 30 plus years to defending our freedoms by performing his duties most honorably and capably in the United States Air Force.  In addition, he has spent the  time since his retirement listening to and studying the many concerns of our 5th District.  I suggest you read his biography and other items on his web:  His qualifications are far above the other candidate’s.  

        This needless mud slinging about a flawed poll, unsanctioned recording taken out of context, timing of building his retirement home here (and he WILL), and payment of taxes is just an effort to discredit him and divert the voter’s attention.

         He will continue to complete his campaign in an honorable manner, and will perform the duties as our Congressman in the best possible way.


    • Discernment in CD5 says:

      You are naГЇve if you think that Rayburn being an AF Gen. will mean anything in congress.  All members of congress are of equal rank.  Even within the Republican conference, committee assignments are determined by seniority, not rank.  Even his two stars will not get him a seat on the House Armed Service Committee.

      • One Queer Dude says:

           There’s a good chance that none of the three stooges running for the GOP nod in CD 5 will be on Armed Services come Jan. ’09.

          If Republican sustain losses of 20-25 seats in Nov., they will have to relinquish some seats on all standing committees to reflect the new ratio between the majority and minority parties in the House.  

          Under seniority rule, even if Doug Lamborn is re-elected, as the most junior member on Armed Services, he would probably be the first Republican committee member dropped from that committee.

        • jericho says:

          Over a couple other members. He was a member “in abstentia” from the first day he was in office. I remember that a lot of folks on this site pooh-poohed him for it, but it meant that he had seniority over non-absentia appointees to the committee.

          There were two (I believe) additions before him, but he outranks both of them. Not such a bad situation for him now, is it?

  12. Win Ah says:

    Gen. Rayburn has been called upon by those committees in D.C. on a number of occasions while he was the head of the Air War College as well as other assignments.  

        It is not only his military experience which will serve him well in Congress, but his intellect, experience, and loyalty to the United States.  Again, read his web  site and become familiar with all information.   Better yet, attend a meeting where he is speaking.  

       He will serve this country best.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.