Former State Senator Ken Chlouber Endorses Bentley Rayburn

(Chlouber, baby! Victory now a foregone conclusion – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Today, former Colorado State Senator Ken Chlouber endorsed Bentley Rayburn for US Congress.  Chlouber, an Army veteran and entrepreneur served in the Colorado legislature for sixteen years and ran for the United States House and Senate.  Chlouber’s endorsement further adds to the diverse spectrum of Republican perspectives that make up Rayburn’s support base and places Rayburn in a unique position to unite the Party after the primary.

Chlouber stated, “I am supporting Bentley Rayburn because we need more veterans in Congress who understand the issues facing our nation.”  He continued, “We need a Congressman who will work to represent the entire district including the western counties.  I know that Bentley’s leadership experience will benefit us all in Washington.”

Rayburn said, “I am honored that Ken has endorsed my candidacy.  He is a strong leader in Colorado and in the Lake County region.  Ken’s endorsement gives us yet another Republican political perspective. We truly have support from all aspects of the Republican Party and continue to build towards Party unity. “

19 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Jambalaya says:

    ……even though he didn’t live in the district that the claimed to wish to represent?  I always looked to him to represent morality.

    • bob ewegen says:

      emphatically does not require you to live in the district to run for Congress. It only requires you to keep a residence there if you win. Besides, in fact, Chlouber did have a home in Denver when he ran against DeGette, though he kept his legal voting address in leadville.

      • Jambalaya says:

        …merely that it was tacky and stupid.

        And I didn’t realize that the Constitution was so “emphatic” about not living in the district you wish to represent.  What, is there some big bold text, or underlining, or colored highlights around this provision?  A strange thing on which to place so much emphasis, it seems to me.

        • bob ewegen says:

          The reference is Article 1, Section 2.

          “No person shall be a represtative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years and been seven years a citizen of the United states, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that STATE in which he shall be chosen.”

          There is, I repeat, no requirement to be a resident of a given distrist.  The framers recognized the concept of gerrymandering and didn’t want to encourage such games.

          • Jambalaya says:

            …if you notice, I never wrote that the constitution required a person to live in “a given distrist [sic]” (Neither did I “orate” such a message through my keyboard…..are you hearing voices, dear?).  Indeed, when you noted that the constitution didn’t require such a thing, I didn’t dispute that.  So, why are you bending over background to prove an uncontested point?  Game. Set. Match. Drink.

            Given the quote you’ve posted, however, I still thinks it’s a bit overdone to say the constitution “emphatically” rejects the notion that a person must live in the disrict s/he wishes to represent.  Rather, the failure to include such a requirement explicitly constitutes merely an implicit rejection of that requirement.  

            And, finally, if the framers truly wished to ward off gerrymandering, they could have done a hell of a lot more to stop it.  As it stands, they did almost nothing to prevent it.

      • CD-5 Line says:

        Birds of a feather stick together.

  2. RockySnark says:

    Didn’t he get his ass handed to him by Dan Gibbs back in ’06? His endorsement of any candidate in this state matters why?  

    Please Ken, crawl back under the politically irrelevant rock from which you came.

  3. Win Ah says:

    Too bad neither of you can be civil, Jamba & Rocky. Talk about “tacky and stupid!”

    • Jambalaya says:

      …while simultaneously prescribing proper behavior?  In any event, by publicly endorsing someone, Mr. Chlouber is deliberately placing his reputation in issue.  After all, that’s the whole point of such an endorsement, isn’t it?  (“Because I support this guy, and you know and respect me, you should support this guy too.”)  Thus, Kenny’s reputation is precisely on point and is the subject of my post (and Rocky’s too, it seems).

      …end of lesson…vaya en paz….

      • RedGreen says:

        have a limited shelf life. No one will care after the election. Do you think U.S. Rep. Coffman won’t take calls from Bill Owens, Scott McInniss or Wayne Allard? Much less John Andrews, David Balmer, or Mitt Romney?

        • Jambalaya says:

          ….but taking calls is the easy part.  All the feuding ‘Pubs and Dems will make nice in public and chit-chat on the phone.  But the true test of loyalty and friendship is whether they will actually do something for the person on the other end of the line.  If they don’t like each other, they probably won’t.  

        • One Queer Dude says:

          He’d be better off if he didn’t.  It’s not like he needed them to get elected.  They’re more trouble than they’re worth.

        • Jorgensen says:

          I think you’re right, RedGreen. Aside from the rural districts that comprise less than 35 percent of the voters in the 5th CD, Chlouber’s endorsement doesn’t weigh heavily in El Paso County. The exception would be those in Colorado Springs who enjoyed his guest appearances as an auctioneer at many Republican events. He’s very colorful in the western folklore of Colorado politics.

  4. ColoradoPolitical says:

    Is Bentley Rayburn so desperate that he is publicizing an endorsement from the Clown Prince of the GOP?

    I guess he probably is.  

    Who is Ron Paul endorsing? What about Joe Rogers?  

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.