Statesman Blasts RCF – NEWSMAN Fires Back.

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Lamborn supporters threaten to oust party chair

The Colorado Statesman without interviewing me or requesting an interview from anyone at the RCF ran this story under the sub-headline.

Republican Club of Falcon raises hell

http://www.coloradostatesman.c…

There are some things the Statesman failed to find out that the reader might find interesting. I made one phone call to a reliable source at the RCF, and got a ton of information. I do occasionally post on their blog.  You don’t have to be a member to do that, or even give your name. Yet the Statesman wrote:

Republican Club of Falcon members were very upset.

Judging from its Web site, the club is on a decidedly pro-Lamborn crusade. More than 15 articles extol Lamborn’s virtues under such titles as “Defend Doug” and “My prediction – NO Debates for Lamborn.” Some are press releases from his congressional office.

The site contributors bash Crank and Rayburn in articles such as “Jeff Crank and Me Generation Selfishness” and “Rayburn no guarantee of more military jobs.”

I am embarrassed for the Statesman to be the one to point this out to them.

They made a rookie mistake here. What they just quoted IS NOT on the RCF website.  It is on the RCF Blog (Conservative Voice of the Rockies), with this disclaimer:

The Republican Club of Falcon presents member and visitors opinions and commentary. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not necessarily the views of the RCF or its entire membership.

That’s like blaming Pols, CNN or FOXNEWS for the things said on their Blogs.

But it gets worse.

…”That isn’t a surprise considering that the club was headed by John Vander Meulen before he became district director of Lamborn’s congressional office in 2007…”

But what they failed to say is at the founding meeting of the RCF, elected  Chairman was John Vander Muelen (subsequently hired as chief of staff by Congressman Lamborn) and vice chairman Chuck Broerman (Crank campaign advisor), Neither are current RCF officers.

http://findarticles.com/p/arti…

The RCF website still proudly states its endorsment of D-49 school board President Anna Bartha, who is hardly ever confused as being a Lamborn supporter.

There are many Lamborn supporters in this Club, but there are a lot of Lamborn supporters in the EPC Republican party. What do you expect? They’re Republicans. Lamborn is the current Republican Congressman.

The RCF has a by-law prohibiting endorsement of any candidate in a primary race, and has members from several opposing campaigns. Example, one of the principles from the Waller campaign is co committee chairman with a 20 year supporter of Doug Bruce. Like I said, the RCF has

club members that are Republican division leaders, several precinct leaders, US House Congressional staff,  School Board members, Falcon/Peyton Masterplan committee members, Airport Board members, etc.

The RCF has club members that have worked every major campaign in our area since its inception 4 short years ago.

Name another EPC Republican Club that has been instrumental in defeating 2 tax issues, and changed the majority philosophy on a school board, or any elected board.

And the there is this from the Statesman:

Republican Club of Falcon blogger, NEWSMAN, posted the following on the club’s Web site and the Colorado Pols Web site on July 26. The dual posting is neither rare nor coincidental.

If they would have more accuratly called me “Pols blogger NEWSMAN”, would that imply Pols approves of what I say? But now you know, I post things on more than one blog. No it’s not rare, a lot of bloggers post on more than one blog.  Cross posting is common. So What! But what they then quote are not my words.

“The Republican Club of Falcon is shocked and dismayed that our Republican County Chairman Greg Garcia has cast aside his pledged commitment to remain neutral during primary election contests and thus has violated our party by-laws.

“He ignores false statements repeatedly told by Jeff Crank about Congressman Doug Lamborn and Bentley Rayburn and criticizes Lamborn and Rayburn for pointing out Crank’s false statements.

“Garcia’s proclaimed code of fair campaigning was never approved by the membership, and is a smoke screen for political favoritism … Garcia and (Nathan) Fisk are biased and using rose-colored glasses when viewing Crank’s false statements.

“Garcia’s behavior is dividing our county party and negatively impacting our ability to unify and help Bob Schaffer and John McCain win in November. Therefore, the Republican Club of Falcon calls for the resignation of Greg Garcia.”

Those are the words of the RCF Resolution posted on the RCF website.  I copied them and posted them on Pols verbatim. I also showed the link to the RCF website and credited them.

http://coloradopols.com/showDi…

If they had a question, my contact information is with my Pols profile, all they had to do was click on my name and they would have found this:

NEWSMAN   Email: AmicusGOP@gMail.com

It is just possible the RCF’s call for Garcia’s resignation was based on what Garcia’s arbitray and unequal treatment of many Republican campaigns was doing to Republican morale and unity, and not to favor one campaign.  After all, the KOAA TV ch5 examples cited where Rayburn, Dan May, Lamborn, Newsome and Crank. 2 seconds was about Lamborn.  But don’t just take my word for it, “trust but verify.” http://www.koaa.com/aaaa_top_s…

Political experts agree that it is very unusual for a party chairman to behave this way. “They are supposed to be staying out of it,” said Bob Loevy, Political Science Professor at Colorado College. “They are supposed to be staying neutral. They are supposed to be holding their fire until they go against the Democrats in November.”    

SO I have to ask,

STATESMAN, did you get your information for this story from the Crank Politburo of Propaganda, aka the Crank campaign?

NEWSMAN

.

Who do you believe?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

37 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. jericho says:

    I’m not really sure why the Statesman is so lovey-dovey with Jeff Crank, if they’re not unfairly trashing Bentley Rayburn…

    http://www.coloradostatesman.c

    …then they’re setting their sites on anyone who sticks up for Crank’s opponents. I can smell a bit of desperation in the air. It’s only seven days til the election, and the Crank supporters are getting nervous.

    They’re just throwing whatever mud they can grab, and hoping more of it sticks on their opponents then them, but I think they’re miscalculating, and will be unpleasantly surprised when Crank comes in third next Tuesday.

  2. Jorgensen says:

    REPUBLICAN CLUB OF FALCON RAISES HELL

    Back at county party headquarters, Garcia is revising his original statement that called for fair and ethical campaigning. The following excerpt contained an omen of the imminent revolt.

    “Advisers have pointed out to me that making public these distasteful instances will upset people in the party, perhaps causing deeper divisions. I disagree. I believe that the El Paso County Republicans in general want the Republican primary races to clean up their acts. For, if we do nothing, what does it say about the party?

    “I know the candidates cited here, and they are honorable and capable Republicans who may well serve in the near future as an elected official. With these individuals and with every other person running for office in these Republican primary races, we should expect ethical and clean campaigning.”

    Republican Club of Falcon members were very upset.

    Judging from its Web site, the club is on a decidedly pro-Lamborn crusade. More than 15 articles extol Lamborn’s virtues under such titles as “Defend Doug” and “My prediction – NO Debates for Lamborn.” Some are press releases from his congressional office.

    The site contributors bash Crank and Rayburn in articles such as “Jeff Crank and Me Generation Selfishness” and “Rayburn no guarantee of more military jobs.”

    That isn’t a surprise considering that the club was headed by John Vander Meulen before he became district director of Lamborn’s congressional office in 2007.

    Republican Club of Falcon blogger, NEWSMAN, posted the following on the club’s Web site and the Colorado Pols Web site on July 26. The dual posting is neither rare nor coincidental.

    “The Republican Club of Falcon is shocked and dismayed that our Republican County Chairman Greg Garcia has cast aside his pledged commitment to remain neutral during primary election contests and thus has violated our party by-laws.

    “He ignores false statements repeatedly told by Jeff Crank about Congressman Doug Lamborn and Bentley Rayburn and criticizes Lamborn and Rayburn for pointing out Crank’s false statements.”

    “Garcia’s proclaimed code of fair campaigning was never approved by the membership, and is a smoke screen for political favoritism… Garcia and (Nathan) Fisk are biased and using rose-colored glasses when viewing Crank’s false statements.

    “Garcia’s behavior is dividing our county party and negatively impacting our ability to unify and help Bob Schaffer and John McCain win in November. Therefore, the Republican Club of Falcon calls for the resignation of Greg Garcia.”

    GARCIA AIMED TO AVOID 2006 ROCKY HORROR SHOW

    State GOP Chair Wadhams debunked the club’s accusations against the county party chair.

    “To suggest that Greg Garcia had ulterior motives or some hidden agenda to promote one candidate over the others – and the Lamborn campaign had every right to raise the question – I do not believe that for a split second,” replied Wadhams. “If anything, he stuck his neck out to be fair.”

    “It’s fixed. It’s over,” declared Williams, whose name was floated as a replacement for Garcia. He said Garcia had good intentions, but that because he’s fairly new to politics, he didn’t realize how his actions would be perceived.

    “The role of chairman is to pull Republicans together, not to criticize Republicans in public,” said Williams, adding that differences or complaints are settled outside of the public eye.

    To others, Garcia’s concept of evaluating campaign ads for truth and fairness appeared to be a logical extension of the county party’s “Ethical Campaigning” statement that encouraged candidates “to be honest and truthful, to demonstrate integrity and to act with respect.”

    When Garcia was elected chair last year, he said his goal was “to mend fences.” He spearheaded an effort to prevent a rerun of the 2006 shoot-’em-up primary in CD 5 that severely fractured the party.

    Two years ago this month, the Christian Coalition of Colorado accused Crank and Colorado Springs Mayor Lionel Rivera of pushing a “homosexual agenda” in a mailer splashed with images of embracing lesbians, waltzing gay men and parading drag queens. Mark Hotaling was director of the Christian Coalition, a position held previously by his brother Jon Hotaling who had resigned to manage Lamborn’s campaign.

    Lamborn refused to denounce that preposterous propaganda during the primary campaign and after winning. Consequently, former Congressman Joel Hefley refused to endorse Lamborn in the general election.  

  3. Jorgensen says:

    But, glad you included the link. There was no intent to diminish or downplay the importance of the Republican Club of Falcon. Although, I admit, I am very curious as to who you truly are NEWSMAN… and that plus unplugging other anonymous bloggers would be the story of the manly minute… not a courageous story of the century…

    Have at it anonymous boys!

    • NEWSMAN says:

      I always post links.

      I didn’t have room to rebut the entire article. Pol’s gives me gas all the time for being too long. And in fact, I don’t disagree with the accurate parts of it.

      Garcia tried to be the judge of political ads, and over stepped.

      The little RCF called him on it.

      Garcia backed down and reworded his op-ed.

      So either he is a coward (which he is not) or he agreed it might not be in the best interest of the party to print his original article.  Which I agree with him on.  The re worded article is very good, very statesman like, and I applaud him on it.  

      If he would have said that in the first place my bet is the RCF would have said AMEN.

      If you have a question, e-mail me next time.  I will answer most of them.

      Who I am would be a big disappointment for you.  I don’t know much, but I know people who do. I think its called good sources.

      NEWSMAN

      • NEWSMAN says:

        Can you answer these questions:

        Why did you not attempt to contact the RCF if you were going to report on them?

        Why did you not contact me?

        Where was the balance? You did see Anna Bartha’s picture on the RCF website, right.  

        You do know who Anna Bartha is, right? She has a very famous answering machine. That might have been a clue that the RCF was Pro Republican, or Pro Conservative, not just Pro Lamborn.  So where did that headline come from

        “Lamborn supporters threaten to oust party chair”

        Where you just wanting to find a way to help out Jeff, or did you just want to slam Lamborn?

        Do you think it is fair to label an organization by who posts on their open and anonymous blog?  Do you hold your buddies at CNN to the same standard?

        Did you just make a mistake, if so, just say so. No big deal.

        • Jorgensen says:

          I talked with a member of RCG.

          Isn’t it easy to question others behind a mask?

          No.

          Facts are correct. Check the Web site.

          No, I did not make a mistake.

          As for contacting bloggers under FALSE NAMES – well you boys live by your Spanky and Our Gang Games.

          Do you really think that a reporter would quote, “AmecusGOP” – doesn’t exactly sound like a name on an American birth certificate, does it?

          • NEWSMAN says:

            amicus curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as “friend of the court”,

            Amicus GOP, is well, “friend of the GOP”.

          • NEWSMAN says:

            I talked with a member of RCG.

            Isn’t it easy to question others behind a mask?

            They respond to reporters, and sent a real person to respond on camera.

            http://www.koaa.com/aaaa_top_s

          • DavidThi808 says:

            Do you really think that a reporter would quote, “AmecusGOP” – doesn’t exactly sound like a name on an American birth certificate, does it?

            What, only names like “John Smith” are acceptable.

            Look, I disagree with NEWSMAN about 101% of the time. But I find him a thoughtful, intelligent, open-minded, and fair individual. And I have never heard him denigrate anyone because of race, gender, etc.

            You on the other hand come across not so well.

            • Aristotle says:

              Namely the reporter’s absurd excuse that she didn’t contact Newsie because of his name (that is, not knowing his real one). She was happy to use NEWSMAN when quoting his posts in her article. Why would that suddenly be unacceptable when seeking a direct quote? I think she was just covering her ass – she probably didn’t even know you could click on a user’s name and get an email address if said user made it public. Her line about a “birth certificate name” is odd but you know what they say about not attributing to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

              I think Newsie is spot on here. I’ll need to read both the web site and the article and compare what was said where, but if this diary is accurate then the journalist is guilty of sloppy and lazy reporting.

              • jericho says:

                the article is comfortable quoting a GOP insider in anonymity, but wouldn’t be willing to extend that courtesy to a blogger.

                • Aristotle says:

                  She implies that she was aware of Newsie’s email when she said what she said. I don’t believe she was – she only made that comment after Newsie asked her why she didn’t contact him.

                  I think she either overlooked Newsie’s email address, simply figured she couldn’t contact him, or possibly didn’t even want to.

                  We’ve had a lot of diaries here on Pols exposing some lazy journalistic practices lately. I think Jourgensen came (or leaped) to some conclusions without doing any digging and ran with that. Her immature comments about no one studying Latin after college sounds like the sort of thing an embarrassed person would say.

                  • Haners says:

                    It seems odd to me that a reporter would try to get a quote from someone who wants to remain anonymous.  It is one thing to point to what someone says in a public setting to make a point about the attitudes in that public setting, but it does seem odd to me to expect that a reporter would seek the response from an anonymous blogger.  At the end of the day, we really have no idea who each of us represents, what agendas people have, or what their motivations are.  At least with a name, a source can be tracked.  Their associations can be examined and that would give people an insight into their motivations.  For all she knows Newsman, you could be the chair of RCF or just some guy who sits quietly in the back of the room.  In her mind, what authority do you have to speak on behalf of the club?  You might not even be a member…

                    What I’m trying to say is that anonymity comes at the price of diminished authority

                    • NEWSMAN says:

                      For all she knows Newsman, you could be the chair of RCF or just some guy who sits quietly in the back of the room.  In her mind, what authority do you have to speak on behalf of the club?

                      I make/made NO claim to speak for that club. NEWSMAN speaks for NEWSMAN.

                      I quoted their website, just like many others do with similar websites (including the statesman’s) all the time.

                      Why did she even quote me in the first place?  She is a reporter quoting another reporter? But I am a blogger. If she wants to promote me to “reporter status”, I’ll take it . I’d be honored.

                      The point made by others here is this. If you are going to quote the now famous statewide NEWSMAN, (which is an admittedly questionable choice) you should attempt to contact him and ask him some questions.  

                      You can’t have it both ways.

                      Either I am anonymous and therefore suspect or unreliable, or I am credible enough to quote, and therefore credible enough to contact.

                      NEWSMAN

                    • Haners says:

                      You don’t claim to speak for RCF.  You want to remain as your web persona.  She wasn’t quoting you per sey, she was pointing out what you said as a gauge of the attitude displayed.

                      Hence, no need to get your response-she was using your posts to paint a picture.

                      So if you don’t speak for RCF and you’re an illustration in her mind, why should she have tried to contact your web persona for a quote?

              • NEWSMAN says:

                I think Newsie is spot on here. I’ll need to read both the web site and the article and compare what was said where, but if this diary is accurate then the journalist is guilty of sloppy and lazy reporting.

                Thanks for seeing it, and saying so.  I stuck my neck out and took a risk on a liberal blog that I regularly post ideas that are counter to the majority by posting a survey of “who do you believe” on this issue.  (Maybe I should have worded it Who do you think is closer to accurate.)

                But even though I get into some deep water occasionally with my liberal and Cranky fellow posters, I find (the majority of) them to be fair about issues involving even those they disagree with.

                Though they at times may appear to me boneheaded on issues of political philosophy, I trusted they would evaluate this fairly. You guys didn’t let me down.

                I see there are several votes in favor of the reporter, which is to be expected. I am a self admitted partisan, and the reporter benefits from the tradition of objective journalism. Then there are those that think if I proclaim Ronald Reagan as the best president in my lifetime, my judgement must be flawed, and therefore I can never be right about anything. 😉

                Now as to “Lois Lane” AKA Jorgensen.  I am going to give Leslie a pass on the Amicus remark. I was being a bit provocative with her and pressing her on her lack of balance. I think she was trying to be funny, and was kidding with me at 2am, and didn’t for a minute consider how it might look in the glare of tomorrow’s light.

                I honestly don’t attribute any malice to her on any of this. I think she has only been fed one side of the story in the CD-5 race, and bought it.  

                I could be wrong, that’s just my opinion.

                PS- Ari, the web site is http://www.falconrepublicans.org/

                • Barron X says:

                  .

                  And Haners hits it:

                  you are free to post anonymously.  

                  But that means that you, IRL, don’t stand behind what you post here.

                  As John Smith, or whoever you are IRL,

                  you are free to criticize your Newsie alter ego, should present company suggest that course.  

                  And no, as Newsie, you are not sticking your neck out.

                  As Newsie, as in Sim City, you have no real neck.  

                  You are free to continue as Newsie, or to out yourself.  

                  But those are two very different courses of action.

                  I assume I met you last night at the ?CCM? shindig.  

                  You are well within your rights to maintain your privacy,

                  and to conceal the link between your two identities.

                  But as long as you do,

                  your web persona is not a person.

                  Your web persona has no reputation, no credibility, no stake – no skin in the game – other than an identity that you can walk away from.  

                  .  

                  • NEWSMAN says:

                    There are a considerable number of people  who know NEWSMAN’s identity. (Even several who blog here, and many more who don’t.)

                    Those people I hold in high regard, and value their opinion of me.

                    I very much do have a reputation and a neck.

                    And, even to those who don’t know who the person is behind the keyboard, NEWSMAN has a reputation to protect.

                    Your web persona has no reputation, no credibility, …BARRON X

                    I offer David’s unsolicited post as evidence to the contrary.

                    Look, I disagree with NEWSMAN about 101% of the time. But I find him a thoughtful, intelligent, open-minded, and fair individual. And I have never heard him denigrate anyone because of race, gender, etc. DavidThi808

                    And on that testimony from Boulder Liberal David T. who I have never met, I rest my case.

                    • Haners says:

                      The our “neck” as Newsman or Haners or Barron extends only so far.  While some here know who others are, it’s not the same as someone who puts their neck out under their real name and identity.  That’s half the fun of pols.  We get to stick a virtual neck out in ways we couldn’t in real life, and as such we limit our exposure to unforeseen adverse consequences.

                      But we can’t have it both ways.  We can’t demand that protection and then worry about protecting our web personas the same way we would guard our good names.

                  • NEWSMAN says:

                    Tell me if this qualifies as an “interesting development” in the CD-5 race to you?

                    http://voiceoftherockies.blogs

                    • Barron X says:

                      .

                      I wrote a lengthy piece on my “Smackdown” thread that mostly gave Kyle’s perspective.  

                      It would be an important contribution to hear your perspective, if you attended. Or even if you didn’t.  

                      I don’t necessarily buy Mr. Fisk’s version 100%, but he took the time to present his case to me and others in the room.  

                      In fact, as I hinted above, CCM IS a partisan organization.

                      At one point, Kyle talked about debates between the two candidates in the General Election.  Mr. Chopped Liver had to raise his hand to point out that the conservative party, the American Constitution Party, would have someone on the ballot, too.  

                      If CCM was about “conservatism,” I don’t think he could have made that mistake.  CCM is about the GOP, even if the party strays from what’s conservative.  

                      .

                • Aristotle says:

                  I might have stayed out of it, but Leslie’s comments here made me want to weigh in. As you say, it’s one thing to use NEWSMAN as an example in the article, but it’s another to come out and criticize and belittle your anonymity and use it as a weak excuse for not trying to get a comment.

                  Haners, you essentially say that anonymous posters don’t or shouldn’t enjoy the same credibility as those using their real names. I won’t try to change your mind about that. But understand that journalists have long had a tradition of quoting anonymous (or more accurately in this case, pseudonymous) sources. Just the other day I read a good article in the NYT magazine about internet trolls where they spent a long time talking with one who is only identified by his online name. The guy had earned his reputation using that name. Similarly, Newsie (and you, and me, and…) has earned his. Any quotes he has to offer carry weight in direct proportion to that reputation.

                  Now it could be that the article is fine as is – maybe there was no need to contact him. But Leslie’s comments here make me question if that was so.

                  • Haners says:

                    Specifically:  

                    journalists have long had a tradition of quoting anonymous (or more accurately in this case, pseudonymous) sources. Just the other day I read a good article in the NYT magazine about internet trolls where they spent a long time talking with one who is only identified by his online name. The guy had earned his reputation using that name

                    I see your point.  However (and respectfully) it doesn’t change my mind if only because someone who has the courage of going on the record under their name seems to have far more credibility then an un-named source.  While your example (and point) are valid, my only counter argument is that journalists that use un-named sources for major stories typically know who the source is but simply withhold that information from the public.  Think the Nixon story and the Valarie Plame story.  The reporters knew who their un-named sources were and did everything to protect them.  

                    • NEWSMAN says:

                      someone who has the courage of going on the record under their name seems to have far more credibility then an un-named source.  

                      What I was arguing was the idea that we have NO online reputation.  You of all people should dispute that.  It is your very online reputation that got you front page privileges, and has earned you the respect of your fellow polsters.  That was my point.

                    • NEWSMAN says:

                      Why don’t you just tell everyone to Kiss your behind, eat bat guano and die the next time someone raises your blood pressure?

                      Oh wait, some people do that.

                      But haners doesn’t.

                      That’s your online, as well as your IRL reputation. One CAN effect the other.

                      Don’t believe me, just try the above and see what happens.

                      No wait, don’t.  You wouldn’t be the haners we know and respect if you made a habit of that.

                      SEE.

                    • Haners says:

                      Trust me Newsie, I see your point.  But comparing me to others isn’t comparing apples to apples.

                      I’m honest when I talk about myself, I really am a mid-20’s mormon kid who’s married, loves Jeff Crank, and doesn’t like Doug Bruce at all.

                      But to most people, I am the only one who knows if I’m really being honest.  It wouldn’t make sense to lie about it, but for all anyone knows, I’m some old guy who is a sock puppet that pretends to love people who I don’t to try and stir the pot (think of your opinion of “Libertarians4Doug”).  As such, unless I unviel who I really am, my reputation is accepted in large part on faith.

                      That’s not enough for some people to put their real reputations on the line.

                    • Haners says:

                      Who said that people don’t have an online reputation?  What I am saying is that no one here should expect to be approached by a member of the traditional press for a direct quote as the press likes to know the identity of their quote even if they don’t disclose said identity because “masked people” could say whatever they want without much in the way of a reputation on the line.  If you or I were to be quoted and the information turned out to be incorrect, our personal reputations wouldn’t be tarnished-the same couldn’t be said for the reporter who wrote the story-only our online ones.  All we would have to do is make a new username and we’re back in business.  So I can see why from a journalistic stand point, she didn’t want to contact you, even if her comment about Latin was stupid.

                      The thing is Newsie, our online reputations are confined to the world of Colorado Pols, and the reputations that we have built on fake names diminishes outside of this world exponentially.  Our sphere of influence is extremely limited.  And we shouldn’t expect that reputation to pour over into other forms of press.

                      I wouldn’t say we have no reputation, but not enough to expect to be contacted for comment the way a reporter would if real names and real reputations were on the line  

                    • Aristotle says:

                      that Jorgensen saw fit to quote Newsie, using his correct handle and such. The situation wouldn’t be any different if it was Hamilton Roberts who posted the things Newsie does and he were the one quoted, IMHO. She took Newsie beyond the world of Colorado Pols and the Republican Club of Falcon; he didn’t take it to the Statesman.

                    • Haners says:

                      But I still don’t see the need to try and get a response from Newsman just because she pointed out some of his posts.  The story wasn’t about him, he was part of the story

                    • NEWSMAN says:

                      Jorgensen saw fit to quote Newsie, using his correct handle,

                       

                      She took Newsie beyond the world of Colorado Pols

                      (Which I don’t mind by the way)

                      My only issue was is if you are going to quote someone “even Batman” for a story, and there is a way to contact the subject readily available you should try (even if it means turning on that big bat spotlight above the Colorado Pol’s skyscraper.)

          • Discernment in CD5 says:

            Leslie did not answer Newsman’s questions.  Is she lazy reporter?  or trying to help Jeff Crank?  or both?  hmmmm!?

            • Barron X says:

              .

              before answering.

              He uses her IRL name, and my IRL name, even after I’ve asked him not to, but hides his identity, as is his right.  

              But until he outs his own darn self, and exposes his own darn self to real consequences,

              why would you think she owes him any answer ?

              Discernment,

              I believe you have overlooked the obvious choice.

              On a related matter,

              why would she ask someone hiding their identity for a comment ?

              What value could that have ?

              .

              • NEWSMAN says:

                To D n cd5

                Leslie and I have corresponded privately, and she did answer some of my questions. She was very cordial.  We disagree about several things, but I give the lady credit for making the effort.

                She does have plenty of Crank talking points ready at hand, but that could be because the Crank Politburo of Propaganda is better at making sure willing reporters have them than other campaigns are. Can’t say for sure.

                She now has me as a source /resource if by some wild chance there is ever anything I can assist her with. (She’s a smart reporter.)

                Now to Mr.Barron X, or B for short.

                He uses her IRL name

                The lady and I have corresponded privately. She made clear that she blogs openly, and has no problem with using her IRL name.(Even though it’s not Jorgensen.  Which I found kinda funny considering the subject of “Real names”.) Apparently Jorgensen is her maiden name, or professional name, or non de plume or something.

                and my IRL name, even after I’ve asked him not to,

                Did I do that recently?

                If you are implying I deliberately don’t respect others privacy, and yet expect it for myself, you are mistaken.

                Never intentionally.

                My feelings on the matter are quite the opposite.

                I know your IRL name because of information you gave me.  

                From this day forward I will not use your first name again. If I did so, it was not malicious.

                (I use Paul’s, David’s and Danny’s, because they have used them on Pol’s.)

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.