Vote for Mike Coffman, Tomorrow, August 12th

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

A Letter from Mike Coffman to the Voters of the 6th Congressional District:

I have a strong record as a proven conservative with a background of leadership from the military, small business, and from state government.

Congressman Tom Tancredo never waivered on the issue of immigration reform and nor will I.  In the Congress, I will fight for an enforceable immigration system that will include the security of our borders and deny amnesty and a path to citizenship to those who violate our laws.

I’ve been a small business owner from 1983-2000 where I’ve created jobs, balanced budgets, and met payrolls.  In the Congress, I will fight to stop out of control spending, cut taxes, and reduce the regulatory burdens on business to create more jobs and economic opportunities.

I served this nation in both the U.S. Army and in the Marine Corps.  I led Marines in combat during the first Gulf War and recently served in Iraq as a Marine Corps civil affairs officer where I helped the Iraqi people establish their first constitutionally-elected government.  In the Congress, I will fight to make sure that we maintain a strong military, that we complete our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that we never waive the white flag of surrender in the war on terror.

I’ve had four military assignments that have taken me to the Middle East and I fully understand the importance for more domestic drilling and for reducing our dependence on foreign oil.  In Congress, I will fight to make sure that we increase domestic drilling to lower the price of gas, increase the availability of nuclear power, and end government mandates and taxpayer subsidies for alternative forms of energy thus allowing the free market system to work to determine how our energy needs are met.

Thanks for reading this.  I would deeply appreciate your vote for Congress on August 12th.

Sincerely,

Mike Coffman

 

38 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Haywood JBM says:

    I still see to think, that we, the voters, hired him to do a job as Secretary of State that is still not finished.

    To my fragile little mind, that sounds like he is wanting to abandon his post, before being properly relieved by either term-limits, choosing not to run for re-election, or defeat in an election.

    The end result of him abandoning his post would be that a Republican seat that many republicans worked very hard to help him secure, and many others donated to would be handed over to the other side.

    I know Mike thinks the party screwed him in the Governor’s race in ’06, but if this is payback he is taking it out more on the people than the party.

    I just don’t understand his logic and would like to hear why he thinks abandoning his post is an acceptable course of action…

    • ColoCitizen says:

      What is a greater calling, service to one’s party?  Or service to one’s Country?

      • Sir Robin says:

        How is it that a political player of one party ISN’T serving their country.

        That said, Mike is dead wrong on all the issues.

      • PERA hopeful says:

        The citizens of the entire state elected Mike to his office, and Mike’s current mission is to serve them, not his party.  

        • RedGreen says:

          Just as John McCain’s current mission is to finish out his Senate term instead of aspiring to higher office. The residents of Arizona elected McCain, and his mission is to serve them, not his party or his inflated ego.

          When Coffman stepped down from the state treasurer’s office to serve a tour in Iraq, I didn’t hear the same carping from self-righteous Republicans, because a Republican governor named his replacement.

          Mark Hillman, who filled out Coffman’s term as treasurer, abandoned his mission in the State Senate to accept the appointment, but you didn’t complain about that either. Didn’t Hillman have a duty to the constituents who elected him and expected a full term?

          Where was the indignation when Donetta Davidson abandoned her mission as secretary of state to serve on a federal election commission? Remember, she’d previously failed to complete her mission as Arapahoe clerk and recorder to take the secretary of state appointment, but you were silent about that too. The residents of Arapahoe County didn’t deserve a full term?

          Your argument is absurd on its face and hypocritical to its core.

          • PERA hopeful says:

            You’re right, I didn’t complain when all those Republicans left their positions because I’m a Democrat and don’t much care when Republicans step into other positions. Nor will I object if Mike Coffman goes to Congress; I live in CD 2 and don’t get a say in the matter. In fact, I’ll be tickled pink if Coffman leaves SoS because Ritter will get to appoint his replacement. However, I thought the previous post gave a false choice between service to country or service to party. Mike’s service (as SoS or as member of Congress) should be to the citizens who elected him, not to his party.

            • RedGreen says:

              But the generic “you” who complain about Coffman abandoning his post, or whatever. Your line about his current mission encapsulates their argument perfectly.

            • ColoCitizen says:

              That the main argument made by all of Coffman’s opponents in this primary election is, “Mike is leaving the SOS office to a Liberal Democrat and that is why you should vote for …(ARM’s(trong), Ward, or Harvey).”

              I understand that you didn’t have context.

          • Kiki Trumpet says:

            Coffman didn’t casually give up his Treasurer’s office to a Dem.  Hillman didn’t nonchalantly give his seat to a Democrat.  Donetta Davidson didn’t literally hand her post over to the other side.  See a pattern here?

            Moreover, none of those offices are nearly as central to the overall partisan elections process as the Sec. of State.  

            Mike has neglected to put up the dozens of endorsers he has on this site…

            • DavidThi808 says:

              The fact that Republicans view it as an office for partisian advantage is reason enough to never want a Republican in that office.

              • Kiki Trumpet says:

                if you don’t think Dems don’t treat it as such.  Perhaps, Mr Thiesen, you are a bigger man than those in Dem leadership, but that is the truth.

                You can’t ignore history and you can’t ignore what your bretheren are saying today.  It’s been said before, Republicans and Democrats have differing standards of fairness.  For example, Dems think voter ID restrictions should be light.  Republicans don’t.  Dems think same day voter registration is ok.  Republicans don’t.

                There are multiple perspectives in this world – I’m sure this can’t be the first time you’ve heard this.

            • RedGreen says:

              to the overall partisan elections process as the Sec. of State

              You mean except for the two examples where a sitting secretary of state abandoned his or her mission?

              If the ability of Republicans to direct voter-suppression activity is somehow more important than a seat in Congress, what does that say about what Republicans have to offer voters?

              If you cared so much about the office of secretary of state, you would’ve run a better candidate than Bob Beauprez for governor last time, then you could’ve appointed the replacement same as you have the last two times it’s been vacated midstream. But you didn’t and you’ll suffer the consequences.  

            • bob ewegen says:

              When Ken Salazar turned over his Attorney general’s job to a Republican.  Are you STILL mad about that 😉

              • Kiki Trumpet says:

                I’m a Republican, so I was as happy about that as you are about Mike giving up an important seat for my party.

                But as you know, Ken Salazar was arguably the only Democrat who could have won that seat.  On the other hand, it is typical to hear from the CO-6 electorate that we are fortuntate to have 4 such great candidates.  Even Steve Ward could win in a general.

                • bob ewegen says:

                  And I’ve been a registered Republican since 1976, undoubtedly longer than you have.  I do agree its a good field in the 6th, though as a veteran, I obviously lean to Mike. Can’t vote there, though, so its irrelevant.

                  But frankly I think Mike has earned his shot and also don’t think SOS is a job with partisan implications.  

          • cologeek says:

            Just as John McCain’s current mission is to finish out his Senate term instead of aspiring to higher office. The residents of Arizona elected McCain, and his mission is to serve them, not his party or his inflated ego.

            The same could be said about Barack Obama.

      • Fidel's dirt nap says:

        it’s the same damn thing !

    • DrewKerin says:

      I Like Mike, but…

      I still see to think, that we, the voters, hired him to do a job as Secretary of State that is still not finished.

      To my fragile little mind, that sounds like he is wanting to abandon his post, before being properly relieved by either term-limits, choosing not to run for re-election, or defeat in an election.

      I just don’t understand his logic and would like to hear why he thinks abandoning his post is an acceptable course of action…

      by: Haywood JBM @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM MDT

      Where was all this “outrage” when Ken Salazar left the attorney general’s office in mid-term to run (and win) a U.S. senate seat?  It wasn’t a factor then and it is not now.

      Mike Coffman has set aside his political aspirations twice before to answer his nation’s call to arms.  He puts country, not politics, first.  

      Could Coffman better serve our country as the only member of Congress to have had “hands on” experience dealing directly with the politics of Iraq?  Of course!  There is no military solution to the War in Iraq.  There can only be a political one.

      Such firsthand knowledge would give him a high profile in Congress, even though he will be a freshman in the minority party.  That will translate into credible and visible representation for the people of Colorado’s 6th CD.

      Coffman didn’t need to run around seeking Republican political heavyweights to hold his hand while he ran for Congress.  He is his own man.  

      As the Denver Post noted, “A few of his fellow Republicans don’t want Coffman to win because they don’t want the party to lose the Secretary of State’s office. But we’re confident that if he’s elected, whatever the party thinks it may be losing, constituents in the 6th would gain a tireless fighter.”

      This is what the people of the 6th CD deserve.            

  2. true colorado conservative says:

    We need the most experience leader who can hit the ground running and get things done for our state and country. Remember this seat is to replace Tom Tancredo who has been a national figure. With Musgrave being targeted there is a chance we will have only 2 Republican Congressman. We need someone who can step in and be a leader from day one. Where were your remarks when Bob Beauprez ran for Governor? You are obvioulsy a campaign shrill and since your candidate can’t beat Mike on his merits, you resort to this type of messaging. I say Armsrtong will get eaten alive, Ward will vote with the Dems at every occasion and Harvey while the better of this 3, would be a single issue Congressman.    

    • Haywood JBM says:

      1. Am not a campaign shrill, so your smartass attitude are not necessary.  Though based off of your tone, it appears you are a member of the coffman campaign.

      That being said, I find it hard to determine a scenario where Coffman doesn’t win.  Armstrong doesn’t have the experience, Ward is an unknown, and Harvey is probably the most distasteful of the remaining choices.

      As far as Bob Beauprez, I always thought he was a panty-waist and jusging by how handily Ritter beat him, I guess I was right.

      However, what you are failing to do is address my basic question, which is doesn’t Coffman feel he owes any loyalty to those who worked / donated to his SOS campaign to finish the job he was hired to do?

      If not, can those of us who donated have our money back?  I think we are at least owed an explaination.

  3. DBrown says:

    Mike Rosen even said this morning if your wavering on Coffman because of the SOS issue, don’t. He stated we need the best leader, obviously Coffman, and the Secretary of State position has little influence in the grand scheme of things.    

  4. divad says:

    …I wouldn’t vote for you if you were running for Dog Catcher.  

  5. fathawk says:

    all you Armstrong shrills found this website the day before the election. Its about time.

  6. Half Glass Full says:

    I’m a somewhat conservative Democrat but also a realist – and I liked you when you were refusing to share the same stage with Tom Tancredo because you considered him a chickenhawk draft-evading demagogue.

    And now you give him the honor of your first substantive paragraph? THAT’S pandering of the lowest order.

    Pity.

  7. bull08 says:

    who has served his state and his country well.  I am proud to know him and call him my friend but I would like to see him finish his term as SOS and run for governor.  I cannot think of one person who could run our state better.

    Tomorrow will be the first time in 10 years that I will not vote for Mike Coffman when he has been on the ballot.

    • bob ewegen says:

      I can’t vote in that district but as a national security Republican, I am rooting for Coffman to go to Congress. Yes, it turns over SOS to a dem, like Salazar gave AG to the Rs.  But as a veteran, when other things are more or less equal, I go for my fellow veteran.  That narrows it to Coffman or Ward and Steve got too late a start to win this one, good man though he is.

      But I respect your comments about Mike and your opinion on this subject.

  8. sjintheknow says:

    Mike will do a great job for us in Congress.

    Get out and make sure Mike will be our congessman… VOTE For Mike!

  9. Jambalaya says:

    …if the candidate himself doesn’t speak so English so good, then at least some staffer should investigate the difference between “waive” and “wave,” or even between “waiver” and “waver.”

    E.g., Coffman wavered along his sure path to election and waived his right to claim status as a smart guy when he tried to wave the US Flag for campaign purposes and instead waved his silliness in our faces.

    signed,

    barely literate  

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.