Posted on 09/03/2007 3:54:27 PM PDT by Roberts
Well damn if I think those veiled references to “other measures” are especially pretty.
It’s not the tone a congress critter should take with a constituent, why are you defending this?
What was the threat? NONE!!!! And what is the problem with taking campaign money from LEGAL gambling? There is NOTHING in the law about gambling that I have read. Must be left-wing anti-American Democrats trying to discard another Republican.
Defamation lawsuit perhaps? Night with fishes? Bathroom footsie? Who knows these days...
Maybe...but this guy, Republican or not, really screwed up by leaving those ominous sounding messages. He should have just written his own letter to the editor rebutting their claims with facts.
“Nice soul you got there. Too bad if somethin’ happened to it.”
Republicans tend to use lawyers to deal with “issues”. Now with Dems it’s different. Sometimes they use trucks, large ones, coming in both directions.
Gee, I wonder what his message would have if he did pay attention to constituent criticism?
Proponents of gambling towns should have to live where they defecate and send their kids to those schools.
Pompous
A$$.
The Baptist-and-bootlegger hypocrisy, that's what. If he took money from Indian casino interests to help keep off-reservation gambling illegal, then he's a damnable hypocrite.
I agree, this is a really disgraceful way for a Congressman to treat a constituent. If he can't stand the scrutiny and abuse then he should get out of public life. Veiled threats unless they submit to his definition of "Scriptural" authority? Total B.S. This guy ought to be kicked to the curb by the voters next year.
-ccm
I didn’t qualify my “threat” opinion. I was thinking along the same lines. Libel or it’s equivalent which will go no where.
Crank's bona fides are (to me) not all that impressive: he served in the Air Force for a few years, which is nice, but aside from that he was one of Hefley's staffers, and then went on to be a VP of the local Chamber of Commerce, working on economic development issues.
He's young .. which in this district I think is a negative. There are a lot of potential candidates who have had a lot more real-world experience.
Lamborn is a bare-knuckles sort of politician, and his aggressiveness early in the '06 primary campaign paid off. He hasn't made any impression at all, that I can see, in his first term in Congress.
Maybe, if Crank and Hefley can smear Lamborn enough. But any conservative who looks at Lamborn's voting record is going to like it.
If a constituent had left a similar message on his machine you had better believe the cops would be calling it a threat
I agree, this is a really disgraceful way for a Congressman to treat a constituent. If he can't stand the scrutiny and abuse then he should get out of public life. Veiled threats unless they submit to his definition of "Scriptural" authority? Total B.S. This guy ought to be kicked to the curb by the voters next year.
That's nonsense. The Congressman says the money was returned and even if it wasn't it means nothing to me.
Voting record, that's where it's at, and Lamborn's is very conservative. A candidate can promise anything but Lamborn has a record to run on. Crank has nothing but sour grapes.
My guess is that the folks who work for Focus on the Family were concerned with a Congressman accepting funds from gambling interests (which Focus on the Family would oppose) without regard to whether accepting money from gambling interests is legal or not.
I don't care if he's Barry Goldwater reincarnate. I think it's a s#!tty thing for a Congressman to call up one of his constituents, and engage in vague threats and Bible-thumping bullyragging, over a mere letter to the editor. He's a thin-skinned hypocrite and a bully, and I wouldn't vote for him.
-ccm
Here is his 2006 list or organizational donors.
There's nothing obviously from gambling interests, but I also didn't follow up on too many of the names.
I didn't see information at OpenSecrets.org for the 2008 election cycle. However, the 5th CD does include Cripple Creek, which is a big gambling location, and it wouldn't surprise me if his contributors did include gambling interests.
According to one Denver media source (ABC Channel 7):
The Bartha's letter criticized Lamborn for accepting $1,500 in campaign contributions from the gambling industry. Federal records confirm the donations were accepted, but Lamborn said he returned them. He did not say when and The Post said there is no federal record of them being returned.
So there is some "there" there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.