Posted on 09/03/2007 3:54:27 PM PDT by Roberts
Assuming you live in the district, unlike the other guy who thinks he knows all about this while living in another state, you will have your chance to support Crank.
I vote based on record so I'd be very interested in what you find objectionable in the job Lamborn has done in Congress. Tell me where he voted wrong, if you can.
When an elected official says this, I'm done with him/her. Doesn't matter which party.
“No doubt the letter writers are liberals.
They’ve got the whole make an accusation ... then play the victim role down pat.”
Let’s see, one writer is affiliated with Focus on the Family and the other worked on a Republican primary campaign. That’s liberal?
“Must be left-wing anti-American Democrats trying to discard another Republican.”
You should actually read the story.
We have a problem: speech v. legislative action.
I don’t care if he mouths off; it’s his actions and his voting record. My foundation: Constitutional State’s rights.
I shun people who tell me to shun others.
I guess you embrace your enemies.
I care if he mouths off like this. I don't care to be represented by the likes of Doug Lamborn.
R>appeal to you as a brother and sister in Christ.
When an elected official says this, I'm done with him/her. Doesn't matter which party.
62 posted on 09/03/2007 6:27:16 PM MDT by buccaneer81
I know that there are no Christians in the political party of perversion and murder of innocents.
Doug Lamborn mistakenly assumed that employees of Focus on the Family would be Christians.
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
no. I just prefer to judge for myself.
"...there is some "there" there"
Something in this doesn't seem right to me. Campaign donations are very difficult to keep track of. Assuming, perhaps Lamborn did wind up with 'dirty' money, but did he deliberately and knowingly accept that money?
The Bartha's letter might just as easily been mistaken or their charges exaggerated. If they have solid proof, then they need not fear their adversary. But in publishing that charge, they had to know there would be a reaction.
Maybe Lamborn's a jerk, but his jealousy over his reputation could not be unexpected. Is there anything in his history that might suggest his threats meant more a libel suit?
Sorry to be the devils advocate, but the Bartha's donned journalists' hats, and assumed that responsibility. It's unseemly for them to cry wolf over an angry verbal rebuttal.
The Lamborn folks kept track of the donation with enough accuracy to later allegedly return it.
All the Barthas did, was to write a letter to the editor. In response, they apparently got Lamborn being way over the top. A Congressman should expect folks to write things like that in the paper -- and he shouldn't respond as Lamborn is said to have done.
Mazol TovHave a wonderful journey.
May you one day, come to know Yah'shua
That's certainly true... It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The Lamborn folks kept track of the donation with enough accuracy to later allegedly return it.
They had records of the donation, but would they have kept a profile on all potential donors? How quickly did he return the donation?
Again, I don't know the details, but I find myself more sympathetic towards Lamborn than many of the respondents. Republicans of any kind are getting scarce, and I hate to see them undermined from within their own ranks.
There's a tendency our side to make--and I think Voltaire said this-- "the best the enemy of the good."
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.