Update, 3/17: More to the story: Sue Rehg of Larimer County explains the unfortunate tale of how her name got connected with Taxpayers for Liberty.
Earlier this week I introduced you to the mysterious Taxpayers for Liberty group and their survey results mailing on the U.S. Senate race:
Suffice it to say, the group Taxpayers for Liberty is very fond of Ken Buck, while railing on Jane Norton for not returning the questionnaire and Tom Wiens for filling out the questionnaire identically but having a voting record, or something like that.
If only I knew how nefarious it all was. Frankly, I’m sick of the underhanded tactics and the lack of transparency — most especially in a Republican primary. I asked around about the Taxpayers for Liberty (TFL) survey, and here’s what I’ve found:
- The Jane Norton campaign says they haven’t seen the survey
- The Tom Wiens campaign says they had to submit their survey multiple times after they learned that TFL was not acknowledging having received it from them
- The Ken Buck campaign says it was just another survey that they had no problems filling out and returning
In short, the Taxpayers for Liberty survey is a dishonest and underhanded scheme implemented by a shadowy group, and its “results” utterly worthless. If only we knew the extent of its reach.
In the process of researching TFL, I learned about a very similar technique pulled off within the past couple months in Colorado by the national Ron Paul group Campaign for Liberty (CFL). On January 26 CFL sent out a letter praising Ken Buck and that, among other things, proclaimed: “The bad news is, Republican Jane Norton has not responded to her Candidate Survey.” On January 29 — three days later — CFL sent a letter to the Norton campaign introducing the survey and asking her to return it. Hmmm…. (See a copy of both letters and the CFL survey here.)
Former Congressional candidate and Americans for Prosperity state director Jeff Crank has been on top of this story for awhile, on his Colorado Springs radio show. I’m a little late to the game. He has reported on CFL’s twisted survey and most recently on the possibly fictitious name serving as the executive director of TFL. That’s right: there is no Andrew O’Neill in the Colorado voter database, and only one person by that name listed statewide in the White Pages. Maybe, for the time being we should just presume that the Andrew O’Neill pictured to the right is the person running TFL.
So is there a connection between Campaign for Liberty and Taxpayers for Liberty? (Update: Forgot to mention that I called Campaign for Liberty several times — leaving a voice message when I got the opportunity — and emailed once, for comment and/or information. I received no response.) Some of you may recall that CFL ran pro-Ken Buck TV ads here in Colorado back in late January. The activity led to some serious grumblings from the CFL membership about Buck’s lack of Ron Paul-pure convictions on foreign policy, and ultimately a January 30 response from CFL president John Tate.
Two and a half weeks later (on February 17) the registration name on Taxpayers for Liberty was changed from Larimer County Republican activist Sue Rehg to Denver attorney Adam Kehrli. So it would make sense that the same entities behind the first sleazy survey didn’t want to continue dragging CFL’s name through the mud and anger the Ron Paul purists, and thus opted to use the empty vessel of TFL to perpetuate the scheme.
But who are the murky operators behind the scheme? Because we don’t have the freedom and needed transparency in our campaign finance laws, I can’t say for sure — not without a smoking gun or someone willing to go on the record. We do know they certainly are working to promote Ken Buck’s candidacy (within the constraints of a 501c4 organization under the letter of the law) and make some money for themselves along the way. And all signs point to the same operators who pulled off similar and other dirty tactics in the 2006 Republican 5th Congressional District primary.
The legacy of the 5th CD dirty deeds is exactly why Republicans need to speak up now and denounce Taxpayers for Liberty. Even if we never get enough sunshine to expose TFL to the light of day and start the disinfecting process, the reprehensible way this underhanded 501c4 group operates will only sow more seeds of division within the Republican Party and weaken our chances to unseat the appointed Senator Michael Bennet in the November election. I’m not the only one who doesn’t want 2010 to be a repeat of 2006.
In particular, candidate Ken Buck ought to come out and publicly condemn the tactics used by TFL, third parties that are seeking to manipulate the game to his benefit. Were he to pursue that course, I and many others would be impressed by Buck’s courage and integrity. The longer he stays silent, though, the more questions will linger about the nature of the relationship between his campaign and this rogue group. And that wouldn’t be healthy for Ken Buck or for the Republican Party.
On a related note, I also find the work of Taxpayers for Liberty disgusting insofar as it mimics and distorts the genuine grassroots engagement of Colorado’s Tea Party movement groups — for ignoble, self-serving and divisive ends. I would like to see the various Tea Party and 9/12 leaders in our state denounce Taxpayers for Liberty, and demand the group comes clean on their funding (I have a good idea of who is funding the TFL scheme, but no solid proof) and operators, and stop the shenanigans. Such a course will be easier for grassroots leaders to take than for any of the candidates.
Because just like the rogue group Taxpayers for Liberty’s actions are unhealthy for the candidates and the GOP as a whole, they are also unhealthy for the conservative movement, our ideals of liberty and limited government and the political process in general.
Good job, Ben. Your post is on RockymountainRight and PeoplesPressCollective, and I’m blogging on it. Won’t be long before others join in. TFL and Buck are going to have to come clean now, or his very good reputation will be at stake, imho. I’ll probably post further comments on my blog an on your PPC post. Have you called Buck since the post?
Thanks, Don. I talked to Buck and his campaign manager by phone about the story before I posted it. And I since have sent emails all around, including a personal one to his campaign staff, alerting them to this post. Here’s hoping he denounces this activity.
Ben, I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. If I were Ken Buck, I’d ignore you.
I believe Sue Rehg is Ken Buck’s co-chair in Larimer County-check it out on facebook!
Kimberly, Ken Buck can choose to ignore me if he’d like. He and I have had a cordial relationship. And while I have yet to endorse anyone in this race, I have had mostly favorable things to say about him and his campaign. Look for yourself.
But I’m not the only one pointing out the problems here. And I don’t know you, but hope you would condemn this rogue group. Given the track record of the people who are likely behind this, I have to imagine this survey is just the beginning of the crooked, divisive tactics. I hope not, but in any case what has been done so far is worthy of condemnation.
I am chair of El Paso Co TEA Party, and I totally denounce the nefarious actions by Taxpayers for Liberty! We had our debate on Tuesday night of all Senate candidates, and TFL were handing out the questionnaire, with a request for a donation. I received the earlier CFL mailer, and they looked exactly alike! This does not surprise me, because Buck has not come clean about the 5,000 tax returns he grabbed illegally from a Hispanic tax preparer. He has not come clean about why he was demoted in the US Attorney’s office, from head of Criminal prosecutions, to the bottom of Civil prosecutions! He refused to prosecute an illegal gun runner, who later shows up making campaign contributions to Buck, He told me personally that the 4:3 decision from the State Supreme Court ruling grabbing the tax returns illegal did not matter, because it was only by one vote! Buck has lots of questions to answer, but I would not hold you breath. He thinks we are not smart enough to figure it out.
Ben, it’s not like Ken Buck is responsible for keeping the Taxpayers for Liberty or any other group in line, especially since there’s little more written here than hearsay and speculation. As far as endorsing or not endorsing Ken Buck goes, I would hope you’d make that decision based on his positions on the issues.
Ben,
Just to let people know where I stand before responding, I am a committed and dedicated supporter of Ken Buck. I have not seen the ads or any mailings from this group so I will not comment on the content. What I find troublesome is the misdirection of your indignation. You want transparency from the group yet your article makes demands of Ken Buck and his campaign.
As expected, your article has become a rallying point for Norton’s supporters like Donald Johnson. You can see by his comment on this article that he is giddy over your blog. No doubt he would like nothing better than a silver bullet to derail Ken Buck’s surging popularity.
Well done Ben! You have hit this issue head-on. These tactics are disgusting and bad for the Republican party and process in general. Good people are running for the Senate nomination – let the best candidate win without the sickening scheming of “Taxpayers for Liberty.” This smells all too familiar of the 5th CD race – that left a bitter taste in everyone’s mouth and created years of division in El Paso County.
If integrity of individuals and process matters, then this is not a mountain out of a molehill. Ben’s efforts have uncovered manipulation of information designed to fool people into believing something that is not true, otherwise known as deceit.
I doubt Buck is personally close to TFL, but regardless, he definitley should go public rejecting TFL. Such action would alienate only a few, and gain respect of many more. That is, if integrity matters.
I suggest giving him a little time to perform his own investigation and figure out how to craft his rejection. The time period should be short. Perception also matters. A long time period creates the perception that he is coordinating his statement with TFL. There is no integrity in that.
I’m not too impressed with any of these “candidate surveys”. Every survey is biased – you aren’t gathering objective information by handing out a questionnaire.
I’d rather just talk to them and listen to them and report what they think in English.
“. . .full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,”
Snaggle-Tooth Jones seconds Ms. Freeman and Mr. Olson.
Ms. Ofner I believe you should disclose that you are listed as a member of Jane Norton’s El Paso County leadership team. It is important that people have an understanding of why such a vitriol attack laced with unsupported allegations. Is this the type of leadership Norton has in place. I understand you are upset that your candidate did not fare well in the 2010 Candidate search forum in El Paso compared to Ken Buck, but let’s try to maintain a transparency so it does not appear you are seeking to hide your bias. I for one am a dedicated Ken Buck supporter.
I won’t address your entire comment as your attempts to hide your bias speaks to most issues you penned. I think it is important that your twisting of Ken Buck’s actions on the identity theft case in Weld County are quite obvious and akin to what the liberal take on the issue is. Illegal aliens were found to be using stolen social security numbers, which is illegal. A search warrant was approved by a district court judge. The ACLU took up the cause and won their case in the Colorado Supreme Court. The decision was split 4 to 3. Those 4 who agreed with the ACLU are the same activist judges that should be targeted by “Clear the Bench”. Conservatives agree with Ken on this issue and support his being the one candidate willing to take on the illegal alien issue. Your confusion on this issue is understandable given John McCain is an ardent supporter of illegal alien amnesty. Your candidate was recruited by John McCain. McCain drew 18 percent of the Presidential primary in Colorado as he and his close Republican associates are out of touch with conservative principals. Ken Buck has won the last four head to head straw polls against your candidate. It is likely he we win the caucus straw poll on Tuesday.
I think it is beneath a person so closely associated with Norton to be spreading unsupported rumors. You might want to check with your candidate’s campaign manager regarding inappropriate behavior. You may lose your “leadership” role if you continue such childish tactics.
Funny, Snags, I’ve long held the same view about your writings. I might have hoped that a Ron Paul-ite like yourself would be unhappy with CFL’s name being misused as it has. But you’re free to hold your views.
What would you like Ken Buck to do, coordinate with TFL or CFL? That is against the law, you know he can’t tell these 527 and c4 groups to do – or not do – anything, it is flat out illegal.
Ken Buck hasn’t done anything wrong, and he can’t legally speak out against this particular action. You can thank John McCain and the big gov’t politicans in Washington D.C. for that!
Mr. DeGrow, my comment was obviously not directed towards your writings, but towards your umbrage with respect to alleged misdoings of TFL. In fact, I think you’re a fine blogger.
But this one has internecine Colorado GOP politics written all over it, and for you and Mr. Johnson to imply otherwise is most disingenuous. You fool no one.
As for me being a “Ron Paul-ite” (I thought “Paulbot” was y’all’s prefered pejorative), please be advised that I am not personally involved with either the CFL or the TFL. I am simply a supporter of the Reaganite/libertarian conservatism that Dr. Paul ALONE represents among the current crop of philsophically compromised GOPers, and if Ken Buck’s views are akin to his, well then I’m for Buck.
My own exchanges with Mr. Johnson yields the easy conclusion that he’s going to support the electable establishment candidate every time, and frankly that’s my sense of you too, and this is why the both of you are crying “foul!”.
Speaking of Mrs. Norton, one only need listen to her campaign commericials and talking head interviews of her to conclude that there’s no “there” there, but once again, as was the case with the McCain nomination, the GOP elites show that they’re more concerned with their “good-ole-boy (and gal)” network than they are about conservative principles. And y’all will do WHATEVER YOU CAN to keep true republicanism, the republicanism that comes from the Founding Fathers, on the margins.
Is TFL engaged in some shenanigans? I don’t know, and frankly I don’t care. You GOP elites certainly occupy no high moral ground when it comes to dirty politics. But it’s clear that your ox has been gored. You need some cheese to go along with that whine,
Keith, you do not know of what you speak!!! Norton was NOT recruited by McCain! She was asked to run by high level people in our state who new all the Buck malfeasance, and knew he was not electable! She flew to Washington to meet with conservative Senators, such as DeMint. When she came back McCain called her, but she had already decided to run.
Our Attorney Gen told me he told Buck prior to his grabbing the 5,000 tax returns, to follow the law. He was told to show probable cause for the few he thought were guilty of identity, then obtain a legal search warrant. He refused to listen! Maybe in LA county there are 5,000 people guilty of identity theft, but not in Weld CO! The US Supreme Court has ruled anyone in our country, legal or illegal, is afforded the full protection of our constitution. Buck should have followed the law. He could not even obtain a search warrant in Weld Co, so he had to go to Larimar. He had a nebulous, non specific search warrant that was not even valid! Grabbing the tax returns violated the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizer. The Dems and press are all over this story. They are praying we will nominate Buck, then they we go ballistic and paint him as biased against Hispanics. He has an ethics charge against him from this.
There is another story about when Buck was in the US Attorney’s office. He was third in the office, over criminal investigations. Galyansky was a Republican contributor with several businesses. One was a pawn shop. Several sting operations confirmed Galyansky was selling guns illegally. Buck was supposed to go after him, but he never would do anything! Finally, another prosecutor did. The US Attorneys office had a solid case built, and were able to obtain indictments. Before trial, the defense knew the prosecution’s case illegally, which allowed Galyansky to receive a slap on the wrist! Buck was demoted to low man in the civil prosecutions. When Buck ran for DA, he refused to put out any records from the US Attorney’s office, because Buck was accused of being the one who gave the defense the prosecutions case.
Ben was right to put out the story about the TFL, because it looks identical to the CFL from Ron Paul! The group is putting out things that are not true about Norton and Wiens, and promoting Buck. The CFL was first going to spend $350,000 to run ads in support of Buck. The group changed its mind on the ads, but the fact remains it was Ron Paul behind it.
It does not matter if I am a Norton supporter or not, the facts are the facts! Buck has two ethical issues. He was supporting Ref C, and has decided since the end of 2009 to copy Glenn Beck! He bused in a lot of people from the north for the debate Tuesday night, which skewed the support. The Norton campaign knows everything I am telling you, and they do not have a problem at all that I am telling the truth!
How is speaking out against them evidence of coordination? If I denounce some entity that’s using underhanded tactics to make me look good or one of my opponents look bad, does that mean we’re connected? In fact, it would demonstrate the opposite — that there is no connection.
Snags, LOL – Thanks for classifying me as a “GOP elite.” Have you noticed me coming out in favor of Jane Norton in this U.S. Senate race? No. Of course “this one has internecine Colorado GOP politics written all over it” … What else would it be? What makes you think I’m implying otherwise? When someone shows me the same sort of thing is happening in favor of Jane Norton or Scott McInnis or whoever the establishment candidate is presumed to be, I will call that, too. Similar to what I wrote on this post that ruffled feathers among some of the “GOP elite”:
https://bendegrow.com/2009/mcinnis-norton-think-tank-comes-to-life-with-bizarre-irony-rich-poll/
I call them as I see them. I take pride in the fact that supporters of candidates on both sides have taken umbrage with my writings over the course of this campaign. That tells me I’m probably doing something correctly. And if I happen to think there is a lot less difference between the current crop of GOP candidates than there is between any one of them and the Democrats on the other side, it’s probably because I have been paying attention.
I don’t know of any candidate in this race whose views are akin to Ron Paul, not at least among the leading candidates. Some may be closer than others, but I’m not primarily basing my decision of whom to support on that factor.
Frankly, I think Mr. Buck’s sincere and conservative supporters ought to be the most upset at this rogue group’s interference and potential to make him look crooked and divisive, when my impressions of him so far have been anything but. Until next time…
I will repeat that I don’t support any candidates. I blog about them. I do point out that McInnis and Norton are the leading candidates in their races because they are until proven otherwise in the polls, not the caucuses or state convention. They’re winning the money primaries, and to me, that is very important, if not deciding.
When I see that candidates are twisting words, stretching for attack points and exaggerating, I point that out because I think the character of a candidate is as important as the positions held by the candidate.
In both the Senate and gubernatorial races, there are small, irrelevant differences in the positions the candidates are taking on the issues. At this point in the Senate race, the character differences are becoming more apparent.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones, the correct prejorative is “Paultard,” not “Paulbot.”
Cheri Ofner, C4L DID spend 350K on ad time for Ken Buck. It was the correct thing to do, and there is no evidence whatsoever C4L is associated with Taxpayers for Liberty.
And everyone, will you please open your eyes? Regardless of what you think of Ron Paul, or C4L or Taxpayers for Liberty, the republican party is in trouble. What happened to “rebranding?” Does “rebranding” mean “it’s the same old garbage in a new box?!” The last thing we need is to run another Bush style, warmongering “big government conservative” for Senate. It’s neoconservatives like Jane Norton who drove everyone out of the republican party in the first place. How many elections are you going to win when only 21% of registered voters in America are registered as republicans?
And before you disparage Ron Paul and his supporters, remember: they’re young. They’re enthusiastic. They have good ideas. They represent what the party used to represent before the neoconservatives corrupted it. Small government. Low taxes. Sound money. Living within our means. Running the country according to the Constitution. Genuine conservatism!
Ken Buck is far closer to being a genuine conservative than Jane Norton. Ben DeGrow, you ought to know. You scarely stopped short of calling Ken Buck an “isolationist” after this interview, everyone listen starting at at 47:35: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rocky-mtn-blogs/2009/05/13/rocky-mountain-alliance-of-blogs
Do you really want to the elephant to go the way of the mammoth? Because that’s exactly what’s going to happen if the republican party doesn’t rethink its positions and take some steps in a positive direction. That’s exactly what’s going to happen if the republican party doesn’t let go of its “top down” hierarchy and allow for grassroots, “bottom up” growth. Ken Buck, despite his shortcomings, is at least taking some steps in the right direction, and that’s probably why he’s being smeared by this trivial incident!
And one more thing: the correct term is “noninterventionist” NOT “isolationist.”
Ben, I’m kind of disappointed in your detective skills on this one. I usually agree with you, but this time I have to step up. I got the TFL mail piece, and it doesn’t bother me. But a couple things in this post do.
I talked to a guy I know who works with Campaign for Liberty, and he said that Norton had gotten their survey TWICE before their mail went out…and she got their third copy after that. You really expect them to give you the whole story if it makes them look bad? Third time’s a charm…
My other issue with your post is that you’re relying on Jeff Crank, a public supporter of Tom Wiens, for your info. He’s played this game before, attacking the bearer of truth instead of the accusation itself. It doesn’t surprise me that he’s playing his game, it just bothers me that you took the bait and didn’t catch his shenanigans.
Crank plays his game, Norton doesn’t come clean, and Buck isn’t actually involved (yet he’s catching your flak). Sure it’s dirty politics, but who’s dirty?
Mike K. – “But who’s dirty?” The people who are hiding behind Taxpayers for Liberty. Do you know how to contact them to find out how their survey was conducted? As for Campaign for Liberty, I contacted them several times to get their side of the story, but no one returned my call or email. I’m glad to update the post if someone from there is willing to talk to me.
By the way, you should check where you get your information. Jeff Crank isn’t backing any candidate in the U.S. Senate primary. If you have reason to attack his credibility, go ahead. Just be sure to get your facts straight when you’re doing so. I have more reason to trust Jeff, since he has a track record of credibility, I know him personally, and I talked to him personally. You need to give me more reason to trust your word than an email address and an IP.
If you are willing to help clarify or add to any part of this story, feel free to contact me directly.
Ben-
Why are they hiding? Is the independence institute hiding because you don’t disclose that you work for them? Just because they don’t want to talk to you doesn’t mean they’re hiding from anything. Perhaps if this blog was a little better researched on the front end you might get more responses from those who are sending out this mail.
Did you look up the bills that the letter cites to see if the claims are true? Will you report on that?
Just listen to Crank’s podcasts online to see who he’s supporting.
And regarding his credibility, ask him about when he was the campaign manager to increase taxes in El Paso County. Ask about how the local chamber endorsed Ref C while he was their head of government relations.
When you blog about the candidates’ true records on taxes and spending, then I’ll be more convinced that you’re not just trying to push your own candidate by feigning disgust.
Ben: Checking with the Secretary of States office shows Taxpayers for Liberty, a Colorado non-profit. According to the Articles of Incorporation, Richard K and Sue L. Rehg are principals at 3618 Manzanita Drive, Loveland, CO 80538 and their mailing address is at Mail Mart at 117 E. 37th St, Loveland, CO 80538 Here is a link showing that he made a $475.00 contribution to Marilyn Musgrave’s compaign in 2002. Hope this helps, email me if you need more help.
LOL, “Mike K.” Please don’t throw mud at me about doing better research on the front end when you couldn’t bother to check and see how many times I disclose my employer on this blog, including the link at the top of the page: Who Writes This Blog? Don’t bother attacking me on the charge of lack of transparency when you haven’t identified yourself.
Yes, I have listened to podcasts of Jeff Crank’s interviews of the various GOP candidates for US Senate. He treats them all with respect and fairness. Where has he endorsed any of them? He hasn’t.
And I have blogged before about Jane Norton’s position on Ref C, and have blogged about the various candidates signing the Taxpayers Pledge. Buck has no legislative record, and Wiens has cast a couple votes on these issues. He is capable of defending his own record if he wants. I have yet to decide whom I am supporting. Your charges against Jeff Crank he can answer for and explain, if he so chooses. I don’t see how it’s relevant to this topic.
At this point, I don’t have to convince you of anything more. Knowing who you are might change my mind.
“As for Campaign for Liberty, I contacted them several times to get their side of the story, but no one returned my call or email.”
Perhaps that’s because they’ve perused your blog for everything you’ve written about Ron Paul.
When you get 27 (now 28) comments to one of your blog entries, Ben, that’s evidence that you’ve stumbled upon something significant. This exchange has been just as entertaining as it has been illuminating. Kudos!
When all this is said and done, you’ll be supporting Norton, just as you supported McCain.
In both the Senate and gubernatorial races, there are small, irrelevant differences in the positions the candidates are taking on the issues. At this point in the Senate race, the character differences are becoming more apparent.
Your comments are so disingenous! You start out by saying you don’t support any candidate and then indict Ken Buck. Who ordained you the jurist on this issue. I have seen no evidence other than self serving innuendos. You are so lacking in character and credibility based on your combined blogs and comments. Do I need to cut and paste them all the examples. They are easily found. A stroll down memory lane: remember your telling Ben Degrow that Ken Buck was stating he had Ben’s endorsement. When confronted you failed to apologize and stated that it was Buck’s wording that was confusing. Yet, Ben who you constantly fawn over, told you he had not read it that way.
I have not seen any indignation from you when it was learned that Jane Norton stated she was never a lobbyist, even though her employer publicly stated she was. I did not see any indignation from you regarding her stating that she cut her budget while the Lt. Gov. yet the fact is it increased each year she was in office.
I support Ken Buck and have the decency to insure people know where I stand. I wish PPC and Mount Virtus would require such from their bloggers and commenters.
The US Supreme Court has ruled anyone in our country, legal or illegal, is afforded the full protection of our constitution. Buck should have followed the law. He could not even obtain a search warrant in Weld Co, so he had to go to Larimar. He had a nebulous, non specific search warrant that was not even valid! Grabbing the tax returns violated the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizer. The Dems and press are all over this story. They are praying we will nominate Buck, then they we go ballistic and paint him as biased against Hispanics. He has an ethics charge against him from this.
Ofner’s comments are all baseless but I will address the one’s that are obviously contrived based on my knowledge.
1. The warrant was obtained in Weld County not in Larimer County. Pull the case up on Google. So much for credibility on this issue.
2. Search Warrant was not valid. The warrant was issued out of the 19th Judicial District by a District Court Judge. So much for credibility on this issue.
3. District Attorney’s do not seek approval from the State Attorney General on criminal cases. You might check your facts, it was the State Attorney General that defended Buck’s actions during the appeal.
Not surprisingly you site the wonderful rights afforded to illegal aliens which is not afforded them by the constitution. You and your wing of the Republican Party are advocates for Illegal Alien Amnesty (See McCain Amnesty). What is surprising to me is I am supposedly arguing this topic with a supposed conservative. The US Supreme Court and the Colorado Supreme Court are liberal courts. Of course they sided against Ken Buck and support such nonsense as rights for illegals. I know that you and McCain are strong supporters of closing Gitmo and advising terrorists of their rights but that is why you and your wing of the GOP are a thing of the past. You mention that you used to be a supporter of Ken Buck. Should we not tell everyone why you changed your support. Was it because of his stance on illegal aliens?
Keep posting slanderous information on public forums about Ken Buck. By the way I sent a copy of your comments to Suthers. I am sure he will be happy to hear you are publicly stating his stance on a case his office was representing.
Snags, I’d be flattered they even know who I am and read what I have to say. Memory may serve you better than me, but I don’t think I’ve hardly written about Ron Paul … at least not in a long time. If Norton is the general election candidate I will support her. That should come as no surprise. A lifetime job in the U.S. Senate for Michael Bennet isn’t something I wish to see.
Keith, thanks for leaving your comments here. It probably bears repeating that my publication of a comment does not imply an endorsement of its content. Having full disclosure of where every commenter stands sounds good on paper, but trying to enforce it isn’t so easy. I err on the side of less regulated speech, though I strive to keep it a PG-rated forum.
I appreciate your thorough and articulate defenses of Ken Buck.
But I would respectfully request everyone to try to stay focused on the original topic of the post, even though that’s hard to do once you get past 30 comments….
A few notes:
As a supporter of Ron Paul during the ’08 run, it is ‘paultard’ not paulbot or whatever.
Ben is a fantastic blogger and totally unbiased, his research is usually over done and spot on.
Donald Johnson on the other hand is a deceitful partisan hack of a blogger who openly fawns over Jane Norton on her facebook page, pledging to help promote her etc. Any indication that he is not supporting a specific candidate is completely false by his own admission.
Cheri, you are out of your mind if you think the Buck campaign buses people to debates, absolutely out of your mind. The campaign doesn’t even spend money on yard signs, you think they splurge on buses to a small time debate?
You spread these malicious lies about Buck breaking the law, with no proof- and tell me, if operation numbers game was so illegal, why did 3 supreme court justices say it was not? Clearly there was a judgment call to be made and Buck decided to protect the people of Weld Co. That’s the kind of judgment we need in the Senate.
“Memory may serve you better than me, but I don’t think I’ve hardly written about Ron Paul … at least not in a long time.”
Try your “search” function. It’s pretty clear you’re no friend of Ron Paul.
And Kevin, back during the 2008 campaign, “Paulbot” was the principal term used over at the Townhall blog comments boxes.
O.K., Snaggle-Tooth Jones, I’ve decided to lower myself to your level and ask why you’re being so petty. Both Kevin and I served in the trenches in 2008, and we agree the correct perjorative is “Paultard.”
So where were you? Oh, that’s right, in 2008 you were wasting your time disparaging Joshua Sharf! Never mind Rima Barakat Sinclair was hopelessly unqualified to be running for the state house, not to mention dishonest: you were willing to cut some slack on both counts, because she was a “politician.” And because she wasn’t Jewish. Heaven forbid you ever stop short of calling Joshua on any perceived dishonesty, not that it matters: he doesn’t have it in him to be even the least bit disingenuous, much less dishonest.
Since then, no one’s seen Rima at a republican meeting since April 2009, and we don’t miss her one bit. Joshua threw his hat back into the ring last October, and obviously it’s not because Rima’s running. You owe Joshua Sharf and his campaign an apology. His motivations never had anything to do with bigotry: his only concern was for the voters of HD6 to have the option of voting for a conservative for the state house.
My apologies to Ben DeGrow for going so far off topic, but Snags really rubs me the wrong way sometimes.
And all that, Kimberly, after I was so nice to you up in the chain of comments!
😉
I’m merely reporting my own experience on the “Paulbot” matter. How does that render me “petty”?
As for Mr. Sharf and the Sinclair affair, he earned my derision and the derision of others in the CO blogosphere and the CO MSM. He’ll accordingly get no apology from me, and my comments back in 2008, apparently too nuanced for you, will stand as written.
And yes, you are quite off topic. So much so that you’re running the risk of making a fool of yourself. Tsk.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones, the only people in the CO MSM who were derisive toward Sharf in 2008 were leftists like the RMN (now Denver Post) columnist Bill Johnson, who is consistently intellectually dishonest. Good company you’re keeping there.
Kimberly:
Read up on the “guilt by association” fallacy.
Truth is always truth, even if it’s a leftist who bears it.
A falsehood is a falsehood no matter who bears it as well. Yours and others accusations Sharf was being bigoted had nothing to do with the truth.
Kimberly: so *you* say. I say the record speaks for itself.
Jones: It absolutely does. Sharf further publicized Ms. Barakat-Sinclair’s already public statements to drive home his point she was a single issue candidate with no public evidence of knowledge about the Colorado state issues. That has nothing to do with bigotry.
Kimberly, assuming you’re the same person with whom I argued this matter over at another blog back in 2008, let me say that I’m not going to re-argue it with you here, as it is both off point and no longer relevant since that election is history. Anyone who REALLY wants to revisit this issue is free to peruse my archives, where I created a special category for the Sharf/Sinclair matter. Note especially the materials contributed by WRMEA:
http://coloradoconfederatarian.squarespace.com/journal/category/the-joshua-sharf-rima-sinclair-saga
Wow, everyone here appears to have electing “their guy” as their only agenda. It’s laughable watching people like Ms. Ofner try to spin for their candidate. What puzzles me is why Jon Caldara and his minions (i.e. Ben) haven’t yet endorsed Ken Buck. (Full disclosure: I am a state delegate in support of Buck.) I can’t imagine him endorsing Norton over Buck, nor Wiens. Do you guys just think he’s not electable in the general election or what? Why the hate towards Buck?
I disagree that the decision is in any way so clear cut. But it’s hard to be motivated into action when my own opinions & insights classify me as a minion. Believe it or not, we at I.I. are even allowed to have different opinions on political parties and candidates. No hate for Buck here whatsoever. If there was anything like it, you wouldn’t need any subtlety to detect it.
Wow, just came across this site. These 501c4’s are getting a little nutty. Regardless of who your guy or girl is in this race, or even what side of the political aisle you sit on, no one should be endorsing or even passively letting these “behind the scene” groups take money from God knows where and pumping it into our political institution. In the end, the question is who loses? The voters of Colorado do because they are being manipulated by groups on both the left and right and they have no clue who they are. Can they research them? Sure. But who has the time to look up every single group? And I believe AG Suthers our our Secretary of State should look into stringent campaign finance law reform in Colorado that cracks down on these groups lacking a shred of transparency. Every time this happens, it poisons our political system until one day… the system will collapse because the people have lost faith.