Archive for the 'Colorado 5th Cong. District' Category

Denver Post likes Doug Lamborn again! But why?

Tuesday, October 25th, 2016

I haven’t seen U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn behave any better over the past two years than he has previously, but he’s apparently impressed The Denver Post, which endorsed him yesterday, after eloquently calling for his ouster last time.

The Denver Post in 2014:

Under the headline, “Oust Lamborn, restore dignity to Colorado’s 5th CD,” The Post wrote:

Rep. Doug Lamborn last month demonstrated yet again why he should do Coloradans a favor and find another job…Lamborn was at an event in Colorado Springs recently when someone asked him about support for the military “despite the fact that there is no leadership from the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House.” At which point, Lamborn launched into an astonishing statement.

“You know what,” he said, “I can’t add anything to that, but … a lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation. Let’s have a public resignation, state your protest, and go out in a blaze of glory.’ ”

We don’t know what part of that response is more outrageous.

Is it the fact that Lamborn failed to rebuke — or distance himself — from someone who effectively called the president an agent of a foreign Islamist group? Rather than evince concern, Lamborn actually smiled and said, “I can’t add anything to that.” Or is the most distressing part his urging generals to politicize serious disagreements they might have with the president by taking them public in flamboyant resignations?

The Denver Post this year:

Doug Lamborn, who has served the 5th CD in the greater Colorado Springs area since 2006, has been the kind of conservative representative befitting of the district, and voters there have rewarded him in primary challenges. While we like more independent-minded representatives, this is a Republican you can count on if what you want is a reliable GOP vote.

This year’s endorsement not only fails to explain why Lamorn redeemed himself this year, but it articulates why The Post doesn’t like him–as opposed to why it’s endorsing him. Oh well.

Tancredo recounts GOP arm-twisting in U.S. House

Sunday, September 4th, 2016

Earlier this year, former Rep. Tom Tancredo told KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles the story of how Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert made it clear to fellow Republican Rep. Joel Hefly, during the 2003 House debate on Medicare Part D, that Hefley would lose his chairmanship of a subcomittee if he didn’t vote for the measure. Both Hefley and Tancredo represented Colorado districts at the time.

I offer up the transcript of Tancredo’s strange story for your weekend enjoyment.

TANCREDO: This was the worst day of my life:  sitting through a debate and then a vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill, Part D.  That was the worst day because, here we were, the Republican Party, a president–Republican president, and Republican Congress putting through the greatest increase in government since the creation of Medicare!  We were doing it, and we were all doing it because Bush wanted the electoral votes of the state of Florida.

BOYLES:  Yeah.

TANCREDO:  And we were spending $1 trillion bill.  This is a trillion dollars over ten years.

BOYLES:  Was that for brother [Jeb Bush], principally?

TANCREDO:  No, no!  He was – it was coming up!  He knew he was going to –.  No.  He was running again.  He wanted the electoral votes!

BOYLES:  No, but was that to help his brother, Jeb?

TANCREDO:  No. It was for the presidency.

BOYLES:  For him to get over. Okay.

TANCREDO:  Yes!  Absolutely.  This was – and you know, there was a hanging chad, there, situation, right?  But it was all Florida.  He needed Florida.  This was, you know, a very thin band of need, out there –the very few,  I mean, there was a – but, like, that many people that actually were too poor for Medicaid, too much for – but the expenses were high for the –.  So, we were going to do this for them, right?  All for Florida!   [inaudible] We had to stay there from 12 o’clock, the vote started – it’s supposed to be a 15 minute.  This is midnight!  Not 12 o’clock in the afternoon. We had been there since 9:00 debating it. They didn’t have the votes!  Didn’t have them, man! The Democrats had promised them they were going give them the votes to pass this thing, because you never bring a vote—a bill up that you don’t think you’re going to pass. It’s a big no-no.  So, the Democrats had promised them, because he couldn’t get Republican votes. But the Democrats took one look at the thing—at the counter, and said, “Hey! I think we can embarrass them pretty well!”  And all of a sudden, we didn’t have the votes.  Well, there we were – midnight. You’re supposed to have a 15 minute vote, Peter.  Fifteen minutes.  Sometimes, they push it to about 20 to get everybody in.  Six and one half hours – we’re still sitting there.   Six-thirty in the morning, people – I mean, I’m sleeping on –.  They’re putting buddies with you.  Anybody from your delegation who was for it had to come and bug you all six hours, until.  And my buddy was Bob Beauprez [laughing].  I kept telling Bob, “Hey, listen, buddy! Go to sleep!  I am going to go to sleep.  You’re never—I’m never going to vote for this.  Save your time!  Never, ever!”  But, polling people – all you could hear was arms being twisted and broken on the floor, right? — promising things.  I mean–.

BOYLES:  “Give me this, I’ll give you that.”

TANCREDO:  Oh, yeah!  And it was never like, — it was, “We know you’ve got a lot of stuff in the pipeline.  You’ve got that bridge.  And you know, we want to help you out.”

BOYLES:  “We’ll work with you!”

TANCREDO:  “We want to work with you.”  Right. It was the most horrible thing.  And I saw one of my best friends in Congress, a guy from Colorado – Joel Hefley.  He was like a 98–.

BOYLES:  [inaudible] I thought he was a good guy.

TANCREDO:  Oh, Joel was the best!  He was like a 98-percenter.  And we’re sitting there – 6:30 [a.m.] – nothing.  I mean, it’s 217.  You need 218, one more vote.  And they can’t get it!  Here comes the Speaker.  [gesturing with his hands, indicating a man walking down to the floor].  Doo, doo-doo, doo-doo,– down, comes, sits next to Joel.  I’m in back of them, going [gestures that he was eavesdropping]. You know, because everyone is – there’s quiet.  Everybody is, you know – you’re all on the floor.  They won’t let you leave.  So, but everyone can see what’s happening.  And then, the Speaker walks down, and he says, “Joel, we came in as Freshmen together, 22 years ago.”


TANCREDO:  Freshman class.  And Joel said, “Yes, sir, we did.”  And he said, “I’ve always enjoyed it, you’re such a great guy,” he said.  “And you’re the Chairman of the, uh—what was it?  It was the sub-committee on – oh! Armed Services.

BOYLES:  [inaudible] Yeah!

TANCREDO:  And he said, — because he was [from] Colorado Springs, you know –.

BOYLES:  Of course.  Of course.

TANCREDO:  And he said, uh, and he said, “You’re the head of the” – I think it was called – “the NATO Parliamentary Assembly” – it was kind of a hot-shot thing.  We got to travel all over.  He always asked us.  It was great fun!  Anyway, great guy, great guy.  “But I need you,” [the Speaker said to Joel Hefley].  “I never asked you before for anything, right?”  And Joel says, “No, sir.”  And he says, “Well, I need you.  This is it, buddy. I want it.”  And Joel says, “I can’t, Mr. Speaker.  I just can’t do it.”   And he goes, “You enjoy being that Chairman, right?” –and all that.  And he says, “You want to be [Chairman] tomorrow?”

BOYLES:  Yeah.

TANCREDO:  This – this—this—this is his buddy! This is his pal!  And he goes back and sits down.  And I leaned over and I said, “Did I just hear him threaten you with your Chairmanship?”

BOYLES:  Yeah.  Yeah.

TANCREDO:  Joel just looks ahead, right?  Doesn’t say a word.  We wait.  We wait, it’s quiet.  There’s nothing.  All of a sudden, he gets up, votes,– walks down.  Oh, my God!  I literally – and I’m not kidding you, I almost threw up!  I mean, I got – we had been there all night.  It was very emotional.  There was a lot of crap going on.  And now, here’s my best – oh, my God!  And he walks down,  and he would have to pick up the green thing and go, and hand it to the girl.  And she goes, “REPRESENTATIVE HEFLEY:  OFF “NO”!  ON “AYE!”  And they – and the hammer goes down. Boom!  Two-hundred and eighteen.  It passed.  You know, he never was the same after that. He stayed another term but, you know, he got shingles.

BOYLES:  Oh, no, he went through all kinds of stuff.

TANCREDO:  Oh, my God!   And it’s an emotional – shingles is an emotional – I think there’s some component there, right?    Up here, and down into his throat – it damn near killed him.

BOYLES:  Yeah.  Yeah.

TANCREDO:  And then he quit, and it was the most horrible –.  That was the worst day of my political life.

On talk radio, Lamborn’s challenger explains why he decided to run

Tuesday, April 29th, 2014

Progressives who read this blog would be excused for wondering, how could anyone find Rep. Doug Lamborn to be insufficiently tilted rightward? So much so that he should be thrown out?

We can thank KVOR’s Jeff Crank Show for broadcasting the answer, at least according to the guy who wants Lamborn’s job.

Major General Bentley Rayburn, who is challenging Lamborn in the GOP congressional primary in Colorado Springs (CD 5), told Crank on Saturday why he’s running:

Rayburn: You know, the thing that pushed me over the side [into the race]– it was kind of funny, because it was the ‘white board incident’ at the Air Force Academy. [Read about it here.] And the fact that this young man, or woman – I think it was a fellow, wrote a bible verse (Gallatians 2:20) on his whiteboard, just a board mounted outside his room. And it was just a statement of his faith. And yet, within nanoseconds, somebody is complaining about it. It gets to our buddy Mikey Weinstein, who’s been a nemesis of the Academy for a decade. And within, you know, two hours – whether the cadet erased it himself or had it erased is really irrelevant. It was erased.

And in all of this, Doug [Lamborn]– people don’t understand this. Doug has a special relationship with the Academy because he sits on the Board of Visitors. That would be like the Board of Regents for the CU system. And so he’s not only the local rep. He sits on the policy board. Every accredited institution has to have an independent policy board. And he has never spoken forcefully about the religious freedom issues at the United States Air Force Academy, and so many of the other important issues that the school faces.

And I want somebody – not only with the other things, the spending out of control, and everything else. But we have a jewel here in the United States Air Force Academy, and if we’re not going to stand up and make sure that we’re producing the kind of officers that we need – one, who are not offended at the slightest little thing that crosses their path, and two, that know what they believe and have the backbone to stand up for what they believe, then I’m not sure we really need an Air Force Academy or any other academies. But we’ve got to have somebody stand up for the schools, and we are not getting it from Doug Lamborn. He’ll write a letter. [Lamborn issued a letter in support of religion at the Academy.]

At least when Putin invades Crimea, at least Obama writes a strongly-worded letter. But we need somebody that will demonstrate real leadership. And that just happened to be the proverbial straw. Had somebody else stepped up [to run against Lamborn], fine. But that’s what drove me over the edge and made me consider running in the first place.

Candidates should face “personhood” questions from journalists in 2014, as another amendment heads to ballot

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

Activists led by Personhood USA yesterday submitted over 50,000 more signatures than the 86,000 required to make the 2014 election ballot, making it likely voters will cast ballots next year on a measure that would add “unborn human beings” to the definition of a “person” and “child” in Colorado’s criminal code.

Backers and opponents of the measure disagree on whether it would affect abortion rights, but the fact is that supporters of the amendment, including its designated representative and a spokesperson for Colorado Right to Life, have referred to it as “personhood.”

So this means it’s likely that political candidates will face questions next year about their views on the personhood concept, under which all abortion would be banned, even for rape and incest, as well as common forms of birth control.

In 2010, the last time a personhood amendment was on the Colorado ballot, all Republican candidates for Governor and Senate supported the measure.

This year, most top-line Republican candidates are on record supporting personhood (See below), while no Democrat has done so publicly. The Colorado Statesman’s Peter Marcus has sought comments from this year’s crop of candidates, but he’s faced some resistance.

Coverage of the yesterday’s signature submission, including informative pieces by CBS4’s Shaun Boyd and the Colorado Independent’s John Tomasic, didn’t provided a tally of personhood support among top candidates. So I will supply it below:


State Sen. Greg Brophy endorsed personhood in 2008 telling 7News at the time, “Clearly it’’s always the right time to take the stand for the sanctity of life.” Colorado Right to Life writes on its blog that Brophy “supports personhood” and is “pro-life with no exceptions.”

Secretary of State Scott Gessler is apparently not on record on personhood.

Former lawmaker Mike Kopp “supports personhood” and is “pro-life with no exceptions,” according to the Colorado Right to Life blog.

Former Rep. Tancredo supports personhood.

U.S. Senate

Sen. Randy Baumgardner is “100% pro-life with no exceptions” and “supports personhood,” according to the 2012 Colorado Right to Life blog.

Weld Country DA Ken Buck withdrew his support for the personhood amendment in 2010, but stood behind is position against abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

Sen. Owen Hill is “pro-life” and “supports personhood” according to CRTL in 2012.

U.S. House

Rep. Mike Coffman is listed by CRTL as a personhood supporter, and he has been held up by Personhood USA as a model personhood-supporting candidate. He’s against abortion for rape and incest.

Rep. Cory Gardner supports personhood.

Rep. Doug Lamborn supports personhood.

Rep. Scott Tipton is not on record as a personhood supporter.


Lamborn says other Congresspeople didn’t show up at SOTU speech, but radio host didn’t ask who?

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

On KNUS radio this morning, Rep. Doug Lamborn told host Steve Kelley that he wasn’t the only Member of Congress to skip President Barack Obama’s SOTU speech yesterday, implying, perhaps, that he was being singled out unfairly.

“The President didn’t know or care if I was there. And actually I know of others who were not there. I happen to be one who said in advance I wasn’t going to be there.” [laughs]

I called Lamborn’s office to find out whom Lamborn was thinking of. And were the other no-shows protestors?

“There’s no roll-call vote taken,” Lamborn’s Communications Director Catherine Mortensen told me “If someone shows up or doesn’t show up, there’s no record of it.”

She didn’t know which lawmakers Lamborn had in mind, but she did tell me that she’d read press reports that Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina had considered skipping the event.

Scott was thinking about watching the speech with his brother, but he ended up attending. His idea to be a SOTU no show was not a protest, according to local press reports.

Kelley didn’t ask Lamborn how he knew that Barack Obama didn’t care if he attended the SOTU, but he did ask Lamborn if he thinks he made a difference by not being there:

Lamborn said: “I did get a chance to tell people why I oppose the President so strongly…I feel better.”