Posted on 09/03/2007 3:54:27 PM PDT by Roberts
NEW YORK A couple who wrote a letter to the editor of a small community paper in Colorado were surprised to receive a threatening phone call at home complaining about it -- from a U.S. congressman.
Rep. Doug Lamborn left two voice mails after they questioned his acceptance of campaign contributions from the gambling industry. In one he said there would be "consequences" if the couple did not respond. In his messages, reprinted by the Denver Post today, Lamborn appeal to them as "brothers and sisters in Christ" and asked them to call him to discuss their "blatantly false" letter.
Jonathan Bartha is employed by the group Focus on the Family. "His wife, a board member of Falcon School District 49, worked for two months as a scheduler for candidate Jeff Crank during a bitter, six-way Republican primary race for the 5th Congressional District seat," the Post observed.
"We felt very threatened and intimidated, and quite frankly, scared," Anna Bartha told the Post. "It was just not anything we would ever anticipate an elected official would pursue or a way that an elected official would conduct himself."
When asked what he meant when he said there would be "consequences," Lamborn told the Post: "When someone tells a lie, it just has bad consequences."
But the Post noted: "Three days after leaving the messages on the Barthas' voice mail, Lamborn wrote an open letter to Greg Garcia, chair of the El Paso County Republicans, asking him to investigate."
The following is a text of two voice messages that Lamborn left, as published by the Post.
* FIRST MESSAGE: "Hello, this is Doug Lamborn calling for either Jonathan or Anna. Something very serious has happened. There was a letter to the editor that you both put in your names to the editor of the Woodmen Edition and there is something that is blatantly false in that letter.
"I would like to get together with you and show this to you and appeal to you as a brother and sister in Christ. You didn't give me that opportunity but I am happy to overlook that and deal with you on that level because I think that is the right thing to do and show you where you made a blatant, wrong statement.
"Now there are consequences to this kind of thing, but I would like to work with you in a way that is best for everyone here concerned. So please call me at your earliest convenience. It is now 2:40 (p.m.) on Saturday afternoon.
SECOND MESSAGE: "Hello, this is Doug Lamborn again, I'm finishing up my message from a moment ago. I got cut off. It is critical that you get back to me as soon as possible on this because I'll be going back to Washington here in a few days and I have to make sure that this is resolved one way or another. And like I said I'd rather resolve this on a Scriptural level but if you are unwilling to do that I will be forced to take other steps, which I would rather not have to do. So please call me. This is essential. Call me by tonight, Saturday night and we can get together sometime Sunday afternoon."
Too bad Republicnerds like Lamborn are so stupid they keep acting like holier than thou @ssholes. Idiots like this save the dems huge advertising bucks (the media spreads the message) and they are poster children of why NOT to vote republican.
Well, if all are brothers and sisters in Christ, a letter or call like this, in general, is perfectly acceptable.
However, the “consequences” thing from someone with obvious political authority was completely inappropriate and it undermined what could have been a sincere and reasonable vetting of facts.
Actually, my reaction is the same on all counts.
Suit yourself. Some would rather have the Chamber of Commerce candidate and will do anything to get him.
Apparently it is true ... true enough that Lamborn claims to have returned the donation (though there's apparently no record of that).
Lamborn knows he's in for a rough primary fight, and if he gets on the wrong side of Focus on the Family, he'll have some difficulties. He is a hothead, however ... and this remarkably stupid move is seriously bad news for his primary campaign.
LOL! You couldn't be more wrong. They work for Focus on the Family, so their objection is almost certainly on religious grounds.
“I will be forced to take other steps”, “Now there are consequences to this kind of thing,”, “I have to make sure that this is resolved one way or another.”
Not a direct physical threat, but a threat none the less.
Intimidation if nothing else. Not the type of thing you expect from an elected representative.
And some, like me, never liked Lamborn in the first place, because this kind of crap has been typical of him for years. I note that Lamborn's Democrat challenger pulled 40% of the vote last time around, which is a HUGE number for a Democrat in this county. He's very vulnerable this time around, and he's shooting himself in the foot.
I'm not much of a fan of Jeff Crank, either ... but I would vote for him in the primary over Lamborn.
Tone does indeed play a big part. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I guess when you say you will be “forced” to take other steps...why not just go ahead and spell it out instead of leaving it hanging for others to consider it a threat. Sometimes I wonder about the intelligence level of all our politicians. Questionable to say the least.
What an ass. He should resign.
If he is looking at “letters to the editor” in a “small community paper”, he’s got issues.
He had no business making that phone call. He wanted to force a retraction or rewrite from American citizens freely expressing their opinion. Note the religious plea to provide convenient rational for taking the intimidated action under threat of “consequences” from a high up political figure.
Sounds a little like Islam’s m.o.
I hope he’s replaced. Doesn’t belong in politics.
Tone does indeed play a big part. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I guess when you say you will be “forced” to take other steps...why not just go ahead and spell it out instead of leaving it hanging for others to consider it a threat. Sometimes I wonder about the intelligence level of all our politicians. Questionable to say the least.
“They work for Focus on the Family, so their objection is almost certainly on religious grounds.”
What “religious grounds”?
They committed free speech and now have to be harassed and/or intimidated by a Congresscritter? They don’t need any religion to be upset at the response.
Lamborn didn’t gas innocent children like Clinton did.
The liberals judge others, never themselves.
They committed free speech and now have to be harassed and/or intimidated by a Congresscritter? They don’t need any religion to be upset at the response.
I think we're in agreement there....
So .... are we to understand that you think that anything short of gassing innocent children is excusable in a politician?
Since you almost certainly don't think that ... to what standards do you think his constituents should hold him?
Definately a threat, and completely out of line for a member of Congress.
Better try reading it again, slowly this time. At the very least he comes across as a flake. “consequences”? I am conservative but I am not religious in any way and if the messages were reprinted accuratly, I would find them troubling. And while it may, as you say, be “Must be left-wing anti-American Democrats trying to discard another Republican.” I could as easily say his words are that of a “right-wing fundamentalist Republican”. As to what problem there would be with him taking money from “LEGAL” gambling (love those all caps), I do not know if he did or not, and I will wait to find out. But I do think a true believer might pass on that source. But hey, if it is “LEGAL” and in your eyes okay, fine. He should be able to accept money from liqueur distributors, strip club owners, or anything at all as long as it is “LEGAL”.
There seems to be a clear failure to communicate.shalom b'shem Yah'shua
The headline is provocative and only reflects
self rightous politically motivated individuals.
Doug Lamborn is my Congressman in the 5th CD.
There seems to be no leadership in the El Paso County Republican Party
in healing the open wounds in the 5th CD following the contentious primary.
The former congressman ( Joel M. Hefley ) refused to close ranks
behind the winner of last years primary. This is a violation of Ronald Reagan
famous 11th commandment to speak no ill of fellow republicans.
As well as someone who doesn't play well with others and
Hefley does not believe in the American experiment in self-government.
This failure to operate a political party with some discipline
provides fodder for the socialist rags, like the Denver Post or
Editor & Publisher to exploit.
If Jonathan and Anna Bartha were reasonable and rational
citizens, they would have approached the Congressman's office
or the party chairman's office
about their concerns first before they embarrassed themselves
and the Republican Party
by making false and unsubstantiated statements in public.
The members of the 5th CD Republicans should shun and
dis-fellowship irrational and self-centered people like the Barthas
My recommendation to Doug Lamborn would be to keep better books on donations
and donate publicly any questionable donations for documentation purposes.
Also treat so-called Christians from "Focus on the Family" at arms length.
NAU Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother?It seems that the Barthas demonstrate that they are not followers of the Christ
Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt?
For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
It would be extremely easy to look it up instead of just guessing. In fact, if you just read the story carefully you’d know he’s Republican.
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.