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."
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.