U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 12, 2007 07:52 PM UTC

Did the Gazette suppress its article on Lamborn's "use" (abuse?) of the franking privilege?

  • 7 Comments
  • by: CD-5 Line

This is quite extraordinary, folks!

Has the Gazette suppressed the article to benefit Doug Lamborn? 

Is it rewriting the story to put him in a more favorable light? 

Has it killed the story altogether? 

Is it in the paper and I simply cannot find it? I’ve looked in the online and hardcopy editions today and don’t see it anywhere.  Does anyone?

Enquiring minds want to know. Has the Gazette suppressed the article? Something about this just doesn’t smell right.  Maybe it will be in the “Day after Tomorrow’s” Edition.

The July 11 Sunset Edition of the Gazette advised the public in the 6th paragraph down in its “Coming in Tomorrow’s Edition” that the following story would appear, for which I quote verbatim from the Sunset Edition which you can verify for yourselves here:  http://www.gazette.c…

“Doug Lamborn has spent more in his first three months on franking, the privilege that Congressmen have to send mailers out to their constituents and charge it to the federal goverment, than Joel Hefley spent in his last four years in office combined. Lamborn says it’s an attempt to get his name known. Hefley’s former staffers say it’s an abuse of the system and a de facto way of campaigning.”

At least the The Rocky Mountain News’ opinion columnist, Peter Blake, reported on Lamborn’s taking advantage of the franking privilege back in May, http://www.rockymoun…. Lamborn wants to keep our octogenarians and our golden anniversary married couples informed . . . informed on things like, “how to get a congratulatory card from the president if you’re turning 80 or older, or are celebrating 50 years of marriage or more.” 

While Lamborn is keeping our elderly informed on such important matters with his use of the franking privilege, the 5th CD is getting “BULLDOZED” on matters of vital importance to our economy–like Pinyon Canyon, and Lamborn won’t talk about it to reporters just like he’s not disclosing his earmarks: http://www.csindy.co…

This is the kind of reporting the Gazette isn’t undertaking on Doug Lamborn’s ineffectiveness on Pinyon Canyon and other matters:

“If Hefley was still there, a much better case would have been put forward,” Hughes says, wishing the city still had Hefley’s years of experience. “Lamborn has got to bring a lot more expertise from the Army — not just emotional tugging, “Oh, they are fighting in Iraq,’ but hard-ass real analysis of training and what is needed there.”

“Hefley and Lamborn don’t speak to each other, discord that goes back at least as far as Hefley’s decision not to endorse Lamborn in the 2006 election. Hefley’s objection was that Lamborn attacked fellow Republicans in a hotly contested primary.”

“Lamborn rolled to victory, telling voters that he’d be able to push the city’s military agenda. As proof, he brandished a letter from House Republican leadership promising him a seat on the critical Armed Services Committee, where Hefley wielded significant power.”

“But the promise has yet to come to fruition.”

What’s the most effective thing Lamborn has accomplished for us in the 5th CD in his 6 months in office?  Maybe spending a lot of money on tip sheets to octogenarians and celebrants of 50 years of marriage.

Comments

7 thoughts on “Did the Gazette suppress its article on Lamborn’s “use” (abuse?) of the franking privilege?

  1. In my years in El Paso County I haven’t seen many political reporters for the Gazette who are push-overs. This is probably an Ed Sealover story and, if so, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely he would kill a story of this magnitude.

    It’s not an insignificant story by any means and it will be interesting to hear the general public’s reaction. As has been commented on many times this blog – and others – have very few “casual seekers” of information. We’re mostly committed political nut-cases so it’s always interesting to see something we’ve been chewing on a few days hit a wider swath of people.

    1. Whoever the author would be of the article, you’d be safe to guess an editor yanked the report.  That is itself now a story within the story.  Why was it yanked?  To protect Lamborn?  Did blah call? He was awfully “testy” about the matter in another blog thread. [Is blah one of those “Hotaling” brothers?]

      I’ve also been waiting for the Gazette to ask our “Porkbuster” Congressman about his failure to disclose his earmarks.  Not one peep from the Gazette.  Let it slide.  Let it ride.

      After this story on the franking privileges was obviously yanked, it tells me it’s up to the Denver papers to get the truth out not only on the way Lamborn is using the franking privileges but also on his failure to disclose his earmarks.  Maybe Lamborn needs to have that tape erased of his reading on the House floor the text from the Porkbuster’s blog site.  But at least Danny Glover at the National Journal picked up on Lamborn’s hypocrisy on that.

      1. When THAT breaks, it’s going to cause the story to be bigger than it would have been.  And I’ll be pissed.

        One thing though…I went to KKTV.com once, and saw a story that said “Lamborn resigns to be with family”, and I was estatic.  I almost cried out of joy.  I came here to post it, and couldn’t find the link again.  Turned out it was a mistake.  They meant Rep-what’s-his-bucket that resigned from his state house seat.  Needless to say I was pretty bummed.  Hopefully this wasn’t a stupid mistake like that was.

        1. http://www.gazette.c

          Our “porkbusting” Congressman sure knows how to use the Congressional “fat” to “get out the vote”, er, “message”.

          And, I was very happy to see they interviewed Jeff Crank as well–who got in a couple well deserved whacks at Lamborn’s porkchops. 

          Maybe the Gazette got worried it’s suppressing the article was itself going to be the story and it published the story.  If you looked at the Sunset teaser that announced the article would be in the next day’s paper and compare the teaser to today’s actual article, it appears to me the editors must have toned the full article down so it would be less damaging to Lamborn than it is. 

          WHEN IS THE GAZETTE GOING TO DO WHAT THE DENVER PAPERS HAVE DONE AND ASK “PORKCHOP” LAMBORN TO SHOW US THE PORK?  WHAT ARE LAMBORN’S EARMARKS? 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

126 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!