U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(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) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

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
April 29, 2008 11:06 PM UTC

Terry Kunkel's Response

  • 48 Comments
  • by: TerryK

(I’m promoting this so everyone can see who Terry Kunkel is and what she thinks about all of us. – promoted by Haners)

First, let me start out my response to this blog by saying that I believe blogging is worthless.  If you can’t put your name to something you have to say, then you are a coward and as far as I’m concerned you have no character or integrity.  It’s easy to make comments, whether they are true or not, when you don’t have to face the person you are disparaging.  It takes guts to do that.  Personally, I don’t waste my time and read this drivel. You should get a life if this is all you have to do with your time!

That being said, I will respond to “GOPpundit” and tell you (and apparently the current officers and Nathan Fisk, since you say you met with them and they told you all of this) that you don’t know what you’re talking about with regards to the “$10,000” owed to the former chairman of the EPCR.  At several Executive Committee meetings there was discussion about how to pay back this debt.  At one meeting, I gave the Executive Committee the option to pay off the entire $9,010.00 all at once.  Vicki Broerman and Judith Jurgensen both said “no” because they wanted the money to be put toward getting candidates elected.  The vote then came down that we would not pay off the debt.  Before I left office in February 2007, the Executive Committee finally voted to draft a note and make monthly payments to the former chairman.  

As far as paying an Executive Director, I don’t really care if that’s what they want to do.  But, the one thing I do care about is, if you’re going to pay someone, Mr. Garcia, to be your Executive Director, perhaps that person should know what they’re doing so they can make sure you are doing things according to the Bylaws, etc.  Isn’t that their job?  If they’re being paid to do something else, then call them what they are.  The buck stops with the chairman no matter who’s doing the work.

Next, “coloradoconservative”–you have no idea what you’re talking about regarding the primary election night in 2006.  At that time, I WAS supporting Jeff Crank and was disappointed that he lost (you should get your facts straight before you start “blabbing”).  Now I’m glad that Jeff did lose.  I believe he is a total politician and wants to be a Congressman so bad he can’t stand it.  Jeff says he believes in conservative ideals but wants to unseat one of the most conservative Representatives in Congress.  How would Jeff have voted differently?  If his votes would have been opposite, then Jeff definitely is not the guy for me!  Actually, it sounds like Doug Lamborn should be Jeff Crank’s choice!

I will do all I can to get Doug Lamborn re-elected.  He has gone to Congress and done everything he said he would do.  If the shoe was on the other foot, Jeff Crank would be so angry that someone was putting him through a primary and would be asking why are they doing this.

Well, that’s it!  You won’t be hearing from me anytime soon.  Just wanted to go on the record.  If you want to verify what I’ve said, then check out the past records at HQ (or have they conveniently been shredded or magically disappeared).  Obviously, all of you “regular” bloggers will continue distoring the truth and nothing can be done about that.  But, if you have any guts at all, you’ll put your name to what you say.  Come on–make my day!  

Tweet
Share

Comments

48 thoughts on “Terry Kunkel’s Response”

  1. I have the minutes from the last organizational committee chaired by Terry. During that meeting the audit report of the books was presented and accepted by the entire central committee. And I believe the same accountant was used that Greg supposedly had to pay so much money to (according to GOPpundit) to straighten out the books. Once again, you are proven wrong, GOPpundit. All of these records were available at headquarters for anyone to see. Terry did run a transparent term of office.  

  2. First, let me start out my response to this blog by saying that I believe blogging is worthless.  If you can’t put your name to something you have to say, then you are a coward and as far as I’m concerned you have no character or integrity.

    Like Publius was a coward and lacked integrity?

    Second off, I love how you just dump and run.  All you care about is your side of the story.  I think that spewing this and running is pretty cowardly.

    Just thought you would like to know.  Unlike you however, I will be available for further comment.

    1. …she’s been a registered Polster for a while. Not long, but she didn’t just create this account for the purpose of refuting GOPpundit either.

    1. One of her friends most likely forwarded a copy of what was said here to her.

      If I didn’t understand this circus, I might be inclined to her conclusions too.  

      We can be pretty brutal.

      And Haners, she doesn’t want to join the blog, just answer the things that this public forum has said about her.  I don’t think she is a coward.  Give her a break, some untruthful things were said about her by supposedly fellow Republicans.  

      Just because you and I are slandered every day and hardly notice anymore doesn’t mean everyone is so calm about it.

      2. I’m generally in the same camp that if you have something to say, put your name to it. If you don’t want your name on something…then simply shut up about it.

        Dan Willis

  4. Personally, I don’t waste my time and read this drivel.

    Sure

    You should get a life if this is all you have to do with your time!

    agreed.  Are you hiring?

    I would have long ago posted my real name if Kay Sveirdling hadn’t reminded me that nuts exist on blogs–ones that I don’t want to know where I live.  There are a handful of people out there that know my real identity and I think about outing myself all the time–and then somebody gets a little wacky.

    2. Those who get righteous about using their real names should think about that. Not all of us want all the baggage that comes with being a public figure.

    3. all politicians should be blogging under their real name.  There was a major diary in KOS last year about this.  I subscribe to the idea that when I make a public statement as a politician, I make it public under my name.

       Going the other way (19+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:

         DavidNYC, littlesky, ETinKC, shayera, madhaus, boadicea, bree, BarbinMD, mcfly, Fabian, Major Danby, trashablanca, Jordan LFW, Reel Woman, sccs, Nab, gchaucer2, kimoconnor, frontline in 09

      Now that I am running for Aurora Colorado City Council At-Large I want to make sure my name is attached to my writing.

      by Pam Bennett on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 04:24:42 PM MDT

    1. Some would say she did a good job, others think she did a lot of damage to the party (insulting volunteers, etc).  Most people who like the current chair disliked her and visa versa

  6. at the El Paso County Executive Board meeting to face the individuals she attacked in the newspaper on Wednesday morning on behalf of Doug Lamborn.  Who is hiding from whom, Terry?  There is nothing worse than a former party official who can’t fade into the woodwork.  This is not classy.

  7. …is worthless without a picture.

    Guess I’ll have to go surf the intertoobs (using my super-secret ID) to find one on teh gazoogle or whatnot.  

    I might be back to post mean things.  You are forewarned, you worthless bloggers.

      1. OK, a couple of things…

        1.  What kind of realtor doesn’t have a picture of themselves on their website?  That’s just wrong.

        2.  Have you seen her website?  I think computers scare her.

        No picture found–probably for the best. Does the Gazette not have photographers?

         

  8. I couldn’t care less about the ins and outs of the El Paso County Republicans, but it is worthwhile to note that this post carries on a common fallacy.  Namely, the fallacy that anonymous (more correctly in this case pseudonymous) writings inherently are valueless.

    If someone is just using pseudonyms to make unsubstantiated personal attacks, then I think such a person may be safely ignored.  If, however, someone uses a pseudonym to make assertions that may be checked against the facts, then that person’s arguments are just as valid as anyone else’s.  Yes, s/he may have motivations, biases, etc., but so do people posting under their own names.

    As to why people chose not to reveal their true names, that is not my place to judge.  However, for an entertaining story on the topic, check out “True Names” by Vernor Vinge, one of the pioneering works of science fiction dealing with issues of anonymity and pseudonymity on computer networks.  Note that Vinge was also a professor of computer science at UC-San Diego and closely associated with the people who developed the Internet (and I don’t mean Al Gore!).

    1. .

      a person might demonstrate a knowledge of Energy Resources, say,

      and the blog community come to regard them as an expert.

      However, if they reveal too much specialized knowledge,

      and then offend someone,

      a loonie might hang out at IHS or Ahlbrandt looking for them.  

      Pseudonyms can have no connection to IRL ID and still be useful.

      .

    2. Some of us are in a professional position which make it difficult if not impossible to comment under our real names. An elected official has to be extremely careful what they say… here they can expound on their viewpoints and debate with fellow pundits without the glare of the media. Speaking of media, same goes for them. Channel Nine’s news anchor might have some brilliant comments but could never post under his/her real name because that would compromise their reporting reputation. There a dozen other positions that fall under the same umbrella and I for one want to continue to hear what they have to say.

      I know that most of us on this site almost just now changed our minds about posting anonymously after reading Kunkels extremely intelligent articulation of the facts and her clever phrasing and presentation of the material… but let me bring you back from the edge of the perilous cliff my dear friends and encourage you to take heart! Another day will dawn and the world will undoubtedly keep spinning…  

        1. Nah… If I was Jeff Crank I’d post under the super secret pseudynym “CongressmanCrank” …actually in all seriousness I think candidates shouldn’t be afraid to come into environments like this. I for one would be willing to offer a certain modicum of restraint and respect for any lib or con who did so 😉

          1. Both Jared Polis and Katie Witt have faced hard questions and disagreement. But the comments have also been, almost without exception, respectful and professional.

            I’d like to see more candidates post here too.

            1. Someone who is running for office or holds public office should post under their real name.

              Otherwise, those who wish to post under something other then their real name probably has good reason to do so and that should be respected.

              Sometimes people want the flexibility to comment on things without having to worry about being targeted or anything.

      2. in using an alias and public discourse.  

        • First, someone will probably figure it out.
        • Second, if you are going to engage in speaking that is possibly not what you are known for, doing it in public is not a good thing; it does raise questions about what you really stand for.
        • Third, if you are going to try to be anonymous to disparge your opponent(s)publicly I don’t want you to be elected to any office. If you are going to call your opponent a (several words redacted)- then you should at least have the brass parts to sign your name to it!

        Press/Media using anonimity is questionable.  If they are investigating a story; say some politician calling his opponent a (several words redacted). Then gathering the information anon. is probably OK. But, to join in general discourse, I don’t think so. They should probably be known.

        I can understand and appreciate the necessity for whistleblowers to be anonymous.

  9. For starters… this is the woman who, at County Assembly, handed out an attack piece on Greg Garcia and the Party… ANONYMOUSLY. LOL, classic dufus maneuver to now attack anonymous posters on Pols.

    Second point. The buck stops with the Chair. Like him or dislike him you do not see Garcia blaming anyone else for what goes on. So on the one hand you have Kunkel in the Gazette and her quote, to paraphrase, is “I left him 18k in the bank… I left him smelling like a rose” but what she doesn’t let the Gazette reporter know is that her administration failed to raise enough extra money to pay Lee Gilbert the $9,000+ they owed. The party was in debt to him… And this argument about the election cycle is bullshit. That debt, as I recall, was from the first part of her administration. She had two years to pay the debt and failed.

    And finally I think it is interesting that she criticized Garcia’s E.D. without naming specifics… something about doing things according to the bylaws. If a bylaw was broken perhaps she could or should have cited it? Perhaps if she wasn’t pleased with the changes and improvements she could have gone through one or two specific examples? Or perhaps there just are not specifics to be had. It’s EVER so much easier to just go with innuendo!

    In closing… this post tells insiders everything they need to know about Kunkel. This post is bitter and not reflective of truth or fact. I actually feel sorry for her (a little) because El Paso County needs every living Republican soul on board if we are gonna get done what needs getting done in November…

    The conservatives on this blog will slash and burn with the best of them (cheers Newsman!) BUT we’re also smart enough to know when to fight our common opponent, those damn liberals from beautiful places with great beer like Boulder! Kunkel should see past the past and work for the common good of her party.

    1. BUT we’re also smart enough to know when to fight our common opponent, those damn liberals from beautiful places with great beer like Boulder!

      Phantom Canyon in Colorado Springs makes some enjoyable beer.

    2. You continue to say things that are not true. I guess you think that, if you say it often enough someone will believe you. First of all the flyer at the Assembly WAS NOT annonomous. Terry spoke directly to Nathan about it. How can that be annonomous? She made no attempt to hide who it was coming from. A gutsy move on her part.

      Second of all, regarding the money owed to they are also or were on file at GOP headquarters. Your comment

      her administration failed to raise enough extra money to pay Lee Gilbert the $9,000+ they owed. The party was in debt to

      is more obfuscation of the truth. The executive committee voted to pay Lee. They did not outline a payment plan until late in her term when Matt Warner was given the charge of developing a payment plan. The executive committee voted against paying him in full when we had the money. The records are clear on this. But, don’t let facts get in your way, GOPpundit.

      I agree with Terry on this, when you post lies on this site under some annonomous name you are being a coward. You post as if you are quoting facts when you are making up lies to support your own personal agenda. If you were actually on the executive committee last year shame on you!  

      1. I attended the County Assembly and was handed a flyer by Kunkel. I am a pack-rat and kept the damn thing. Want me to post it here? There is absolutely no indication on the flyer of who it was coming from. None. Zip. They call that “anonymous.”

        I don’t know or care if Nathan  Fisk talked to Kunkel… what about the rest of us? As far as everyone else was concerned it was ANONYMOUS. (By the way, you or Kunkel might recognize me and might even know my name but other than that you likely don’t pay attention to just another old fat white guy like me.) It is the height of hypocrisy to hand out something criticizing the local GOP administration and then coming on a blog like this and criticizing anyone of being anonymous.

        As far as my original charge about the $9,000+?  Kunkel apparently wants to have her cake and eat it too… one the one hand she/you are critical of Garcia and the actions of the Exec Committee and you make the argument that the buck stops with Greg. Ok… he’s taken that responsibility and the criticism along with the praise. And then on the other hand you pass the buck with regards to the debt… “it’s not Kunkel’s fault, it’s the Executive Committee.” Sorry but that doesn’t fly in my book.

        And the bottom line? My bigger beef lies with the fact that Kunkel – in a lame and ineffective attempt to air laundry – meets with the Gazette and paints an inaccurate picture of the financial state of the local party. I am surprised that they haven’t raised the points that I did or brought up other failures of hers and her administration; apparently they have greater respect and restraint than I do and maybe I should be pleased with that. Perhaps it is  time the party ignored attacks like the one made by Kunkel.

        1. I will try to set the record straight regarding the Gazette article. Neither Kunkel nor I met with the Gazette. Someone else-who needs to remain anonymous- gave the initial interview and provided all the details sited in the article. I know you are going to cry fowl about my referring to an anonymous source and I don’t really expect you to believe me, you don’t believe anyone. I have asked this person to come forward but they can’t/won’t. However, they asked the Gazette to call both Terry and I. My point? The article was a result of my confirming and/or denying some of the info proveded by this anonymous source and Terry’s comments. Believe it or not there are people other than Terry and I who have concerns about some of the things happening at headquarters.

          1. I will also say that I believe many of the actions Greg has taken are to be commended. His strategic plan, marketing, certainly his fund raising and his 6 year plan. The problem lies with the fact that, while planning on his 6 year plan, he forgot the day to day plan. Everyone knows that no corporation can survive without long range planning. However this same corporation won’t survive a month without keeping their eye on the day to day and short term decisions. And this is where the current administration has fallen short. I will not go into details here. There is no point and no value. Everyone needs to get on with the job of getting “R’s” elected in November and worry about this other stuff later.

            1. I appreciate the fact that you have stuck around long enough to talk about this, and I am glad that you also recognize the importance of getting Republicans elected.

            2. I have no desire to let vitriol rule the day here so I apologize if I misstated the Gazette report… Kunkel was cited in the article and I am taking exception with her lack of disclosure or perhaps the lack of complete coverage by the Gazette.

              It’s always easy to cast a stone, not so easy to move past it. I am certain that we will be working side by side on getting Republicans elected, regardless of the differences we may have at this time.

  10. Sorry, don’t really have anything productive to add to this conversation. Just wanted to post that “Subject” line above these words for the sake of my own amusement.

    1. Just cause you can post, doesn’t mean you should. 🙂

      That’s what the cancel button is for.  

      Believe it or not I actually use it regularly, or I would be in more hot water than I am. Perhaps I should have used it this time. Oh no.

      1. Just cause you can post, doesn’t mean you should. 🙂

        That’s what the cancel button is for.  

        Believe it or not I actually use it regularly, or I would be in more hot water than I am. Perhaps I should have used it this time. Oh no.

        Believe it or not, I use the “Cancel” button quite often, myself.

        Not this time, though.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

418 readers online now

Newsletter

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