U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(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
February 23, 2015 06:04 PM UTC

Um, That's Not a "Policy," Darryl Glenn

  • 3 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Darryl Glenn military

El Paso County Commissioner Darryl Glenn was the first official Republican candidate to announce a campaign for U.S. Senate in 2016. He'll always have that to remember, we guess, since it's not likely that he'll be the last remaining GOP candidate. So enjoy him — and his bizarre campaign logo — while you can.

Here's Glenn's latest email to supporters, titled "My Policy Statement on Use of Force." You may notice, as we did, that Glenn's "policy statement" doesn't…actually contain…a policy. The full email text is available after the jump, but here's the heart of the non-policy policy statement (bold text is how it originally appears):

The politicians in …Washington DC and other nation’s capitals do play a necessary role in providing funding, resources, and intelligence to their military commanders. However, a politician fighting a war through policy dictates thousands of miles away has never been successful as history teaches time and again.

The rapid advancement of Islamic jihadists throughout the Middle East is a significant threat to national security interests of the United States and other nations. My policy is to create the dialog among the politicians, military leaders, and US citizens to examine and decide the best use of military operations against Islamic jihadists. We must clearly define our goals and operational objectives, the scope of the radical Islamic threat and then give our military commanders the flexibility to complete the mission.

Sounds good! Er, whatever.

 

My Policy Statement on Use of Military Force
Protecting Your American Dream by Protecting Our Homeland

Dear Friends and Supporters:

Regardless of whether we manage military operations under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the AUMF of 2002, or the proposed AUMF of 2015, the best solution to eradicating the Islamic jihadists is to empower the military commanders to use the multi-national resources available to them and eliminate the threat. The politicians in …Washington DC and other nation’s capitals do play a necessary role in providing funding, resources, and intelligence to their military commanders. However, a politician fighting a war through policy dictates thousands of miles away has never been successful as history teaches time and again.

The rapid advancement of Islamic jihadists throughout the Middle East is a significant threat to national security interests of the United States and other nations. My policy is to create the dialog among the politicians, military leaders, and US citizens to examine and decide the best use of military operations against Islamic jihadists. We must clearly define our goals and operational objectives, the scope of the radical Islamic threat and then give our military commanders the flexibility to complete the mission.

If you want to help me spread this message, I need you help today.

Would you please consider contributing to my campaign for U.S. Senate? Please take a moment and make a donation to my campaign to help Restore Your American Dream. Please consider contributing monthly either $5, $10, $20 or $100 to help move us forward toward spreading our message to the voters of Colorado. If you have the ability to make the maximum contribution of $5,200, it would greatly help move our campaign forward. You can contribute by visiting my website: ElectDarrylGlenn.com or by returning your check to:

The Committee to Elect Darryl Glenn, P.O. Box 62667, Colorado Springs, CO 80962. I know and believe that America is the greatest nation on this earth and we must fight to defend our freedoms.

I cannot do it without your support. Thank you for taking the time and making the commitment to Restore Your American Dream.

Regards,

Darryl Glenn
U.S. Senate Candidate

Comments

3 thoughts on “Um, That’s Not a “Policy,” Darryl Glenn

  1. A policy would be to decide how much that “dialogue” will influence troop deployments or funding. That’s Congress’s job, to have that dialogue. Is Glenn advocating that Congress should do its Constitutional duty? Because that would be a radical departure from chickenhawks promoting “boots on the ground” without any actual American feet in those boots.

    So Glenn favors dialog, defined objectives, and flexibility. I bet he’d like other corporate buzzwords, too. Accountability. Shared Vision. Ownership. Etc.

  2. Speaking of American feet, I’ve read that 4,000 troops from Ft. Carson just were deployed to Kuwait. https://www.google.com/url?q=http://m.gazette.com/fort-carson-brigade-headed-to-kuwait-for-possible-showdown-with-isis/article/1546240&sa=U&ei=DCvsVOn1GoPDggS8uYS4DQ&ved=0CAsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFLGi1M6mWlWK1_HjvOUacP1tRS9g

    What does Mr. Glenn, or for that matter, Tipton, Lamborn, Coffman, Bennet, have to say about how those 4,000 people will be used?

  3. It's not like anyone in the White House or Congress is giving me any classified intelligence reports to study–but sure go ahead and ask me, a citizen, what needs to be done and how I think we can best accomplish the goal.

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

84 readers online now

Newsletter

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