Friday, October 30, 2009

Anonymous Cowards, Part 300 of an endless series

It's sad... people that howl and bark endlessly about 'transparency' posting anonymous hate all over the web.

For example, at this article on The Boulder Weekly about all the outside money being pumped into the campaign, the following comment was posted:

Oh yawn, apparently Mr Wray is again attempting to distribute his pdf to the world. Guess Mayor Lange shutting him down at a council meeting when he tried to share it there too wasn't enough.
Mr Wray, no one cares what you think or say. But, for the laugh of it all I thought I'd again tell you that. How about sending more emails to your fab 4 on council telling them how certain bloggers who have made you look like an idiot need to get their a** kicked again.
People who disagree with you are not just "old guard" but apparently you are the one who keeps acting like an old guard, redistributing the same old information over and over and over. Kind of like a little dog who barks and barks out of loneliness hoping someone will notice.

Maybe you'd like to share with readers why you turned around an email that was in reference to your blogger and candidate Kaye Fissinger attacking a sitting councilmember to make it look as if someone was sounding the bugle horn to announce incoming attacks.
Go back to vandalizing LifeBridge's church sign. And hacking into computers. And talking about injury to the ears of the dog of your adversaries. You're old. And on guard. And irrelevant.

Now I have no idea who posted this comment since they didn't have enough of a pair to use their real name, but I'd like to say:
  1. I didn't vandalize the LifeBridge sign, I just posted the image of it after it happened and boy did that piss some folks off (apparently).
  2. The information (s)he's referring to is a presentation linking Gabe Santos to the smear campaign against Richard Juday during the last election.
  3. I've never 'hacked into' any computer, never been accused or charged, nothing. That's bullshit.
  4. If the blogger being referred to is who I think it is... well, Don Coulson covered him pretty well.
  5. As for being made to look like an 'idiot' by same blogger, I'm afraid (s)he's taken that title for him (her?) self with the obsessive and endless stream of made-up attacks on Karen Benker, Sean McCoy (and the entire McCoy family) not to mention anyone else that (s)he disagrees with. (personally I think it's a group since collectively they don't have the stones to post under their own names, so much for all that money and those boar hunts).
  6. On guard? Hell yes, especially with the kind of sociopaths at work in our community.
  7. Irrelevant? Maybe, but I mean enough to this person for them to stalk me all over the web and post childish attacks like this everywhere they see me.
  8. Old? LOL! Time will wound that heel.

They just keep proving that they're cowards, liars and have no respect for the law or freedom of speech. They intend to intimidate their opponents into silence any way they can - but it's not working so I suspect they're starting to panic; especially since the election may very well go badly wrong for them.

Can't wait to see the results.

Gang of 4C

This letter at BoulderWeekly.com is classic.


Gang of 4C

(Re: “The gloves come off,” cover story, Oct. 1.) It seems that everyone keeps missing the point about Project LifeBridge, the Gang of 4C developers, and Councilwoman [Karen] Benker. By writing this letter, I am sure that I will be accused of being anti-Christian. That would not be true. It is untrue when it is said about Ms. Benker. She is a life-long Christian and someone who gives generously of her time to do good works in this community. Thankfully, Benker stood up to the royal elite of this town: the developers, the Longmont Times-Call and the “old money,” when very few others would. In her lone vote against the LifeBridge annexation, she clearly expressed her view that this would not be good for the city. I believe this was based on a fiscal analysis of the various costs to the city, vis-à-vis the overblown projections of the actual benefits from the Gang of 4C. In spite of her objections, The Project LifeBridge steamroller passed our rubber stampin’ City Council by a vote of 6-1.

Here is where the most important part of all this gets left out. I would say this is intentional by the alleged journalists in the Longmont paper. The citizens of Longmont stood up! More than 6,000 registered voters signed a petition and overturned the Longmont City Council for the first time in its history. This was a great moment for the democratic process and should never be forgotten or dismissed.

The propaganda machine would have us believe that this was a gathering of all the Christian haters in town. That would be a lie. The statistics show that in our country, a large majority of people identify themselves as being Christian. Most of the petitioners undoubtedly would share this identification. The alleged activist bloggers in our town would have us believe this is a secret attempt by “Reds” from Boulder to take over our fair city. This is also a lie that gets mindlessly repeated over and over. Most of the recent waves of peoples moving here don’t come from Boulder. They could never afford to live there in the first place. One of the many outlandish and hateful lies coming from Chris Rodriguez is that Karen Benker wears a nightgown with the words Kill All Christians on it.

[Stephanie] Baum’s blog is full of misplaced vitriol as well, and the chicken guy should be taken to task for mistaking William Wallace for the cartoon “braveheart.” The real Wallace would surely have taken the other side, with heads of the monarchy on the chopping block.

When the citizens of Longmont rose up against their council, they did the truly democratic (small d) thing. They asked for the annexation question to be put on the ballot. The Gang of 4C went along. What a better way to prove, once and for all, that they did belong in Longmont? However, they chickened out. The Gang of 4C withdrew from the ballot. Then comes the biggest lie of all. The Gang of 4C couldn’t work with the current City Council and were taking their ball and going home. But the City Council was already out of the way. This was between the developers and the people. It is as wrong to blame the City Council for the Gang of 4C running away, as it is wrong to blame them for the world economic collapse. Yet it seems that some people do.

I believe that religious freedom and free speech are the cornerstones of our republic. It is just sad to see them abused so consistently, and so obviously.

Daniel Organ/Longmont

Candidate Opinion-Editorial: Kaye Fissinger

I have a vision for Longmont. It is a forward-looking vision that recognizes the challenges ahead, not just for our community but for our state, nation and world. The road ahead will not be easy. But I firmly believe that this wonderful community has the ability to meet the challenges ahead and prevail.

I began my campaign during the Boulder County Fair Parade saying, “We have the heart. We have the soul. We have the talent and the intelligence to make Longmont be the best that it can be.” As election day nears, I am still confident that this is true.

The decisions that you make now will have a major impact on your community for the next twenty years. We may be turning our clocks back this Sunday evening, but we must not turn our focus towards the past. We can learn from it, but we can’t repeat it. If we do, we will without question invite failure.

We’ve had our successes, such as the Civic Center, the Library, the Safety and Justice Center, the Recreation Center and the Museum. But we’ve had run-away development that has left parts of our town sorely wanting.

We have an assortment of Master Plans and a Comprehensive Plan, but we have no overriding vision for the nature and character of Longmont. We have elements of a vision but not a whole vision.

A vision of that nature cannot be accomplished solely by the profit motives of individual developers. It can’t be accomplished by hobbling together the business models and visual preferences of a collection of businesses with insular objectives.

That’s where we as a citizenry and we as a government representing all of us comes in. Ant that is why as ask for your vote if you have not already done so.

Moving ahead towards a sustainable future – both economically and environmentally – will take the best in all of us. There is much work to be done and it cannot be accomplished by those who think only of today’s dollar and next quarter’s profit. It cannot be accomplished by those who would sacrifice our natural resources especially around Union Reservoir to accomplish a suspect objective that divides us. Longmont has no alternative but to prevail in protecting our borders and defining for ourselves the nature of our community

On the west is a gateway to and from Boulder. The triangle now defined as the Twin Peaks urban renewal area has the potential to describe Longmont as a 21st century community. We can and should work with Panattoni or others who see opportunity in this area. But we must partner in a way that protects Longmont’s resources and guarantees that we have the revenue to sustain the services that our community requires.

I have been described as “suspicious” of business and I perceive this as a compliment, not as a criticism. As your representative I have a fiduciary and ethical responsibility to dig deep into the information presented, whether from sources within the community, outside of it, or even from city staff itself. I have the obligation to be sure that what is presented to us is correct, complete and honest. Making decisions on your behalf is a heady responsibility. It is not one that presumes that “what’s good for General Motors is good for America”. That was true in the beginning, but we all have seen what blind faith and rigid thinking have wrought.

We have the ingredients to complete a wonderful vision. We have the probability (if we work towards it) to bring FasTracks to Longmont with not just one stop, but two. We have envisioned the Mall area as having an overpass from a secondary station that serves a future mixed use development and the current Front Range Community College area. We have a major station planned at the flour mill location whether or not the mill can or should be preserved.

We have plans to revitalize our downtown and have hopes to be able to work cooperatively with local and regional businesses to make downtown an urban area with a “small town” twist. We have work to do moving northwards and this requires much more creativity, research and strategic planning than has so far been accomplished.

I am excited about the opportunity to offer my community my perceptions, knowledge and strategic capabilities to realize a vision that serves us all well into the future. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Montana-based org. pours cash into conservative coffers in Longmont City Council race

By Jefferson Dodge

A regional rightwing advocacy group with connections to Republican political powers in Colorado has taken a keen interest in a hotly contested Longmont City Council race.

It has funded, among other things, the controversial phone survey last month about Councilmember Karen Benker, which some have called a “push poll.”

It is not the first time that Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) has gotten involved in a Colorado election, and not the first time it has been accused of using negative campaign tactics.

But the group’s leaders maintain that they never campaign for or against any candidate. They say they are simply involved in education, advocating for issues and encouraging citizen involvement in government. They deny that the survey was a “push poll.”

And yet a Longmont group that they fund has been using their money to campaign against Benker.

Western Tradition Partnership is one of the plaintiffs in a recent legal challenge to Longmont’s campaign laws. WTP funds another plaintiff in that lawsuit, the Longmont Leadership Committee, which has been actively opposing Benker. A judge found largely in favor of the plaintiffs in an Oct. 21 ruling and granted a preliminary injunction that keeps the plaintiffs from having to abide by several of Longmont’s campaign-reporting requirements until the suit is decided.

The battlefield

It is the latest skirmish in a Longmont political war that has only escalated in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

Some say the Longmont race has heated up and attracted attention from outside heavyweights because it is a swing city, in a swing district, in a swing state.

In broad terms, the two main factions in Longmont have been described as backers of the liberal “gang of four” — council members who oppose megachurch LifeBridge’s development plan and Firestone’s annexation of land for that development on the east side of town — and those who side with the “old guard” conservatives who support that development and want Longmont to drop its lawsuits fighting Firestone’s annexation. The former has been painted as anti-business and “Boulderized,” while the latter has been characterized as pro-development.

The lawsuit filed against the city this fall by the group of “old guard” individuals and groups challenges the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA), which was updated this year after a special election in 2008, when “old guard” Councilmember Gabe Santos, who is running for re-election on Nov. 3, was victorious. He had received a $5,000 contribution from the Longmont Association of Realtors.

His opponents, including “gang of four” Councilmember Benker, cried foul and helped lead an effort to update the LFCPA so that contributors to political campaigns had to declare on political communications their identities and the amount they were spending, among other things.

Benker is running for re-election against Katie Witt, who has said that the anti-Benker efforts such as the alleged “push poll” were done without her knowledge, and Witt has condemned them.

Benker and one of her supporters have filed several complaints with the newly formed Longmont Election Committee, alleging that her opponents’ various mailers and phone calls violated the LFCPA. One of those complaints, alleging that the Longmont Leadership Committee did not file necessary paperwork within 72 hours, was reviewed Oct. 26 by the Election Committee, which fined the committee $600, according to the Longmont Times-Call. Another Benker complaint that is still pending claims that required paperwork was not filed for the alleged “push poll.”

The lawsuit, on the other hand, alleges that some of the new campaign contribution regulations are too strict and violate the First Amendment.

In addition to Western Tradition Partnership and the Longmont Leadership Committee, the plaintiffs are former Longmont Mayor Julia Pirnack, political activist and blogger Chris Rodriguez and the Longmont Association of Realtors. The plaintiffs argue that the act, and an article about the act in a city newsletter, have chilled free speech.

In granting the injunction, U.S. Senior District Judge Walker Miller ruled that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail in most of their claims. Scott Gessler, the plaintiffs’ attorney, calls the decision a “slam dunk,” while City Attorney Eugene Mei says the ruling leaves the bulk of the city’s act unchanged.

Donny Ferguson, Western Tradition Partnership’s director of public relations, issued a press release trumpeting the judge’s decision on Oct. 21.

“Longmont politicians can no longer use an unconstitutional law to harass people who want to publicly discuss real issues,” he said in the release.

Luis Toro, senior counsel for Colorado Ethics Watch, has a different take. “The whole point of the lawsuit they filed is so that people won’t trace where the money is coming from,” he says.

So what is this outside group that is suing the city and has provided the Longmont Leadership Committee with $6,269 of its $6,594 in contributions, most of which has been used to defeat Benker and put Katie Witt in office?

Read the full article at the Boulder Weekly

What a candidate is or isn't

I just love watching the wingnuts in Longmont twist words into more and more insane pretzels.

The most recent warp-fest included the phrase 'what a candidate is or isn't.'

Now that's some delicious irony.

Here's quick breakdown of the folks the righties are supporting and 'what they are.'

Gabe Santos
Tom Delay clone, secret smear artist
Katie Witt
Zero experience, jekyll and hyde personality
Bryan Baum
Bankster and willing accomplice to Santos

Yep... it's important that folks get out and vote because if this crowd makes it onto the Council you can count on a return to the days of Queen Julia and the Wicked Witch of the West Leona; i.e. out of control taxpayer-funded pocket-lining for developers and realtors.

And you can kiss Longmont's small-town charm goodbye.

If these loons get their way Longmont will be homogenized and big-boxed into a copy of Colorado Springs, complete with religious intolerance and a theocratic cult campus around the best open space land in the area - which the 'little people' won't be welcome to use any more.

Yes, it's important to know 'what they are' - vote Lange for mayor, Benker, Van Dusen and Fissinger - honest representatives that have stood up for what's right in Longmont. The amount of money being thrown at them should tell you how badly the right-wing wants their little fiefdom back.

Don't let them have it. Get your ballot in today.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Letter to the Editor

I feel compelled to respond to the opinion written by Bryan Baum in today's paper. He is correct in one regard, Longmont should have purchased the land that the Union group currently owns. The problem is his timeline. It should have been purchased under Pirnack's or Stoecker's administration. But neither cared about purchasing open space, just selling Longmont to the highest bidder. It was already purchased before the current administration took charge.

     Please do not forget about the petition which contained over 6000 signatures, that sought to either reverse the annexation or take it to a vote of the citizens of Longmont. I believe this was the major reason for the withdrawal of the annexation request. Mr. Baum, you belittle the citizens who signed that petition as inconsequential by not even acknowledging its existence.

     Our concern regarding the annexation was not building a church. Among our concerns were a) cost to the city after the municipal tax had expired; b) infrastructure costs; c) percent of tax-exempt property; and d) water.  When we asked for more information regarding these issues, we received none.

We all watched Julia at a council meeting call the online petition spam rather than show concern regarding the opinion of a large group of citizens. And Julia stating in the Times-Call Opinion that the citizens of Longmont were not smart enough to make decisions.

I urge people to vote for Roger Lange and not back the old regime that sold Longmont; which I believe Baum, Santos, and Witt would do. I believe that most people have already voted but please don't forget all the hard work that we did to have a voice in the direction of our city. It is our city and our voice and we are not for sale.



Doreen Petersen

Longmont

Benker's opposition going into meltdown

Reports coming in from campaign volunteers canvassing for Karen Benker and Kaye Fissinger indicate strong support. Independents are near-unanimously supportive of them.

The more-or-less nonstop howling from her opponent(s) gives one to believe that their reality distortion field isn't quite working to plan.

Longmont's voters have figured out where the real threat to the city is and they're voting for people that don't run smear campaigns using anonymous blogs or have paid shills hammering away day and night, making up lies and pulling every kind of vicious, ignorant stunt imaginable.

Nope, I get the feeling that the tide has turned and the garbage is about to get washed out to sea.

But the votes aren't in just yet, so we'll see.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

"Already Won"

The bleating of 'we win! we win!' from the Longmont Laughable Limpdicks is perhaps a smidge premature... being that the ballots are still not in...

I wouldn't rush to claim victory just yet kids.

Imagine this... a Progressive sweep and Mayor Lange re-elected.

Oh my. There's not enough Tide in the whole state to get those stains out.