Many of our friends on the Left are disillusioned with Mark Udall over his vote on FISA. I'd like to remind them that there is always a silver lining to everything. Come on guys, Mark Udall may have sold you out on that vote and sided against the base, but at least you'll get these great AT&T sponsored tote bags at the DNC next month!

A little gratitude to Mark Udall would be nice, these look like they'll be extremely well made tote bags and you could probably re-use them afterwards to carry groceries and stuff. You could let your kids use it as trick-or-treat bag or just hang it in the garage to store stuff in it. Plus, they're better for the environment since you can re-use it instead of getting plastic or paper bags at the grocery.

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth...

(Tote bag from DemConWatch, H/T: Slapstick Politics)

Rasmussen Reports has released new polling for the state of Colorado that shows Bob Schaffer closing to within the margin of error against Mark Udall:

Mark Udall (D): 47
Bob Schaffer (R): 43

Rasmussen also polled the presidential race and found that Schaffer is now outperforming McCain slightly in the state:

Barack Obama (D): 49
John McCain (R): 42

The trend lines for these races are below and have updated to include recent polling from PPP and Zogby. More detailed information can be found at the RMR Poll Tracker page.

In light of Mitt Romney's strong showing the caucuses, this might be the most dramatic endorsement that Wil Armstrong could have announced. Unlike previous endorsements that consisted largely of Republican politicians from outside CD-6, this one could very well have a tangible impact among primary voters.

(BOSTON, MA) – Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney today announced his support for congressional candidate Wil Armstrong.  “Washington is broken and Wil Armstrong is the best man to fix it,” said Romney.

    “Wil Armstrong gets my strong endorsement for the Republican nomination in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District.  He is best qualified to bring the conservative change we need to Washington and reduce the size and cost of the federal government.

    “Wil Armstrong is a career businessman, not a career politician,” Romney continued.  “It is that real-world experience that Washington so desperately needs today.  He has dealt with complex business situations and forged solutions during both the highs and lows of an unstable economy.

    “For the same reason I decided to enter public service, Wil Armstrong is doing the same.  People who have spent their careers outside Washington creating jobs and running enterprises can bring a unique perspective to Washington.  It is a voice and perspective with which we need to hear more.” 

Speculation is intense that Romney could be named John McCain's running mate in a matter of weeks if not days. It would be interesting to see how that would factor into the race.

To his credit, George Lilly has said that he is not interested in pursuing any further action on this and I take him on his word on that just as I believe he supports Bob Schaffer even if he doesn't seem to like the people working to get him elected all that much. Today, the Citizen Media Law Project chimed in on Lilly's threat and basically backed up what I had been saying: that Lilly had little basis, there were facts to back me up, and that the post clearly constituted opinion posted to an opinion website. Citizen Media Law Project:

George Lilly, the Republican candidate for Colorado's First Congressional District, says on his website that he considers defense of the U.S. Constitution a "sacred oath."  But after he threatened a libel lawsuit against the Rocky Mountain Right ("RMR") blog, one wonders about his views on the First Amendment.

In a June 9, 2008, post, RMR editor Anthony Surace announced the blog's endorsement of George Lilly's rival in the Republican primary, Charles Crain.  Calling Lilly "no Republican," Surace claimed that Lilly was not sufficiently supporting the Republican ticket in Colorado.  Surace also asserted that Lilly's supporters "made clear they would not support [presumptive Republican presidential nominee] John McCain or [Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate] Bob Schaffer" in the coming elections, and that Lilly's presence on the ticket "could be disruptive enough to harm other Republican candidates running statewide."

This past weekend, Lilly emailed Surace, demanding that the offending post be removed and that RMR issue an apology.  In his email, which Surace posted on RMR, Lilly alleged that Surace had libelously misstated Lilly's support for Schaffer.

You have libeled me with your blog. I have contributed money to Bob Schaffer on two ocasions [sic] for his senatorial bid, and I have spoken well of him on many occasions and told people like Ryan Call (State Republican Legal Counsel for the Republican Party) as well as others, that I support Bob.  I have known Bob for close to twenty years, and I think he is an excellent person and legislator.  He is also friendly with Ron Paul, and thinks very highly of him as do I.  I recommend that you print an immediate retraction of your false allegations against me and issue an apology, or I will seek legal redress against you.

Lilly also wrote that he was sending copies of his email to his supporters.  Surace noted that the email included Surace's home address.

PolitickerCO.com, a news site for Colorado political insiders, reports that, ironically, Surace had deleted the offending post (which can still be viewed on Google's cache) a few hours before receiving Lilly's email, as Surace had become concerned by a news report that the candidate RMR had endorsed, Charles Crain, was apparently living in a homeless shelter.   As a result, Surace wrote that he would "take George Lilly at his word that he supports Bob Schaffer and donated to his campaign," and that he apologized "for any confusion over the issue."  Nonetheless, Surace criticized Lilly for threatening a frivolous lawsuit and noted several factual bases, including a video posted to YouTube by Lilly's campaign, that supported Surace's assertions.

Indeed, Lilly would have a tough time bringing a successful defamation suit against Surace. First, Lilly would have to show that Surace's statements were false. That doesn't look easy. Surace's saying that Lilly "is no Republican" comes across as an opinion, not a fact.  Although he doesn't go into detail in the original post, Surace's evidence in support of his position regarding Lilly's effect on the Republican ticket is defensible. Perhaps Surace's claim that Lilly launched "tirades" against the Schaffer campaign could be proven false, but this also looks like political hyperbole rather than fact, and Surace has a reasonable argument that the assertion was substantially true.

Further, Lilly would have trouble showing that he suffered any actual harm.  Certainly, he might have been offended by Surace's assertions, but there is nothing Surace wrote that is so egregious that a court would automatically assume harm to his reputation. And even if Lilly could show Surace made a false statement that harmed his reputation, Lilly would have to show "actual malice" on Surace part. Lilly, being a candidate for national office, is almost certainly a public figure, and thus he would have to show that Surace actually knew that what he wrote was false or recklessly disregarded its falsity. Even putting aside Surace's subsequent post, which indicates that he believed and still believes the statements to be true, the subjective and hyperbolic nature of Surace's original statements make this a daunting task. The comments certainly were no worse than the typical mudslinging Lilly is apt to see on the campaign trail.

In fact, Surace seems to have come to the same conclusion about Lilly's libel claim - he reissued his "libelous" blog post verbatim on Sunday, saying that Lilly's claim had "no legal standing."  Surace added that "Lilly should be ashamed of himself for thinking he could intimidate a political blogger with threats of legal action."

Will Lilly follow through on his legal threat?  He told PolitickerCO.com that he considered Surace's post containing the apology to be a retraction.  With Surace's reissue of the offending post, the situation may not yet be resolved.

You can follow further developments about Lilly's legal threat in our Legal Threats Database entry: Lilly v. Rocky Mountain Right. 

This ad from a conservative PAC should back memories of 2006 for any Colorado political observers:

Democrats better hope it isn't as effective this time around.

(- promoted by Rocky Mountain Right -)

For Myself the choice is clear in regards to Colorado's 5th Congressional Race. The Choice is Jeff Crank. The other two Canidates would be fine conservative voters, but we need more than a voter, we need a Leader and Jeff Crank is that leader. Jeff Crank is the ONLY canidate that has proposed solutions to problems that face the voters of the 5th Congressional district.  Following will be a list of a few not all and links to see Jeff Crank's solutions to the problems. 

1. Earmarks- Crank is the only canidate that has said they will not use earmarks and will oppose any bill that has them included.-  http://www.jeffcrank.com/jeff-crank-to-dc-no-more-earmarks

2. Endless Government Programs- Crank said that no program should last forever, again the only canidate to say this.- http://www.jeffcrank.com/jeff-crank-calls-for-sunset-of-government-programs

3. Taxes- We all know they are too high and to confusing and Crank will fight to lower our burden- http://www.jeffcrank.com/jeff-crank-get-rid-of-tax-code

These are just three examples from a huge list. To find more Solutions, instead of empty rhetoric go to www.jeffcrank.com to learn more.

And don't forget to Vote fro Jeff Crank in the Aug. 12th Primary!

Mark Udall's supporters are complaining that Bob Schaffer's "checkmate" moment over the Iraq War at the Senate debate was an unfair attack and are trying to make out like Udall is a darling of the anti-war movement. This YouTube video uploaded by anti-war activists last year shows that they don't seem to like him all that much and suggests that this may be a looming problem for Udall with the Democratic base. The 6-minute video is footage of a townhall meeting Udall held with constituents and was dominated by questions regarding the Iraq War and Udall's attempts to dodge the issue:

A poll conducted by Zogby from June 11-30 shows Barack Obama and John McCain locked in a dead heat.

Obama - 40%
McCain - 38%
Barr - 8%

It is interesting to note that while this poll includes Bob Barr, Barack Obama's lead in this poll is nearly non-existent and much less than other polls in the same time period. While both candidates register lower support than they have been averaging in polls lately, it seems that Barack Obama is the one taking more of a hit from Barr. Could anti-war Democrats be jumping ship in Colorado over Obama's FISA vote and "moderating" of his Iraq positions?

(H/T: Schaffer v. Udall)

Note George Lilly's showing and party affiliation:

  Diana L. DeGette * (D)    160,169     73%
  Roland F. Chicas (R)    53,662     25%
  George C. Lilly (AmC)    4,685     2%

Maybe "Mr. Lawsuit" could try running as a Democrat or Green in 2010. And remember, if anyone doesn't endorse you, you can just threaten to sue them.

This post was originally published on June 9th and endorsed Charles Crain. I later decided that I desired to stay neutral in the primary and deleted it. George Lilly then sent me an email with the threat of a lawsuit clearly intended to prevent me from endorsing his primary opponent or criticizing his candidacy. In light of this, I am reissuing Rocky Mountain Right's endorsement of Charles Crain. Lilly's complaint at the above link can be read in full, upon examining his complaint and the content of this post it became clear that Lilly had no legal standing to threaten a libel suit as the post clearly addresses his problems with those running the Schaffer campaign and the Colorado GOP as well as the behavior of his supporters and my opinion that he would be a drag on the statewide races. Nonetheless, Lilly went to great trouble to impress on me that he supports Bob Schaffer and I believe he does like Schaffer, though that doesn't mean his rhetoric towards Dick Wadhams (Schaffer's campaign manager) isn't going to be damaging.

George Lilly should be ashamed of himself for thinking he could intimidate a political blogger with threats of legal action and sending out my home address to his mailing list. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment and I will not be silenced. Political speech is a sacred American right and George Lilly needs to recognize that fact.

While Rocky Mountain Right will remain neutral in most primaries, some present such a clear-cut choice and unusual scenario that an endorsement must be given. One of these scenarios is the Congressional District One primary encompassing Denver's solid Democratic district. While it is a nearly foregone conclusion that the Democrat will be victorious in CD-1, the outcome of this Republican primary is vital to the Bob Schaffer and John McCain candidacies.

At the CD-1 assembly, ballot access was granted to George Lilly and Charles Crain to compete in the primary. George Lilly converted to the Republican Party recently from the Constitution Party and is now running for Congress. At his public appearances at Denver County GOP events he has launched tirades against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns and has made it clear that he will not support the Republican ticket in November. Supporters of Lilly's were responsible for many of the pointless disruptions of the Colorado Republican Convention several weeks ago. His supporters made clear they would not support John McCain and pulled several stunts that included parading around in Uncle Sam outfits while screaming at Dick Wadhams at the podium.

George Lilly is no Republican. While it is doubtful we can win this seat, George Lilly's presence on the ticket could be disruptive enough to harm other Republican candidates running statewide.

Vote Charles Crain in the Republican CD-1 Primary. Tell George Lilly to go back to the Constitution Party.

George Lilly, a candidate who ran in CD-1 as the American Constitution Party candidate in 2004 and later converted to the Republican Party, sent the following notice to my personal email account this evening:

You have libeled me with your blog.  I have contributed money to Bob Schaffer on two ocasions for his Senatorial bid, and I have spoken well of him on many occasions and told people like Ryan Call (State Republican Legal Counsel for the Republican Party) as well as others, that I support Bob.  I have known Bob for close to twenty years, and I think he is an excellent person and legislator.  He is also friendly with Ron Paul, and thinks very highly of him as do I.  I recommend that you print an immediate retraction of your false allegations against me and issue an apology, or I will seek legal redress against you.
 
I am not a "lock step boot licking Republican" as many Republicans seem to be.  If the Republican leadership is wrong, I won't support them, because I answer to a higher authority than the Republican Party - namely my LORD and Savior Jesus Christ and the Biblical principles that guide my life.  That may mean nothing to you or a large number of Republicans today, but it's where I stand like it or not.
 
I have made a copy of your blog which I am keepiing on file, and I am sending this email to my supporters, so that you may get a "heads up" from someone other than myself.  If you doubt the veracity of my statement that I support Bob Schaffer, it is public record who gives money to a candidate.  You may also speak with Bob and ask him.  If you wish to speak with me personally before you make rash assertions about me, then please feel free to contact me.

The post that Mr. Lilly was referring to had actually already been deleted at the time he sent this email after I had reconsidered the CD-1 primary and decided I was too harsh on George Lilly's candidacy. The post opposed Mr. Lilly on the basis that he was running against the "establishment" and would not be a team player for the GOP ticket. I'll take George Lilly at his word that he supports Bob Schaffer and donated to his campaign and apologize for any confusion over the issue. My statement was based on items posted at Mr. Lilly's website that were harshy critical of the Colorado GOP and Bob Schaffer's campaign. It appears that George Lilly just has a problem with Dick Wadhams and those running Bob Schaffer's campaign as this video his campaign posted to YouTube reveals:

Not only does this video take shots at Dick Wadhams and the Republican Party, but it singles out a number of people as "Ron Paul supporters." In fact, I have spoken to several of the people pictured in this video who are not and never have been Ron Paul supporters and were none too happy about being called such; I wonder if any of them would be interested in pursuing a libel suit against George Lilly?

I stand by my statement that George Lilly as a "Ron Paul republican" who goes around to Denver GOP events attacking the "establishment" (as seen in his campaign video) is likely to be a drag on the other Republicans on the ticket in terms of vote margins in CD-1 and in terms of fundraising. George Lilly's supporters were disruptive at the CD-1 assembly and were responsible for many of the disruptions at the Colorado State Convention. I also question George Lilly's motivations for sending that email out to his list as, at least in the copy I received, my home address is prominently listed and would appear to be a veiled threat. I sure hope that my "heads up" doesn't involve a psychopath in the parking lot with a tire iron.

As George Lilly is new to the Republican Party, I am willing to forgive him for not realizing that frivolous lawsuits are frowned upon here. I would also like to suggest that he makes his campaign material a bit more clear in his support of Bob Schaffer as the only mention on his website is a video going after Schaffer's campaign manager and people are likely to get the wrong idea when you use your allotted time at public events railing against the Republican Party (again, see his campaign video).

If people have a perception problem of you then that's your fault, and if that perception caused you to only get 61% of the assembly vote against a homeless man then perhaps you should spend your time trying to correct it instead of threatening lawsuits against people who don't like you.

Update (12:53 AM):

Upon examining the original post which George Lilly is threatening me over, the passage he is upset about reads as:

At his public appearances at Denver County GOP events he has launched tirades against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns and has made it clear that he will not support the Republican ticket in November.

The post clearly specifies his rants against the Schaffer and McCain campaigns as damaging. He is on tape going after the Colorado GOP and Dick Wadhams which constitutes Schaffer's campaign. He is silent on John McCain and continues to push Ron Paul which means he is not supportive of the Republican ticket. No where did I address his personal opinion or support of Bob Schaffer, only his damaging rhetoric against the party in a pivotal election year. George Lilly's attempts to chill discussion of his candidacy in the blogosphere with the threat of a lawsuit is deplorable.

(- promoted by Rocky Mountain Right -)

Alan Philp, Jeff Crank campaign manager, issued the following statement today regarding a new attack ad airing from Doug Lamborn:

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO – “Here he goes again.  Two years ago, Doug Lamborn and his allies employed false allegations against Jeff Crank in order to win election.  Today, Lamborn has released new ads that contain wholly false statements and accusations in a desperate attempt to rescue his collapsing campaign.

“If Doug Lamborn is going to level attacks against Jeff Crank – particularly baseless attacks such as these – he should at least have the decency to ‘man-up’ and face Jeff Crank in a debate.

“Here is the truth about Doug Lamborn on taxes and spending.  Doug Lamborn supported several tax hikes as a candidate for Kansas Legislature.¹  Doug Lamborn supports and exploits pork-barrel spending programs, known as ‘earmarks’.

In case you missed the Senate debate, Mark Udall kept saying he was going to "work together" to get results so much that by the end of the debate people were laughing at him for it. It's hard to blame the audience for laughing as Mark Udall claiming to be bipartisan is a rather laughable prospect:

(- promoted by Rocky Mountain Right -)

Here's Bentley Rayburn in his own words on the outcome of a three-way primary in CD-5:

It's probably too late to get Rayburn to actually follow through on his word and drop out (as he implied in this video and as he stated in a written agreement that he backed out of based on lies), but as it stands now it looks like Rayburn probably is going to be the man who gets Lamborn reelected. If we're stuck with Lamborn, as least the truth about Bentley Rayburn's lies can come out so we know enough not to even consider him for any office he might try running for in the future in this state.

Note the snarky laughter from Mark Udall's supporters as Schaffer reads the resolution and the look on Mark Udall's face as he realizes what is happening.

A new poll (PDF) from Public Policy Polling measured support in Colorado for the presidential race as well as the senate race. Unlike recent polls, this one also measured Democrat Senator Ken Salazar's approval rating with voters and found him at a pathetic 38%.

Ken Salazar Approval Rating
Approve: 38%
Disapprove: 36%

As Ben DeGrow points out at Schaffer v. Udall, the voter registration breakdown of this poll is skewed several points towards Democrats meaning that Salazar's actual approval rating is probably even lower. Generally an incumbent Senator is in trouble if they are below 50% and it appears that Salazar is in the mid-30s.

The real question is if the GOP will recruit a challenger who can take the seat back in 2010 or, as we have this year with Ed Perlmutter and John Salazar, fail to recruit anyone and let Ken Salazar become a Senator-for-life.

We all know that it would be hard to find anyone present at yesterday's Schaffer-Udall debate who would say that Udall had even a mediocre performance, but couldn't the Rocky Mountain News find just two people who thought Udall won without citing a campaign staffer?

In the Rocky Mountain News web video "Reaction to Udall-Schaffer debate," the RMN reporters decided to feature two supporters of each candidate saying why they though their candidate won. The only problem? One of Mark Udall's "supporters" (with a prominent graphic listing her as such) was none other than Taylor West, the Udall campaign's spokeswoman who was even quoted in that capacity this morning in the Rocky.

The Rocky Mountain News apparently though that the small detail that Taylor West is a high ranking member of the Udall campaign had no bearing on their web video insinuating she was just a run-of-the-mill audience member. I eagerly await the press release from Colorado Media Matters attacking the RMN for "uncritically broadcasting the comments of paid Udall staffer while not properly disclosing the source."

The campaigns themselves distributed tickets to supporters arriving. Here are the two tables for the campaigns at around 9:15 A.M. when I arrived, the long line is for Schaffer's table while Udall's didn't seem to be seeing much activity.

The Schaffer table featured a mini gas pump highlighting Mark Udall's penchant for driving up energy costs. A nearby Schaffer supporter was waving signs about Udall's union ties.

The campaigns engaged in sign wars along Peroria and Lincoln Ave. The Udall crowd brought along a "Honk For Peace" sign (even though Udall claims he no longer supports a Department of Peace).

The debate hall was split with supporters of Udall on one side of the room and supporters of Schaffer on the other. Adam Schrager, the debate moderator, at one point threatened to stop the taping of the debate as the Udall side tried to shout down Schaffer.

At the conclusion of the debate, Udall was picketed by an anti-war protestor (and Obama supporter). There was no sign of any right-wing groups protesting Schaffer leading one to wonder who really is going to have problems with their base this November.

Mark Hillman is taking aim at Ritter, Salazar, and Udall in the Journal-Advocate:

Udall boasts of his sponsorship of a bill to allow U.S. companies to engage in exploration off the coast of Cuba, but his bill is mere window dressing.

In nearly a year since its introduction in the Democrat-controlled Congress, Udall’s bill hasn’t even been scheduled for a hearing.

To make matters worse, Udall and Salazar team up with Gov. Bill Ritter to stonewall against responsible energy development on the Roan Plateau.

Meanwhile, Ritter still expects the energy industry to provide more tax revenue.

Roan Plateau contains an estimated 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — enough to heat every home in Colorado for 20 years. Bureau of Land Management would allow drilling on no more than 1 percent of the plateau’s surface at any time.

Yet Salazar, Udall and Ritter want to stall the process (which began in 1997 under President Clinton), impose even more restrictions, and then tell the bidders where to drill first. If any of the three knew so much about energy exploration, he could be making a fortune as a geologist.

Say what you will about oil and gas producers, but remember that they don’t get paid if they don’t produce. If Salazar, Udall and Ritter get their way, Coloradans will be sitting atop vast oil and gas reserves but sending our money to the likes of OPEC and Hugo Chavez.

This is only an excerpt of the full article by Hillman. Expect to see much more on energy coming from Republicans as this election heats up.