COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Sept. 3, 2007
Rep. Makes "Threatening" Calls To Critics
Colorado Republican Leaves Voice Mails For Couple Whose Letter To Local Paper Criticized His Fundraising
-
(AP/David Britton, The Gazette)
-
Interactive Campaign Cash Track fund-raising figures and learn about campaign finance laws.
Jonathan Bartha and Anna Bartha told The Denver Post that Lamborn said there would be "consequences" if they did not withdraw their letter.
"We felt very threatened and intimidated, and quite frankly, scared," Anna Bartha said. "It was just not anything we would ever anticipate an elected official would pursue or a way that an elected official would conduct himself."
The Post reported that when asked whether his messages were threatening, Lamborn said: "No, that is ridiculous. My hope, I failed, but I had hoped to meet with them privately and confidentially because lying is a serious matter."
Asked what he meant by consequences, Lamborn said: "When someone tells a lie, it just has bad consequences."
No comment was available from the couple Sunday. A person who answered the phone listed in their name said they did not live there.
There was no immediate response to a message left at Lamborn's Washington office.
The Barthas' letter to The Woodmen Edition criticized Lamborn for accepting $1,500 in campaign contributions from the gambling industry. Federal records confirm the donations were accepted, but Lamborn said he returned them. He did not say when, and The Post said there is no federal record of them being returned.
Lamborn's voice mails urged the couple as "brothers and sisters in Christ" and implored them to call him back to discuss their "blatantly false" letter.
Jonathan Bartha is employed by Focus on the Family. His wife, a board member of Falcon School District 49, worked for two months as a scheduler for candidate Jeff Crank during a bitter, six-way Republican primary race for the 5th Congressional District seat.
Lamborn has written an open letter to the chairman of the GOP in El Paso County, Greg Garcia, asking him to investigate the letter.
Text Of Jonathan And Ann Bartha's Letter, Which Appeared In The Woodmen Edition, August 24
Editor,
We are conservative Republicans and believe in the individual freedoms granted to us by our Founding Fathers. However, there are moral limits that caring individuals can embrace without sacrificing the value of personal fiscal responsibility.
Recently, we have discovered that earlier this year 5th District Congressman Doug Lamborn accepted a $1,000 campaign contribution from International Game Technology PAC. IGT is one of the largest manufacturers of gambling equipment in the world. Last summer, Congressman Lamborn also accepted a $500 campaign contribution from the operator of Bronco Billy's casino of Cripple Creek.
As a congressman who ran of a platform of fiscal responsibility and traditional family values, we're hard pressed to understand why he has accepted money from an industry that tears at the social fabric of our country.
Congressman Lamborn also showed a lack of discretion earlier this legislative session when he voted against Sen. Wayne Allard's (R-Colo.) bill to stiffen penalties against the practice of dog fighting. (He was the only member of the Colorado delegation to do so.) This bill passed by an overwhelming margin and has been signed into law by President Bush.
Evidence of assertions in our letter:
Jonathan and Ann Bartha
Text Of Two Voice Messages That Rep. Doug Lamborn Left On The Home Telephone Of Jonathan And Anna Bartha, As Reproduced In The Denver Post:
FIRST MESSAGE: "Hello, this is Doug Lamborn calling for either Jonathan or Anna. Something very serious has happened. There was a letter to the editor that you both put in your names to the editor of the Woodmen Edition and there is something that is blatantly false in that letter.
"I would like to get together with you and show this to you and appeal to you as a brother and sister in Christ. You didn't give me that opportunity but I am happy to overlook that and deal with you on that level because I think that is the right thing to do and show you where you made a blatant, wrong statement.
"Now there are consequences to this kind of thing, but I would like to work with you in a way that is best for everyone here concerned. So please call me at your earliest convenience. It is now 2:40 (p.m.) on Saturday afternoon.
SECOND MESSAGE: "Hello, this is Doug Lamborn again, I'm finishing up my message from a moment ago. I got cut off. It is critical that you get back to me as soon as possible on this because I'll be going back to Washington here in a few days and I have to make sure that this is resolved one way or another. And like I said I'd rather resolve this on a Scriptural level but if you are unwilling to do that I will be forced to take other steps, which I would rather not have to do. So please call me. This is essential. Call me by tonight, Saturday night and we can get together sometime Sunday afternoon."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 142 Comments
- To torocaca:
LOL?
Acording to Bill''s testimony she was the agressor. According to hers he was. According to NOW ... woman do not lie about theses things. Unless the accusations are leveled against a Democrat. Sorry I did not think the spelling of her name was that important. I am not the greatest typist.
Read the testimony from both sides. It will give you some perspective. - Reply to this comment
- To all:
I must have hit a nerve.
Bill Clinton is not yesteryear he is today. His exploits are fair game. Get over your hero worship.
To torocaca : I was being sarcastic. Believe it or not Republicans can read ... Democrats just cannot recognize sarcasm. (and I cannot type).
To dirtydog55 : Kathleen Willey was not the darling of anything. She had her name dragged through the mud. *** few people came to her defense. She was classified as a BIMBO.
I stand by my earlier point. Democratic escapades are minor stories (page 10), Republican stupidity is page one until the resign.
I am not trying to offend anyone. I am expressing my point of view.
I must have hit a nerve. - Reply to this comment
- I fail to see how Lamborn can truthfully claim anything said by the Barths in their letter to be false. His fellow Republicans simply said he accepted the money. He agreed. Labom goes on to say that -- after accepting the money -- he returned it. Even if true (no proof of such apparently), that does not change the fact that he accepted the money in the first place. It''s like a bank robber who has a change of heart and returns the ill gotten gains. This act, while good, does not erase the fact that the person robbed the bank in the first place. It''s not even a defense to the crime, but would be used by any prosecutor simply to prove guilt. So Representative Lamborn protesteth too much about the truth written and established by his own words and deeds. Moreover, his efforts to try to supposedly correct the true facts appear to border upon creepy, psychopathic stalking. It''s no wonder these people seem to be hiding out. Their Rep''s a stalker!
- Reply to this comment
- In light of what''s been going on recently, I''m not surprised.
- Reply to this comment
- This guy just sounds like a nut. I guess of our great state of Colorado wants a nut in office, they can still vote for him next go-around. They won''t be alone. There are plenty of nuts in the house. (And Senate)
- Reply to this comment
- You others, Do you think you could at least read the story before you launch into your propaganda speeches? Holy cow chill out you lunatics.
Posted by cyinzl8r at 07:34 PM : Sep 04, 2007
LOL! When all else fails, resort to childish name-calling.
Lamborn is just a typical politician who is out to further his own agenda, not the agenda of his constituents.
On the one hand he''s the typical republican who supports "family values" while on the other hand taking donations from the gambling industry and voting against increased Federal penalties for dog fighting. So, does that mean he is in favor of dog fighting? Typical values for a hypocrite.
Why would a "right-wing Christian family values" politician cast a vote in favor of dog fighting? Unless he''s personally benefitting by doing so?
Lamborn''s record reveals a man who has fought tax hikes, abortion rights and attempts to change traditional values throughout his 4 years in the state House and 8 in the U.S. Senate. But it also shows a man who has had little success getting his bills passed, even when Republicans were in charge of his branch of the legislature.
There must be a reason... - Reply to this comment
- RE : badbrown126
Bill Clinton this - Bill Clinton that -
Loyal Republican (Nazi) Party Members
Can''t get out of - - "Yester-year"
Forever stuck in - - "Yester-year"
The Mental Wards - are full of people
Who can''t get out of - - "Yester-year"
Loyal Republican (Nazi) Party Members
Who can''t Deal with the Issues of - Today -
Who can''t Comprehend the Events of - Today
Loyal Republican (Nazi) Party Members
Forever Dreaming and Living in - - "Yesteryear"
RE : badbrown126
Take another pill - Trip into - Republican (Nazi) Party
"Yester-year" - - "Fantasy Land"
Lastdance - Reply to this comment
- Kathleen Willy is sexual assaulted in the oval office... breast grabbed by Clinton. No story. Clinton is a hero ... except to Kathleen.
Posted by badbrown126 at 05:02 PM : Sep 04, 2007
No story?? Where were you in 1998?? Willey was the darling of the press in 1998. Not only the press but all the news talk shows: George Will, Chris Matthews, William Safire, Maureen Dowd, Hannity... Everything she said was front page. She was "clearly telling the truth" even though she had no proof.
Linda Tripp testified before the grand jury, refuting Willey''s story...ignored by the media. Willey lied to the FBI...ignored by the media.
Independent Counsel Robert Ray gave up on Willey, even considered prosecuting her for her conduct.
"badbrown" is "bad" alright, but only because his reading abilities and comprehension are "bad." - Reply to this comment
- This whole "controversy" is a tempest in a teapot.
There''''''''s nothing here.
Posted by Iceman_1960 at 10:17 AM : Sep 04, 2007
Amen Brother Iceman!
He got caught and they''''re being rather weineeish about the whole thing. They were sounding like he was coming to burn there house down.
Posted by Hwk_i67 at 11:34 AM : Sep 04, 2007
Couldn''t agree more, Iceman and Hwk. You others, Do you think you could at least read the story before you launch into your propaganda speeches? Holy cow chill out you lunatics. - Reply to this comment
- The Barthas'' letter to The Woodmen Edition criticized Lamborn for accepting $1,500 in campaign contributions from the gambling industry. Federal records confirm the donations were accepted, but Lamborn said he returned them. He did not say when, and The Post said there is no federal record of them being returned.
*****************************
I would like to know what the letter writers were lying about. The Federal records indicate he accepted the donations, and how he voted on the dog-fighting bill is public record. If he gave the money back as he stated, there should also be a federal record of that. Of course, no one can seem to find that record.
If their was a misunderstanding, why didn''t he just post a letter in the same paper with the clarification, plus documentation that he had returned the donations. - Reply to this comment
- They never mention his party affiliation in he article ... hmmmmmmmmm. Must be a Democrat. There will be no follow up. The story is dead. Posted by badbrown126 at 05:02 PM : Sep 04, 2007
---------------------
LOL!!! Lamborn is a republican and the Bartha''s say they are republicans.
Republicans attacking republicans!!! What''s happening in the repugnicant party? ROFLMMFAO!!!
badbrown126, is your first name xzavier by any chance? - Reply to this comment
- Kathleen Willy is sexual assaulted in the oval office... breast grabbed by Clinton. No story. Clinton is a hero ... except to Kathleen.
Posted by badbrown126 at 05:02 PM : Sep 04, 2007
------------------
LOL!! According to grand jury testimony, Willey was the aggressor. She pursued a romance with Clinton from the very beginning of her volunteer duty as a White House aide. And why would a volunteer aide be in a private meeting with the president?
Perhaps if you could spell Kathleen Willey''s name correctly you might find the truth about her. - Reply to this comment
- Well now the feeding frenzy has started republicaians are falling like dominos the problem is that most dumped the democrats and can''t turn back we''ll see more of this.
- Reply to this comment
- "Harass and be harassed in return."
"Serves the old geezers right, trying to harass and mess with the wrong guy over a MEASLY $1500."
Unless Lamborn has something to hide he shouldn''t have made a big deal out of the information published. I would look at his response as the tip of the ice burg.
Democrats and Republicans alike are out for themselves and a personal agenda. There are good qualities with each but I''m sure there is a good quality to everyone in prison too, so their mom''s say. - Reply to this comment
- They never mention his party affiliation in he article ... hmmmmmmmmm. Must be a Democrat. There will be no follow up. The story is dead.
Kathleen Willy is sexual assaulted in the oval office... breast grabbed by Clinton. No story. Clinton is a hero ... except to Kathleen.
Craig touches the side of a guys shoe in the bathroom. Massive media storm. Resigns in disgrace.
Media bias. No. We just hate Republicans. - Reply to this comment
- ""Harass and be harassed in return." Since when is writing a factual letter to the editor "harassment?"
Posted by arkadian at 01:41 PM : Sep 04, 2007"
When the aim IS to harass!
There are a gazillion so-called ''facts'' in the world; the host of them are not worth written about; unless you want to be a pain in someone''s arse?
And when that is the case that you are making yourself a nuisance, you should be prepared to reap what you sow. - Reply to this comment
- "Is that you Representative Lamborn?
Posted by socrates392 at 01:56 PM : Sep 04, 2007"
LOL
Maybe. - Reply to this comment
- If there is solid evidence in the way of a recording that U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn actually said these things it surely seems to me to be a far more offensive behavior than tapping ones foot in the men''s room.
Why does this guy still have a job? - Reply to this comment
- Most of these congressmen are pods. DeLay is good example for a general aura of otherworldly weird. Craig has it, too.
- Reply to this comment
- I find it scary that the Congressman brought up Christ in such a weird way. Why bring up the Lord? He seemed to say we''ll either solve this matter by some weird Scriptural way (what would that be?) or I will sue you. How odd. I don''t blame this couple for thinking he sounded odd.
- Reply to this comment
