Longmont Mayor Election analysis

The 2009 Longmont Election had four council seats up for grabs, including the office of Mayor.  Running for re-election was long time councilmember and one term mayor, Roger Lange.  There was some chatter that he couldn't run for mayor due to term limits, but it didn't get much traction, I never gave it much credit, and it became a moot point as it turns out.  Initially, Dan Benavidez announced he was running, but dropped out before collecting petitions.  Jeff Thompson did collect enough signatures, ran for a short while, but then also dropped out of the race.  Eventually, the race boiled down to two candidates, Roger Lange and late into the race was political newcomer Bryan Baum.

Prior to the election season, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Lange would cruise to any easy re-election.  But the noise being made (by myself and others) about the numerous Executive Sessions and the seemingly endless litigation against the Town of Firestone and LifeBridge/4C started taking its toll.  The point wasn't to take out Mayor Lange, at least not on my part, it was a call to reason and to have cooler heads prevail.  But one event probably had the highest impact in not just the mayor's race, but possibly all of the races:

July 28, 2009: Councilmember Gabe Santos made a motion to end all litigation with Firestone, which was seconded by Councilmember Mary Blue.  As Santos was making the motion, Councilmember Sarah Levison tried to talk over him completely disregarding any decorum, and Mayor Lange wouldn't "allow" the motion.  This was the beginning of the end for Mayor Lange, and a beginning to the meteoric upswing for Gabe Santos' reputation which resulted in receiving more votes than any other candidate in the election.

Immediately after this event, Bryan Baum considered running for Mayor and filed his paperwork in late August.  Not long after, Benavidez dropped out, and realizing this was going to be a 2-man race, Thompson then dropped out.  Both eventually threw their support behind Lange, and the attack machine started on Baum from the left wing of Longmont.  There never was any strong concerted attack on Lange though.

What was most interesting to me about Baum's campaign, other than already being friends with him and his wife Stephanie, was how he was going to fund it.  He wasn't going to take any monetary contributions, but instead would have people spend their own money on items like yard signs, stamps, envelopes (for mailers), t-shirts, or whatever else necessary for the campaign, and it would be done as an "in kind" contribution.  This was pretty original in my book, it had more of a grassroots feel to it, but not everyone liked the concept.

I can't say I know how Lange ran his campaign, other than some big ad buys in the Times-Call and yard signs.  But I saw Baum signs at a 2-1 margin over Lange signs, for what that's worth.  In the various candidate forums Baum usually outperformed Lange as he's naturally a more dynamic speaker, with no offense to Lange.  Towards the end of the campaign I kept hearing stories of how people were turning their back on Lange, and telling him about it apparently.  I figured Lange would have an advantage because over the years lots of people had voted for him in his runs for councilmember, county commissioner, and mayor.  Baum by comparison hadn't ever run for anything and hadn't received any votes.  It's not easy to peel away a voter who has voted for your opponent more than once, you need to convince them why they should change their allegiance.

Apparently Bryan Baum accomplished this as he ended up with a 54% - 46% victory over Roger Lange.  Of the 58 precincts, Baum carried 45 of them.  Turnout (37%) wasn't as high as the Ward 2 race.

One of the stranger aspects of this campaign and the election results, was that leaders of the local Democratic Party and their usual mouthpieces campaigned for, donated to, and seemingly voted for Roger Lange - a Republican.  They wrote and spoke on his behalf, they paid for robo-calls for him, they did for him nearly what they did for Karen Benker in her race for mayor in 2007.  The results were the same: defeat.  After 2007 they incorrectly assumed they wielded far greater influence with the citizens of Longmont.  With all of their support, and the leftover Republicans that voted for Lange, it would seem he would end up with an insurmountable advantage.  It didn't turn out that way.

As I said in my earlier "2007 Progressive experiment has failed", I have a great deal of respect for Roger Lange, I thank him for his service on council, and wish him the best in the future.  I believe he would have swung back to the right and away from the "Bloc of Four" once Benker was gone, but he irritated one too many voters with the situation on the eastern border of Longmont, and it cost him.

Secondly, showing solidarity with the left wing of the city is a losing proposition.  Regardless of what they say, while this town may have become slightly bluer, it is still not Boulder, and probably never will be.  The voters sent a strong message that this is and always has been a more traditional, conservative town and it doesn't appreciate being the potential testing grounds for some Liberal/Progressive experiment. In this regard, the Democrat support hurt Lange.  Whatever votes he gained with them, he more than lost with Republicans, which was his longtime core support.

Mayor Baum and the new members of council have their work cut out for them and it won't necessarily be easy.  The bitter losers of this election have made it clear they not only will not support this council, but have said they intend to protest them in some fashion without first seeing what they might do.  Does anyone recall that occurring after the 2007 election that brought us the detestable Bloc?  Even I took a wait-and-see approach with that group, as I didn't have many preconceived notions about them because like the rest of the city, I hardly knew anything about them.  Unfortunately, they instantly played nasty partisan politics and Karen Benker just paid the price for it.

So, good luck to the new mayor and councilmembers!

Read more

Longmont At-Large Election analysis

There were two city council seats up for grabs in the 2009 Longmont At-Large race.  Everyone in the city was eligible to vote in this race, and got to pick two candidates.  Those candidates were: Gabe Santos (Incumbent At-Large councilmember), Alex Sammoury, Bill Van Dusen, Kaye Fissinger, and Ed Dloughy.  The two candidates who received the most votes were elected.  The final tally came out like this:

Santos        11,048  36.38%

Sammoury   8,149  26.83%

Van Dusen    5,408  17.81%

Fissinger        4,832  15.91%

Dloughy            934  3.08%

Since every voter got two votes (but only got to vote for a candidate once), and those percentages are based on the total votes, in reality Santos received over 72% of the vote, Sammoury received over 52% of the vote, and the rest couldn't reach 40%. This race, like the Ward 2 race, wasn't even close. 

Santos ran away with this election as he came in 1st in 56 out of the 58 precincts in the city.  Sammoury came in 2nd in 48 out of the 58 precincts.  Van Dusen won the 2 precincts Santos didn't win.  Dloughy didn't campaign, collect contributions, or make any expenditures.  I figured he'd get less than 1% of the vote, so the biggest surprise of this race was that he got over 3%!

Kaye Fissinger, before and after the election, continued her attack on Gabe Santos and his "Tom DeLay connection".  This strategy didn't work out so well in 2008 when Santos won handily in that election, and it appears it meant even less in this election.  Again, amount of precincts Santos won: 56.  Amount of precincts Fissinger won: 0.  As a matter of fact, Fissinger finished 4th in more precincts than any other position.  This result was no surprise to me as I predicted a 15% vote for her overall and the only thing keeping her out of the At-Large basement was Dloughy, who finished last in every precinct.

Van Dusen and Fissinger didn't waste any time hurling the sour grapes in various publications.  People in Longmont are pretty used to Fissingers endless tirades, but Van Dusen appeared petty when he said: (from the Times-Call)  “The negative campaigning was uncalled for; it was obnoxious.  It put two big, giant black eyes on Longmont, in my opinion.  That’s uncalled for; (Benker) was a public servant, whether you agree with her or not,” he said. “If you don’t agree with the issues she’s dealing with, fine, but you don’t have to trash her. That’s not what Longmont is about.”  Van Dusen added: “If they could break (Benker), then they could take back the control of the City Council. And now we have the new people on the block, and that’s the new Bloc of Four.”

Perennial council crybaby Sean McCoy couldn't have put it any better, maybe we dodged a bullet by only giving Van Dusen 17% of the vote and 3rd place.  There was hardly any negative campaigning done against him, yet he just comes across as a sore loser and fairly unprofessional at that.  So if he won, is he acknowledging that he'd be part of a new Bloc of Four?  Keep this in mind if he ever decides to run again, he just lost a lot of points with anyone who thought he was fair and not a "bloc" type.  Of the same cloth apparently.

Fissinger was never a serious or viable candidate, and the voters seemed to agree.  She tried to make people forget the previous 2+ years of screaming from the podium at council meetings with her "makeover", which if it was an opponent of hers who did that I'm sure she wouldn't hesitate using the term "lipstick on a pig".  Either way, it didn't work.  People remembered her constant attacks on churches in the area, most notably but not limited to LifeBridge, and her involvement with the selfishly titled "What's In It For Longmont?" which carried out its campaign of fooling citizens into thinking they were a caring and concerned group of "normal people", which they were anything but.

I didn't even waste much time commenting either way on Fissinger as I knew where she'd end up on Election Day, and whatever coverage or ink I gave her would be more than any other media outlet would bother doing.  What I thought was most telling were the people who voted for Van Dusen, but couldn't stomach voting for Fissinger - which probably explains the unusually high and unexpected amount of votes for Dloughy.  Or even better, some Van Dusen voters that actually went for Santos instead of Fissinger!  

Talk about a message.

Also, a great big Thank You to retiring At-Large councilmember Mary Blue.  She was often the voice of reason and common sense when it was sadly in short supply.  The city owes her their gratitude for her years of service, and I'm sure I speak for most when I wish her the best in her retirement and/or future endeavors.

Read more

GUEST EDITORIAL: Rich Yale on Transition Towns

The Longmont City Council over the past two years has been following an accelerating attempt to transform Representative Government from representing the People of Longmont into representing Big Government instead.  At every step of the decline of protecting the People's Liberty, the Progressives on Council have not only resisted but initiated legal force to block citizens from protection of  the U.S. Constitution.  As a result of not having consent to be the People's Masters', Secular Progressive Public Policies were rejected by the People of Longmont by landslides.

The Transition Town movement, the just past Council endorsed, published this article about Resilience Thinking and transition in Resurgence http://resurgence.org/  magazine starting the article with,  Why 'resilience thinking' is a crucial missing piece of the climate-change
jigsaw and why resilience is a more useful concept than sustainability http://transitionculture.org/2009/10/21/resilience-thinking-an-article-for-the-latest-resurgence/. Rob Hopkins http://transitionculture.org/, author is co-founder of the Transition Network
http://www.transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionNetwork; who connects the Transition Town movement together with his article he applies resilience scientific process to economics and government with the false assumption the Constitution is defective because it restricts Big Government's otherwise unlimited power:
 
Resilience; "the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as to retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks". Ms. Fissinger's ungraceful rejection of the voter's decision and insulting them for being bought or buying their candidate's election is beyond preposterous. It does not matter how much money is spent or not spent on a candidate, what does matter is whether they honor, obey and abide by the terms of their Oath of Office. Ms Fissinger is a reminder why everyone should pay equal vigilance over their freedoms as they pay watching their banking and credit. There is someone who wants it if you aren't looking.

Rich Yale

Read more

Irrelevant candidate shares irrelevant screechings

In the Sunday November 8, 2009 Longmont Ledger, sore loser candidate Kaye Fissinger went back to the usual ranting and raving Longmont is so accustomed to - and probably the reason they relegated her to the political basement when they decided who to vote for.  Her latest screed is about the farthest you could possibly go in trying to make this connection and that connection, and the obvious paranoia probably warrants a new nickname:  Backyard Chicken Little.

In her tirade you'll see lots of names and organizations you've never heard of, but she works real hard to try to define who the "bad guy" is.  Essentially she's saying the voters of Longmont are too stupid for their own good and have been fooled by these outside groups.  All the web surfing and phone calls to like minded left wing loons must have been pretty time consuming - to basically end up with nothing of any great interest.  Except sour grapes.  That's too bad.

But she leaves out some pertinent information as she weaves this tale of "outside money", specifically the kind that helped her Left wing Liberal/Progressive causes.  When it comes to big money in politics, let us never forget the over half billion raised and spent for Barack Obama.  But lets get more local, how about the "Colorado Model", here's an excerpt from The Weekly Standard article by Fred Barnes: "They'd been brought together by Al Yates, the former president of Colorado State University, and later were dubbed the "Gang of Four" by the press--or, sarcastically, by Republicans, the "Fab Four." Two of the four, Tim Gill and Rutt Bridges, made millions in computer software. Jared Polis, along with his parents, grew rich from building and selling Internet companies. The fourth, Pat Stryker, is heir to a medical products fortune and runs her family's foundation."

With that big money they rolled out the following programs and websites (one of which Ms. Fissinger uses as source material, surprise surprise) ProgressNow, Colorado Ethics Watch, Colorado Independent, ColoradoPols, SquareState, and Colorado Media Matters.  But I'm sure they are all legitimate and full of sweetness and light and above all reproach.  It's only those nasty right wing sites and organizations that should be questioned.

Then Ms. Fissinger (now being called "The Finger" after saying she'd like to "flip off" eventual Mayoral race victor Bryan Baum at a forum in front of high schoolers) brings up the money Montana-based Western Tradition Partnership (WTP) and Longmont Leadership Committee spent on the election.  She says WTP, an evil 501(c)4, contributed $10,000.  Yet she fails to mention another 501(c)4, Virginia-based Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, who contributed $1.6 million to defeat former congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave.  Last I checked Virginia is a lot farther from Colorado than Montana, and WTP has a Denver office as well.

From the Ft. Collins Coloradoan:  "According to the Federal Election Commission, the 527 and 501(c)4 group Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund spent $1.6 million to unseat incumbent Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R), who lost her bid for a fourth term on Nov. 4. The group targeted Musgrave, even though she did not sit on a single prominent committee dealing with environmental issues. It was the second-largest independent expenditure by a non-party group in any 2008 House race."

The hypocrisy and double standards of the Left wing Lunatic Fringe doesn't even cause them to bat an eye as they just keep spinning one story after another.  Ms. Fissinger is in denial and counterattack mode now that the voters of Longmont, in big numbers, completely rejected her platform and those of Karen Benker, and Bill Van Dusen.  What's even sadder for Ms. Fissinger is that almost 600 voters who voted for Van Dusen, couldn't bring themselves to vote for her, instead throwing votes to Ed Dloughy, Gabe Santos, or Alex Sammoury.

Ironic that Gabe Santos of all people should take some of her votes after her endless, and continued bringing up of Tom DeLay.  HINT:  It doesn't seem to be working "Finger", but most of your ideas and propaganda don't resonate with normal people anyway.  Isn't it about time you went after a church and attacked its members?  The people have spoken (at least that's what we hear when their side wins), and they apparently know a loser (or pack of them) when they see one.

Some big outside money opposition didn't unseat Karen Benker or block Kaye Fissinger and Bill Van Dusen from getting onto City Council.  They can whine and complain about why they were pummeled by the voters, but to keep it simple remember this quote from pro-football head coach Bill Parcels, "You are what your record says you are."  'Nuf said.
---------------------------------------
I sent a trimmed down version of the above as an Editorial Reply to the Longmont Ledger, but included something that should have been part of the original story:

As Ms. Fissinger spins her tale of how she was targeted unfairly, and mentions me by name, she forgets to mention something else she did during the campaign:  In tandem with now former Longmont City Councilmember Karen Benker, Ms. Fissinger did a little snooping of private residences and political opponent’s workplaces.  Namely, me.  I work at a high security Federal facility, and she named it in her email exchanges with Ms. Benker.  This is how they operate: if you can’t win fairly, win dirty.  Of course, neither of them won anything in the election.

Read more

Fissinger billboard issue to be prosecuted

Things are about to go from bad to worse for the Kaye Fissinger campaign.  On Monday October 26, the Longmont Election Committee found in the affirmative for a Preliminary Hearing on the issue of her billboard.  This could be a very costly fine, well in excess of what the campaign has left over from it's failed run.  This reminds me of when Jack Pommer was fined a huge sum of money and then used contributions to cover it.  And those poor suckers (and none too bright) who thought they were giving money to help him get elected were really just paying future campaign violations.

In case you didn't see it, and I bet many of you did, here it is (pictured at right).  As you can see it's fairly large (look at minivan for scale).  They claim it's 4' x 8'.  The invoice for this sign also indicates it was black and white.  Some of it is, but not all of it.  It might be hard to tell but the lettering on the bottom has some color to it as well as the top left, which is pretty obvious.

By the way, the initial complaint and response can be found at this link at the City Clerks website.

The response by the campaigns secretary, Charles Hansen, is almost an admission of guilt in a few places.  First off, it seems imperceptible that the printing of the sign you see (and there are two of them attached to the vehicle) cost $7.38.  There also was no shipping fee (the company is in Las Vegas, NV), but there was 56 cents in tax (apparently picked up in Boulder, CO).   There was also an expense of $42.26 at Lowes for the Masonite panels and hardware used to make these signs.  So we're supposed to believe the total cost for these items was $49.64?  Ludicrous.

But the more damaging information is the apparent ability to do time travel.

Get this timeline:

July 30 - purchase of panels and hardware at Lowes

August 1 - this sign is first seen at the Boulder County Fair Parade

August 25 - "ORDER DATE" and "DATE REQUIRED" on the invoice for the printing of this sign from Mercury LDO Reprographics

August 31 - date given for the Mercury LDO expenditure on the first campaign report

So we're supposed to believe the sign seen at the parade wasn't ordered or printed until 24 days AFTER the parade?  There is no proof in the supplied documents in the response that shows the printing was made prior to August 1st (expect it to magically appear now).  Unless, the actual printing for this sign was done earlier and logically (look at the sign again) was much more expensive than $7.38.  But there's no accounting for that anywhere.

The expense of the vehicle must also be accounted for, there is no other way to transport or display this sign.  It is not "parked..in the regular course of daily activities" as the response says.  The picture you see was taken off the Diagonal Hwy during rush hour for the sole purpose of electioneering.  The vehicle was parked near the railroad tracks and was blocking access to private property.  The van wasn't just parked, it was strategically placed and the driver was in the vehicle.  While the driver can claim he was volunteering his time, the same might not be said for the transporting and displaying by the vehicle.  No vehicle, no sign viewing.  That expense should be accounted for and was not as an expenditure or in-kind contribution.

Each possible violation carries a fine of $100/day for up to 10 days.  If the Election Committee finds both as being violations of 2.04.207 of the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act, the total fine could be $2,000.  The committee just fined Longmont Leadership Committee and showed no leniency in the fine, sticking to the ordinance.  It will now be seen if they will distribute these fines in a fair and equitable manner.

Of course, the election is now over and as I predicted Kaye Fissinger finished 4th out of 5 candidates, beating out Ed Dloughy who didn't even campaign.  Seems this traveling billboard may have been a negative as it reminded everyone exactly who and what she was, and they just couldn't stomach voting for her.

Read more

Benker pulls a Musgrave

If there was one thing I may have agreed with the leftwing loons in town about, it was that when former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave lost to Betsy Markey, she should have at least conceded defeat and congratulated Ms. Markey.  Well, seems history has repeated - although in a different venue.  Not only hasn't Karen Benker conceded victory to Katie Witt, or congratulated her, but she also skipped out on a Town Meeting on Saturday that was previously scheduled.  Outgoing Mayor Roger Lange kept this engagement, along with the opening of the Greenway later in the day.

Here's sampling of one of the news articles about Marilyn Musgrave from The Colorado (Not So) Independent - and adapted for our particular situation.

-----------------------------

Not only has lame-duck Rep. Marilyn Musgrave Karen Benker still refused to concede to Betsy Markey Katie Witt, but the word is around D.C. Longmont that the Fort Morgan Republican Prospect Democrat has gone into hiding since the 12-point 20-point drubbing that cost the three-term congresswoman 1 and change term councilwoman her seat. “[More] rumors abound that no one has seen or talked to Musgrave Benker since the brutal loss; she’s all but disappeared,” Politico’s Anne Schroeder Mullins reported Tuesday morning Some guy on the street said the other day.

“It’s a campaign matter, and I have no further comment,” Musgrave’s congressional Benker's council spokesman Joseph Brettell told Politico Some Guy told someone.

The Markey Witt crew, in town for new-lawmaker orientation, hasn’t crossed paths with Musgrave Benker — and the phone still hasn’t jingled. “No, she hasn’t called to concede,” Markey Witt campaign manager Anne Caprara told Politico Joe Mama told Longmont Advocate, “but we’re moving forward.”

Markey Witt shouldn’t feel singled out, though. It appears Musgrave’s Benker's “ill manners” have a bipartisan spin. “Rumor has it she still — 14 5 days later — hasn’t even thanked her campaign staff,” Mullins someone reported.

Read more

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, Wrongmont signs off

With the recent 2009 Longmont election season coming to an end, so too will Wrongmont.  The point of the site as I said back in late August when I resuscitated it was to be a news and opinion aggregator for all things related to the election.  It served its purpose, and then some.

While the Wrongmont name had been around since 2002 (and basically just morphed into Longmont Advocate in 2008), I had no idea of its impact when I was considering reviving the brand name.  While people made a big fuss about chicken sites with graphic images, and pretenders and copiers made feeble attempts to mirror what I was doing, Wrongmont chugged along putting out on average a story a day.  And unlike typical blog sites, these weren't just hyperlinks to other articles with a sentence or two of comment.  These were full blown, 700+ word commentaries on candidates and the race.

The attention the site got in this short 2.5 month run was more than all the previous years combined, being commented about on blog sites, newspaper articles and websites, and even mentioned in the Federal lawsuit against the City of Longmont and its Fair Campaign Practices Act.  The traffic numbers, especially in the days before and after Election Day were all time highs.  People were doing searches to find out the issues, and many of them ended up either at Wrongmont, Longmont Advocate, or our voter registration drive site Vote Longmont.  The candidates I went after LOST.  The candidates Vote Longmont endorsed WON.  Doesn't get much better than that, and as I said, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Of course the outcry and attack on Wrongmont was also at all time highs.  Some people just hate the name and everything they think it stands for.  It was singled out in Open Forum letters in the Times-Call, I was referred to as "Mr. Wrongmont" on a defeated councilmembers campaign website, people made fun of the name.  But what they never got was that I wasn't running for anything, and they wasted their time on me accordingly.  All they proved was their intolerance for differing opinions, and it sunk them.


Not all the goals of the site were met though:  I wanted voter turnout to go up, it didn't.  While Longmont did have a higher turnout than Boulder - and that is worth bragging about - it was still only around 40%, some races varied.  It seemed like more people got involved and interested, there were new voices being heard from, not all of them pleasant, but what can you do.


So, Wrongmont again cruises into the sunset.  And like I said when I revived it, never assume I'm ever ashamed of the name or the content.  It has a role, it filled it quite effectively, and I never apologize for being effective.


...until next election, or recall.........

Read more

Longmont Dems: "Pray for locusts"

These gracious words come as no surprise to me, it's pretty much what I've been saying all along.  Thought you might like to know about the people who thought they controlled this city for the last 2 years.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

-------------------------------------

LAD (Longmont Area Democrats) member Shari Malloy has some very important words to share with you:

"The Progressive Voice in Longmont received a giant set-back in our local city council election Tuesday and in 2 out of 3 environmentally friendly county ballot measures. How debilitating the impact is up to us. Our city election could be a microcosm of future local, state, and national elections....

We could pray for locusts in Longmont, but we live here too.... Here's some alternatives that might be more productive:
 

1.  November 9 at 7pm
Come to the swearing in ceremony on Monday night wearing BLUE. 7:00 at City Council (CC) Chambers at Civic Center. Apparently the Council will be assigning City Council members to the various boards and commissions they will serve on.  Sean, Brian and Sarah need a showing of support so they don't get ousted out of the positions they currently hold including P and Z, Historic Longmont, Board of Environmental Affairs etc. It will be much harder for the newly bought CC members to carry out their partisan agenda with lots of people in blue shirts thre watching... There will be some signs and bumper stickers (hopefully) available for you to have/use if interested.


November 10 at 7pm
2. Attend Tuesday and future CC mtgs and always wear blue.
(might I suggest red with a single yellow stripe down the back might be more appropriate?)

November 11 at 6:30pm
3. Attend a "What Now?" (If you're looking for suggestions, how about a long walk off a short pier?) meeting to debrief the outcome of this election and discuss next steps. Thursday 11/12 at 6:30 p.m. 2713 15th Ave. Longmont 80503 (west of Hover) Home of Charles and Caroline Hanson. 720-684-6827. SNACKS and Deb Gardner playing the piano!"
(thank you Shari)
---------------------------------------------
On a personal note: Thank you to all of the candidates that ran this year.  Congratulations to Debbie Lammers for her victory. Roger Lange and Karen Benker left council too soon. Bill Van Dusen, Strider Benston, Kaye Fissinger, all fought the good fight. They deserve our appreciation. I choose to honor our candidates by rededicating myself to civic action. I hope to see many of you next week and beyond.

Regards,
Jonathan Singer

Read more

Ward 2 Election analysis

Of all the races in the 2009 Longmont election, Ward 2 was the most contentious and hardest fought.  People outside the city were making comments like "Longmont is Ground Zero" when describing how this election could be a bellwether for state and national elections next year.  I contend that Ward 2 was more specifically Ground Zero within Ground Zero.  It lived up to its reputation for a knock down, all out brawl.  The results in the end though were fairly lopsided.

Incumbent Karen Benker faced off against Katie Witt.  In previous elections Ms. Benker received funding, in non-partisan Longmont elections, by the Democratic Party, be it at the county or city level.  She regularly wore her party politics on her sleeve, something fairly new in Longmont politics.  Along with three other members of council, known as the "Bloc of 4" were members Sean McCoy, Brian Hansen, and Sarah Levison.  It was a regular occasion to have them tout their leaders from Congress to the Presidency after the 2008 Election, in one case Mr. McCoy stumbling through a partial recital of President Obama's inaugural speech.  Problem is, they didn't ride into office in 2007 with any strong mandate - only one won by a majority and Ms. Benker actually lost that year in her bid for Mayor.  They over-interpreted the mandate they thought they got, and overplayed their hand, which was quite heavy handed at times.

In their undeserved hubris, especially on the part of Ms. Benker and Mr. McCoy, they made enemies on a regular basis and woke up those they'd probably rather kept asleep and uninterested in local politics.  Again, they thought they were riding some kind of wave of voter approval, but 2007 has proven to be a "one trick pony", a hiccup in Longmont elections, and the past two elections (Special Election of 2008 and the recent 2009 Election) clearly prove that point.  There was no "blue wave" as was bragged about, there was yet a blue rock thrown into a puddle, with no ripples.

After a 2008 defeat to State Senator Brandon Shaffer, Katie Witt decided early in 2009 to run for Longmont City Council Ward 2, and announced in March, which was fairly early by Longmont standards.  The odds were fairly stacked against her running against a popular (to her supporters) incumbent who had won re-election 4 years earlier.  Ms. Benker conceivably would once again have the Party behind her, most of the same donors who had contributed in her '05 and '07 campaigns, and the campaign machine and network of volunteers ready to take on any challenger.  The impression out there was that Katie Witt wasn't to be taken seriously, including a sniping comment by Sean McCoy calling her a "council wannabe".

Ms. Benker didn't announce until late July, and Katie Witt used that time to knock on hundreds (which was eventually thousands) of doors and have volunteers hit up the rest within the ward with fliers.  The area of highest priority was Clover Basin, the voters of highest priority were not Republicans, but voters that were not affiliated with any party.  Unaffiliated voters are the highest percentage of voters in Longmont, followed by Democrats and Republicans, in that order.  The message that went out had to appeal to both sides of the spectrum because there's no way of knowing which way an unaffiliated voter tends to lean - and with Longmont supposed to be non-partisan in local elections, this was an ideal way to campaign anyway.

Ironically, the precinct with the highest amount of unaffiliated voters in Ward 2 is smack dab in the middle of Clover Basin.  As is #4, #5, and #9 out of the 21 precincts within the ward.  Ms. Benker was trying to use Clover Basin as a campaign issue, naming as one of her main accomplishments the ending of the Clover Basin Fire District Tax.  Of course, anyone who paid attention to that process would know Ms. Benker was stretching the truth (to put it mildly) in this claim as that was not what the council voted on.  This was covered extensively on this website and was later used against her in a mailer.

How did Clover Basin vote?  The results there mirror the overall results almost exactly, basically a 60-40 split for Katie Witt.  Ms. Benker was planning on riding Clover Basin to victory, but 60% of the voters didn't buy her story.

On Ms. Benkers home turf, Prospect, which is a precinct that also includes neighboring Creekside, Katie Witt beat Karen Benker by a 61-39 margin.  On Katie Witt's home turf just north of Prospect, Witt got nearly 70% of the vote.  Many precincts that surround Main Street that have more Democrats than any other affiliation also went for Katie Witt.  In total, 19 of the 21 precincts in Ward 2 were won by Katie Witt (there are also 2 other precincts with a total of around 18 voters).  The area around Twin Peaks Golf Course went strongest for Witt, averaging over 73% in 2 precincts.

Bottom line was that Karen Benker's negatives were too high and Katie Witt ran a clean and positive campaign.  There were negative mailers and robo-calls done against Benker, but did not come from nor were coordinated with the Witt campaign.  Frankly, I'm not sure they were even necessary.  At every turn Ms. Benker would make one mistake after another.  She had a lousy record to go on, acted spiteful and vindictive to anyone who didn't agree with her, and tried to use the Election Committee and the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act as her personal re-election tool and revenge machine.

She had volunteers who were witnessed placing Benker signs directly in front of Witt signs on private land where Witt had received permission but Benker had not.  Witt signs were repeatedly stolen, and these were not removed by Code Enforcement.  There were people directly connected with the Benker campaign who would personally attack Witt supporters on websites and letters to the Boulder Weekly and the Times-Call.  They gave the term "politics of personal destruction" a whole new meaning.  In defending her record, Benker stretched the truth about as far humanly possible, regardless of actual statements and votes.  

All it boils down to is that Ms. Benker was a lackluster candidate and ran an equally lackluster campaign.  Re-election was never a real possibility, nor was it deserved.

In the end, Katie Witt beat Karen Benker by over 1,500 votes out of roughly 7,000 total votes.  It wasn't even close.  Karen Benker was the de facto leader of the "Bloc of 4" and was also Mayor Pro-Tem.  I always said that if Benker was defeated it would send a shockwave through the city and surrounding areas, as she wielded great power and influence, and not just within Longmont's borders.  And not always positive power or influence.

Big money didn't defeat her.  A dirty campaign didn't defeat her.  It was a combination of a superior candidate and campaign running against her, and Benker beating herself.  Simple as that.

Read more

Election coverage from around the area

Conservative 'wipeout' in Longmont election

‘READY FOR A CHANGE’: Baum, Witt, Santos and Sammoury win races

Challenger takes decisive lead in bitter battle for Longmont council

Longmont Shifts Gears

Longmont changes course, elects new mayor

New mayor, Witt triumph in Longmont City Council race

Read more

Election results send message

There will be plenty of time in the upcoming days, weeks, and months to do the proper autopsy of what occurred today in the Longmont election.  As I expected, this election was a continuation of the 2008 Special Election - people were engaged and not asleep at the wheel as they were in the 2007 election that brought us one of the worst city councils in a long, long time.

Turnout appears to be ridiculously low, but the margins of victory for each of the new (and in Gabe Santos' case re-elected) councilmember was large, none of these weak pluralities that brought us the likes of some of the (now former) Benker Bloc.

This was a particularly nasty campaign, much of it you may not even be aware of.  I'm not talking about posts on this site, but things done behind the scenes that go beyond politics.  It may help to explain why I was focused like a laser on those who I believed had to go.  I'll go into some of it, and name names in some cases, and show the ugly underbelly of local politics.

Rest assured, the dirty and ugly aspect didn't come from Wrongmont, or WTP, or Longmont Leadership Committee, or any of the candidates who won this election.  If you have been reading this site closely, you probably already have a good idea of who and what I'm referring to.  But you only know a fraction of the story.

It makes this victory all that much sweeter.  If people want to play dirty and make it personal, and think they can win the day using these tactics: they're wrong.  The voters today proved that if people think they can make up wholesale lies about their political opponents and expect to get away with it, they will lose.

In this game you make your arguments and accept the outcome, win or lose.  The voters are the jury and there's little to no chance for appeals.  I made a series of arguments, often quite strenuously - and I'm pleased with how the jury has decided.  In nearly every race it wasn't even close enough for the losing parties or their supporters to even think about crying foul.  The winners won fair and square, and the losers basically got stomped. How the latter reacts will be interesting to watch.

...much more to come.

Read more

The Bloc is busted!

All-America Longmont is jumping for joy tonight as Baum, Santos, Witt, and Sammoury overwhelmingly win council seats! A return to responsible city government is at hand!

Meanwhile, regressive losers such as T-C online commenters "resident" and "Peggotty" deal with their wretched fate...



And Councilman Sean McCoy reacts to election results, contemplating his remaining two years on council--if he lasts that long...

How do you like the "lunatic fringe" now, Sean?

Finally and most fitting, the message for Progressive ideologues Benker and Fissinger, who looked away from Longmont's common-sense solutions one too many times...

Read more

Your vote is your voice

If you haven't mailed in your ballot yet, it's probably too late.  Luckily, there is a quick and easy way to drop off your completed ballot at the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Office.  It is located at 529 Coffman St, Longmont. Below is a map of the area:

They will have a "drive by/drop off" on Monday Nov 2 from 8am - 5pm, and again on Election Day, Tuesday Nov 3 from 7am - 7pm.

If you're still unsure on how to vote, there's plenty of information out there to peruse (as well as on this very site).  Here is the Nov 1 Times-Call editorial to remind you to cast a ballot, and their endorsements.

Now go vote!

Read more

24 reasons why Benker is Wrong for Longmont

The endless stream of lies, distractions, and half-truths from the Karen Benker campaign over the last few months is enough to make any normal head explode.  It's really an amazing thing to watch; the spinning, bobbing, and weaving from Ms. Benker herself, and from her team of antagonizers who throw anything against the wall to see if it will stick.  The saddest are the ones who comment in the Times-Call annonymously and repeat the same drivel over and over, hoping fresh eyes may stumble upon it and actually believe it.  And then there's the writers to the Open Forum and the Boulder Weekly - some of which I know, some I don't - who just can't stand that I get any ink at all.  And that I get any actual traction.  I never apologize for being effective, deal with it.

But there's always one underlying tone:  they rarely challenge any of the facts I present, but instead just attack me.  So, to wrap it all up and put a nice little bow on it, please check out the links below.  If you're still on the fence on what to think of Ms. Benker as a council member and candidate, you've just had too much Koolaide and are beyond help.  If you only buy half of the following, that's still should be troubling enough. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5/19/09 Longmont Airport prairie dogs could cost city federal funding - Benkers involvement in the FAA/Airport/Prairie Dog Fiasco

6/8/09 City of Longmont may move lucrative ad buys from local paper -  Benker's "Shop Local" campaign ends at the Times-Call's door as she tries to remove ordinance printing from the local paper.

6/8/09 Longmont City Council vs. Longmont Times-Call  - The Benker Bloc sets all-time records for secret Executive Sessions, and the Times-Call sues them for it.

6/15/09  Council being dishonest about emails - Of all the council members, Benker is the least open with the required forwarding of city related emails.

7/1/09 Longmont city councilmember pledges whopping $66 to furloughed city employees  - Benker really shows some empathy to city employees she furloughs - NOT.

7/29/09 Longmont council member fought for city grant to her non-profit - Benker uses the power of her position to benefit H.O.P.E., skates away from investigation/prosecution, but still unethical.

8/3/09 Benker's irresponsible "dying mall" comment - Benker's true feelings of the mall escape at a Council meeting, bringing joy and excitement to mall tenants - NOT.

8/11/09 Benker's thugs discuss strategy via email - Here's the plan to get anyone who dares question Queen Karen.

8/26/09 Benker kneecaps public speakers - Benker can't follow standard rules when she's playing Mayor, and the public suffers for it.

9/16/09 Benker taking credit where none is due - This is about Clover Basin, and the repeated lie Ms. Benker and her blind followers have repeated over and over.  This tax was NOT ended in July like she says, period.

9/21/09 Secret meetings nothing new for Benker - Word of Open Meeting problems dating back to the '90's when Benker was on the RTD Board.

9/25/09 Profiles in incivility: Karen Benker - some of Benker's mean and nasty side come out in emails she'd probably rather not have seen by the public.

9/29/09 Campaign Sign Warfare - The Benker Bots get out and place their signs in private land without permission and remove their competitors signs. 

10/1/09 Dueling in the Times-Call Open Forum - When Benker can't argue the points, she attacks the messenger - just like her campaign team.

10/4/09 Benker decries, then engages in dirty politics - Benker is seen leaving a candidate forum with the supporter who attacks her opponent for her.

10/8/09 Complaints filed over political call, flier by Benker - After voting for the Election Committee and funding it's lawyers, Benker uses it to strike back at opinions she doesn't like.

10/11/09 Benker's achilles heel: The Twin Peaks Mall - The sad history of Benker's involvement in the failing Twin Peaks Mall.

10/13/09 Councilmembers, candidates, and citizens who stalk others - Benker and her supporters check out homes and workplaces of people they don't like or agree with.

10/17/09 Benkers Clover Basin mistruth proven - The vote to end the Clover Basin fire tax finally happens, proving Benker and pals were lying every day up until that vote.

10/18/09 Boulder County D.A. letter over Benker's Open Records issues - The Open Records issue the DA is still considering, but so far just sitting on.  This issue could be the worst of them all, and won't go away after the election, regardless of the outcome.

10/18/09 Benker's anti-LifeBridge involvement - After council voted her down 6-1, Benker undermined that vote by holding a petition signing event at her house.

10/18/09 Benker decries robo-calls, then engages in them - First she complains about them, then she does them herself.

10/27/09 Benker's complaint costs city hundreds - Benker uses the Election Committee to collect $600 in fines, at the cost of at least $1,800 to taxpayers!

10/27/09 Benker calls for even higher utility bills - She asks about the failed and repeatedly voted down idea of "rounding up" utility bills.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the FACTS and the numerous reasons why Ms. Benker not only deserves to lose this election mightily, but why there will probably be lingering legal issues long after this election, regardless of outcome.  She has been an unmitigated disaster for Longmont, has used people and committees to strike out at her detractors, and has been less than truthful under oath, on her website, and in the paper.  This election shouldn't even be close, but if it is, that will be yet another issue worth looking into.  And it will be.

Read more

And even MORE free advertising

The "Defend Queen Bee Benker" Brigade are really pulling in overtime with their howling in the Times-Call and Boulder Weekly (see previous post)!  One guy, who I've never even heard of, and you probably haven't either, said I called him a bigot!  Go ahead, read away on this site, see where I said that.  I'll wait......

Didn't find it did you?  Nope, these people are desperate.  And last I checked I'm not even running for City Council, but if they want to waste their time on me, well, ain't too smart.  Go ahead, vote against me, although my hits just keep going up.

I will call the kind of people who hurl racist things at me bigots.  I will call some of these anti-religious types amongst the anti-LifeBridge people bigots, they've proven that fairly well.  Haven't seen it?  You  don't want to, but it's out there.

Oh, and this one always make me laugh:  If you think you're hurting my feelings comparing me to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, both highly rated radio/tv personalities whether you agree with them or not - you're not.  I'm sure these people in their narrow minds and equally narrow world view are meaning it as an insult (oh, the incivility!) - but for the most part no one cares what they think.  And it doesn't hurt my feelings if people don't care what I think either.

Read more

When they have nothing else, they lie

Well, seems that a contributor and donor of in-kind contributions for the Karen Benker campaign has just libeled me on the Boulder Weekly website.  I keep being reminded since I'm a public figure, I just have to get used to crap hurled at me from all directions regardless if it's true or not.  Usually it's the Times-Call who will run some half-baked letter from an equally half-baked Longmont citizen who spouts off over me, by name.  "Rules of the game" I'm reminded by them.

I don't mind it most of the time, until it's a flat out libelous lie.  Like this one.
(UPDATE: The fine folks at the Boulder Weekly have removed the false accusation below, and I sent my thanks to them.  I'd still like to know where this guy thinks he saw the following:)

A Daniel Organ of 1536 Foster Ct, Longmont, CO  80501 (in the public record under Benker's campaign report) just said this:  "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."

Not only have I never said or wrote that anywhere, I didn't even think it.  Nor have I seen it on any other site.  If Mr. Organ has actually seen this somewhere attributed to me, I'd sure be interested in seeing where it is.  Until then, his statement in itself is a "outlandish and hateful" lie, and I'll add libelous.  

I'm sure he, and others who dislike my brand of commentary, are fully aware of the legal team that is backing me in a fairly large Federal lawsuit against the City of Longmont.  You know, the one we just scored a huge victory with?  If he, or any of you, want to play this game, you better be up for it.  

Nothing short of a full public apology will do, or one hell of a correction.  I've already let the Boulder Weekly know what might be coming down the pike on this one.  Maybe Ms. Benker's backers think they can lie and push people around, I guarantee that will not be the case here.

Read more