A “non-partisan” Scorecard – What’s in a Name

by Craig Masters

Vultures – honest about what they are

If you are someone who likes to think that you can tell the difference between campaign bullhockey and a report on legislators by a “non-partisan” panel of observers, interpret these grades issued to the seven U.S. Congress Representatives and the two Senators for Colorado.

Rep. DeGettte (Democrat) 96%       Rep. Tipton (Republican) 10%

Rep. Polis (Democrat) 91%               Rep. Gardner (Republican) 9%

Rep. Perlmutter(Democrat) 82%    Rep. Lamborn (Republican) 5%

                                                                Rep. Coffman (Republican) 6%

U.S. Senator Bennet (D) 91%

U.S. Senator Udall (D) 97

Average score for Democrats = 91.4%  Average for Republicans = 7.5%

Now ask yourself and your neighbors; is that much difference possible if the scores were based on anything except partisan propaganda?

These are the actual scores assigned to our congressional delegation by the “non-partisan” panel designated as “experts” by the leftist activist hiding behind the really good sounding name League of Conservation Voters. Great name all right, but the League is nothing more than another anti-American money laundering scheme by international socialists that hide their true agenda better than Bernie Madoff hid his money. (geez I sure hope people know who Bernie Madoff is!)

This is also the source of the money paying for the million dollar media campaign that has the Colorado mainstream media salivating for quick profits at the expense of truth. As I see it, to spread half-truths is no better than to lie. So far in their million dollar campaign to smear the name and record of the Honorable Representative Cory Gardner, the League has done nothing but lie; not to promote the virtues, the record, or the positions of Gardner’s democrat opponent, but simply to thow as much manure at Gardner as they can afford.  Eventually, it seems, they hope he will look dirty to enough voters to create apathy and a low conservative voter turn out.

The leftists may have already won. A third party (independent) candidate has announced he is running for U.S. Senator against Gardner and the democrat incumbent. That incumbent with his 97% grade is a near perfect reflection of Obamanomics, (print and spend) Obamacare (control the citizens’ health) and turn control of the air we breathe and water we drink over to the World Overseers to complete the total transformation Obama promised in 2008.

Now the reason a third party candidate is bad for Colorado, is because the voters who understand the importance to freedom and liberty of electing a new senator will no doubt spit the support. Meanwhile the usual crowd with their hands out for their handouts will automatically vote for the candidate with a (D) next to his name. In the end, even if Udall gets just one vote more than one-third of the votes cast, he wins and freedom and liberty lose.

Let’s take our own poll here and post your comments for all of us to see. Ask your neighbors who the Senator is. Don’t be political, simply say you were wondering if he is up for re-election this year. You might be surprised to learn how many people who probably voted for him don’t know his name or how he voted to increase cost of food, the cost of heat, or the cost of health care. Moreover, you might learn how many of them don’t care about any of these things because they get them free – so long as someone else’s money doesn’t run out.

This entry was posted in Editorial and Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to A “non-partisan” Scorecard – What’s in a Name

  1. B. Thornwaite says:

    “he voted to increase cost of food, the cost of heat, or the cost of health care. Moreover, you might learn how many of them don’t care about any of these things because they get them free – so long as someone else’ money doesn’t run out.”

    That’s how they got elected in Rome – bread and circuses. We have a party of Bread and Circuses; and a party of timid bumblers. While third parties, however attractive their promises may be, have not yet showed the strength of more influential third parties in the past – such as Populist, American Independent, and various socialist cliques.

    I think the reason third parties don’t do better nowadays is because those “who have they information use it how they want.” One party has a death grip on most media – and as here presented, a lot of the so-called “independent researchers” and “polling companies”. Both parties are still acquiring resources and building up their cyber-armies on the internet. Third parties trail behind hopefully, picking up disenchanted drop-outs from the Other Two, and occasionally winning some over through actual reasoning, though that is rare, given that when it comes to American and alien political philosophy, real and recent history, and psychological profiles of sitting Congress-peoples, most voters are about as well informed as a lima bean.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *