First, I wanted to thank you for your recent article, Colorado’s top 10 most dangerous election deniers. Of course, it’s an honor just to be nominated, but to make the Top Five — among such giants in the freedom movement — is next level for me. I never win anything, so I am both honored and humbled by your accolades. Thank you!
Second, I want to apologize for my delay in getting this letter to you. I am usually pretty quick, but I have been so busy with all the dispatching and interrogating. I’m sure you can relate — due to climate change the cost of energy is through the roof! (Totally Trump’s fault, amirite?)
Anyway, this has increased the costs associated with my battery and jumper cable method, but I still find it to be the quickest and most effective. Totally worth the 200% increase in energy costs, imo. My 72-yo walk partner — we call her Nana Sue — still prefers water boarding, if you can believe it. Boomers are so old school. Full disclosure: I never liked how it makes my hands all pruny, and it totally messes up my nails. Plus you’re all wet after!
Anyway, I meant to write to you sooner, but you get it.
The main reason I wanted to respond is that I wanted to ask for some corrections to the record. Your piece, while spectacularly pedestrian as always, has confused a few important details, and I would like to clear those up.
Let’s call it a “fact check.”
Here are my thoughts:
scott “i wrote the standard”gessler
Scott Gessler is as invested in (and potentially liable for) the status quo of elections as it gets. Quite frankly, I am offended that you thought he merited the recognition of being on a list with such titans as Sherronna Bishop, Joe Oltmann and Shawn Smith, not to mention Yours Truly. Any role he has in election integrity is to intentionally subvert our efforts — and this is a pretty basic conclusion that you could find with Google and tiny bit of critical thinking. Putting the four of us in the same category with such an intellectually impotent establishment shill as Gessler is borderline libel. I expect more of you, Q.
shawn smith v. joe oltmann
I totally understand the toss up you had between Joe and Shawn! It’s a bit of a Sophie’s Choice for me as well. They are both so toxically masculine in all the best ways, but their styles are so different it’s hard to decide. They sure keep us guessing!
I smell a Patriot cage match between these two soon and, while I doubt you can fully comprehend the magnitude, this rivalry you unintentionally inspired will be super effective in getting additional eyeballs on the overwhelming amount of evidence that media (and whatever your outlet calls itself) have been trying to suppress!
In other words, because of you, Quentin, more people will learn the truth about the absolutely proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) stolen election. You and your pals are our top recruiters! Keep up the good work!
Your definition of “dangerous” (unvaxxed, unbrainwashed, unasleep) and mine (relentless in going after crime, corruption and ALL those that shield it) are understandably different. While I personally would rework your lineup and maybe swap out a few names, your truth is valid for you, even if it is desperately inaccurate.
So rather than rejigger your list, let’s talk about your honorable mentions because I think you may have lost the plot there.
Heidi Ganahl has been in the public spotlight for 2.5 seconds and refuses to say where she stands on election integrity. How exactly is she a threat?
plastic paul lundeen
Lundeen is a cardboard cutout of a B-movie politician. He straddles the fence on election integrity so hard he’s permanently bowlegged. I did a panel with him a while back and, I promise, he is no threat to the establishment. Not at all.
too harsh on the gop
Williams and Van Winkle are “dangerous” as far as the Republican Party establishment is dangerous. But there is zero desire to change there — for example, the GOP still actively tries to prevent The People from engaging with the party locally by making open precinct positions, schedules, and other important details impossible to find. Not exactly highly dangerous, see? More like controlled opposition. Again, just a tiny bit of critical thinking, Q!
The Colorado Republican Party — and the majority of the county-specific GOPs in CO — are sackless, spineless, and completely irrelevant to the people in light of their recent actions. In fact, both parties are hemorrhaging members with unaffiliated voters comprising 44% of total CO voting registrations while the Donkeys hold onto 30% and the Rinos barely maintain their 26%! (And it’s a long, long way to 2022).
All that to say, these two guys — while I like their passion and respect that they did SOMETHING about election integrity — fall short of “most dangerous.” Not even top 50, Q!
hot tip: stop attacking your most valuable assets
Your final two — Doug Lamborn and Ken Buck (my own uniparty “representative”) — are literally on your team.
Despite pandering with a completely safe vote on January 6, Lamborn has been silent on election integrity. Worse (or better, depending on your perspective), Lamborn just voted for red flag laws, and we all know how you and your pals — Erik, Jan, Charles, etc. — keep trying to paint us as QAnon so that you can red flag us. My father always told me that, as writer, the one thing you never want to be is predictable — but on you, it’s so refreshing!
Buck’s only comments about the election have been to reassure everyone that the Gold Standard — albeit subcontracted to a foreign company that skipped town the moment their name hit the press — is super awesome, and we should all trust the system. These days Buck really just hides from his constituency to avoid being pilloried in Festival Park.
Also — side note — “Trust the system” is more your line of thinking, no? Definitely not my people.
did you mean to leave these guys off?
Finally, I would have expected the majority of Colorado to make your list given the volume of The People who have concerns about the election and are now engaging locally to expose the truth. With Biden’s disapproval now sitting nationally at 68% of the general population (all parties), that right there should be your number one “threat.”
next time, call for comment
Thanks for listening as I shared my feedback to help you correct the record in the name of journalistic integrity. I know you might need some time to look up that last word, but I would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Of course we could have cleared all this up prior to press time if you extended the standard journalistic courtesy of a call for comment. Next time, k?
In closing, I agree with your conclusion that America faces a grave threat. Personally, I think that threat is more from lazy, intellectually challenged activists, parading as journalists, while spewing poorly researched and uninspired prose.
But the beauty of America is that we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Hope you’re having an awesome day.
My warmest regards,