Dan Maes demands I disclose who I work for
A few days after speaking to the Boulder County Republican breakfast club with remarks that included a mention of Dan Maes, I received an e-mail from Mr. Maes -- a snide, sniveling, and ultimately self-destructive e-mail.
Maes asked that I make his note and my response public and I'm only too glad to do so:
Per your request, I will make all this public.
- Let me begin with the subject of your e-mail, "Disclose who you work for." I hereby agree. Here is a list of all of my sources of income:
- Trading financial markets (my own account; I have no clients or customers, no employer or employee)
- Investments (whether income or capital gains, plus interest, though not much interest with interest rates where they are)
- Per-article payment for three publications/web sites (I write what I want, though sometimes an editor suggests a topic of interest; they are national sites, not Colorado-focused.)
- I have never been paid for any work or anything else by any political party or candidate or third party on behalf of a party or candidate.
- I have only once volunteered for any political campaign, and that was when I walked precincts for my friend Rick O'Donnell when he unsuccessfully ran against Ed Perlmutter in 2006.
I have inserted rebuttals within your litany of complaints below.
(My response to Maes is in the bullet points interspersed between his paragraphs to me, which are indented in "block quotes" below.)
On 3/8/2011 09:13, Dan Maes wrote:
I have enjoyed a few months of not reading your baseless assaults but I tripped over your comments to the Boulder County Rs. I had to comment and I do not mind you making it public. As a matter of fact, I hope you do because then your readers and listeners, all 10 of them, might hear the truth.
- Dan, I have likewise enjoyed not hearing from you as it reminds me of a sad chapter in our state's political history. As for my 10 listeners and readers, I would note that that's 10 more than you have. But seriously, do you really want to start comparing whose is bigger? I don't have a huge radio show, but I do have a radio show. Last week, I had two of the most-read articles at RealClearPolitics.com, perhaps the most important right-of-center political web page and certainly in the top few. And even on the mostly irrelevant measure of Facebook "friends", almost all of whom for me are more like political acquaintances rather than the historic definition of "friends", I'm several hundred ahead of you. You remind me of a poorly trained lawyer who asks a question he shouldn't have asked and then complains when the other lawyer follows up, with the judge allowing it because "you opened the door."
- By the way, if you thought I only had 10 readers and listeners, would you really have taken the time to write this note? Well, you might since you're probably not doing much else. (See, I can play "a$$hole" at least as well as you can.)
First, your false accusations about my re-imbursements are slanderous and untrue. My re-imbursements actually trailed those of TTs on a month to month basis. In just 2.5 months Tom had reimbursed himself nearly 5K/mo. If he had campaigned as long as me he would have reimbursed himself even more than I did. To say I reimbursed myself more than I had made in the past is also completely untrue and inaccurate. I ask that you stop making those claims immediately.
- I never compared your reimbursements to anyone else's
- I never said you reimbursed yourself more than you had made in the past
- Therefore, I will not "stop making claims" that I never made; it is you who is engaging in the slander/libel by claiming that I said things I never said
- I said, as you told me directly when I interviewed you, that you needed those reimbursements in order to make ends meet in your day to day life as you were unemployed and did not have substantial savings
- I said to the BCR group that that was one reason I believed you would not drop out of the race if you won the nomination, and I stand by that analysis. I know that I will never know for sure.
Second, it was apparent from day one that you were working for another camp. It was blatantly obvious when you couldn't wait to be first to falsely and inaccurately claim that I did not graduate from UW Madison. I was a fool to ever meet with you after that because your intent was clear. Lesson learned by me.
- Regarding the University, someone else called me with that tip because he had gotten it directly from the University. Then I called the University myself and got the SAME answer. I certainly believed I had done the proper research there. Then, when it turned out not to be true, I called them back and the same guy said to me "I'm sorry. It was my error." I apologized to you in writing on my web site...and I think by e-mail as well...for that error. I most certainly did not just make something up or repeat something without fact-checking. It was a very bad coincidence all around, but nothing more, and I remain sorry that that incident happened.
- It's no secret that prior to his dropping out I was supporting Josh Penry.
- When Tancredo got in the race, I initially encouraged my readers NOT to support him or donate to him because I believed he couldn't win and I was still hoping that you and/or McInnis would get out so that someone electable could get in. I only supported Tancredo very late in the game when it became clear that he had the best chance and that you had no chance...though I always thought you had no chance. For the record, my thinking you can't win isn't evidence that I was "working for another camp." I was working for the camp of a victory by an intelligent, principled conservative and didn't see you as that guy.
Third, you arrogantly sit in the stands and formulate uninformed opinions based on assumption. You, like some radio talk show hosts, do not care about the truth but in your desire to grow a following say whatever you think without all the facts. This is where some bloggers are part of the problem rather than the solution.
- Your opinion of my radio show or of bloggers is, frankly, irrelevant. My opinions are my opinions. They may turn out to be wrong, but they are almost never uninformed. This is of course not to say that I might stumble across the rare bit of incorrect information, such as the college thing with you, but that is a less-than-1% occurrence. I go out of my way to research my topics. Furthermore, I've been studying politics and economics for more than 25 years and understand many things quite well.
Fourth, based on the Nov. 2 numbers few Tea Partiers abandoned me. The illusion that I was being abandoned was smoke and mirrors by your folks. The media had people leaving me that never supported me in the first place. Granted, a few jumped, the illusion was successful.
- You must be kidding. You barely topped 10% of the vote and many Tea Partiers abandoned you aggressively and en masse, as noted in this detailed article.
Finally, the grassroots had it right. You, like others trying to disguise your insider role by playing outsider, simply could not stand the idea of a rookie outsider winning. The polls, which you all so conveniently use when advantageous, clearly showed me head to head with Hick after the primary and if everyone would have circled the wagons we would have won. Rather, the hypocrites who just weeks earlier railed to patriots that, "you better back our candidate when he wins the primary" showed their true character.
- My history of supporting pro-liberty candidates, including "outsiders" is solid. That said, being an "outsider" isn't the only thing I look for. People I've supported recently included Alan West (FL), Mike Rogers (AL), Marco Rubio (FL), Paul Ryan (WI) and some Club for Growth-supported candidates. A mix of "insiders" and "outsiders" but all people I consider to be smart and principled. I supported "insider" Jane Norton over almost-as-insider Ken Buck because I thought it would be too easy for the left to demonize Ken, but then I contributed to Ken's campaign once he won. In any case, I stand by my remarks to the BCR group that the Tea Party made a big mistake in thinking that your being totally unqualified for the job was all the qualification necessary.
- It's not extremely important, but I've donated substantially more money to Libertarian presidential candidates than to Republican presidential candidates. I am not particularly fond of the GOP and would never support a Republican candidate only on the basis of his party registration.
- I never believed that you had any chance against Hick. Your take on those polls reminds me of the 5 minutes when McCain was close to Obama...something I also didn't believe. Why would people "circle the wagons" around a candidate who wants to hold the highest office in the state and yet didn't have his own heartfelt view on critical issues such as guns and immigration?
- And does it not impact your view of your electability that it seems clear you won with the help of Democrat money and effort because they knew you were the much weaker candidate?
- For the record, I NEVER said anyone "better back our candidate". I said you were unqualified and McInnis was disqualified, and I stand by that as well.
In closing, your read on the Tea Party and the conservative revolution is either misinformed, understandable as you don't really know them, or intentionally manipulative in order to mislead and manipulate the voters as was done in the August, September and November of 2010. In either case, get your facts right or get of the news circuit.
- I'll put my "read on the Tea Party and the conservative revolution" up against yours (and almost anyone else's) any day.
- Your accusations are worse than the pot calling the kettle black; they're outright lies designed to mask your poor performance and boost your own ego. Other than the college thing, which I've already apologized for repeatedly, I defy you to show me where I got a fact wrong.
- Dan, they say "when you're in a deep hole, stop digging." Sending me a note full of baseless accusations and ridiculous claims is just you breaking out your shovel again when most of us thought you had already hit bedrock.
- This will make a GREAT blog note for my 5 readers and perhaps even a good few minutes of radio on Sunday for my 5 listeners, so I thank you very much for providing the fodder for this oh-so-light-hearted banter. Now back to my day job...
|Print article||This entry was posted by Rossputin on 03/09/11 at 12:51:00 pm . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.|