Marks And Milias: Aspen's Pine Beetles

November 13th, 2009 at 06:18pm Michael Conniff 2

Fact is that the tactics of Marilyn Marks--the multiple untruths, the obsessive-compulsive emails denying everything--can only go so far when there is a paper trail that catalogues her every move to take over Aspen's Election Commission so as to render herself Mayor.

The word is out thanks to Mitzi Rapkin, Jim Laurence, David Bach, Su Lum, Brent Gardner-Smith, Roger Marolt and the other scribes and columnists in town. In particular, make sure to read Marolt's splendid column that renders the pretenders in the Election Commission fiasco butt-naked, especially the email that references "voiding the election." We're proud to be the ones here at Aspen Post who first broke the story of former Councilmember Jack Johnson's campaign to bring the truth to light, but there's plenty of credit here to be spread around.

I keep asking myself the same question over and over: why would two bright and attractive women of independent means come to Aspen and then spend their hard-earned leisure spanking the rearend of the body politic regardless of the veracity of their claims? (Could it be time to get a life?) The laughable thing is that this has all been done in the name of civic altruism, which is so far off the mark that not even Marks can make a case for it any more. It was one thing when she was operating outside the system, but once she announced her campaign for Mayor she became no different than Mick Ireland or Tim Semrau or any other politician in the primary and primoriial quest for power.

Give Marks credit for blowing the whistle on Burlingame and Article 30, but it's been years now since her muckracking has produced anything other than her own smelly muck. And her hilarious quest to overturn an election she lost--with Milias as her all-too-compliant Mini-Me--shows beyond a shadow that her idea of a fair election is one that elects Marilyn Marks Mayor after the fact. Once she ran for Mayor and lost, she became an insider and forfeited any claims she might have had to altruism. But she never lost her conviction that somehow, some way, she had won.

Of course elections are sacred and should be sancrosanct. Perhaps it was inevitable that Marks and Milias, in their insatiable narcissism, should finally leach the election process of any and all impartiality and fairness. We should not be surprised They are indeed the pine beetles of Aspen, ready to chew and chaw their way through our beautiful trees with only a burp and a belch to show for the forest empty of all color and life.

Entry Filed under: Aspen, People, Aspen City Council

13 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch Mulhall | November 13th, 2009 at 11:58 pm

There's a saying about the wrath of a woman scorned. I mention it because the hyperbole and invective surrounding this issue has become, well, nothing if not the wrath of a woman scorned.

I think Marilyn objects to IRV (Instant Run-Off Voting). Yea, maybe she has way too much time on her hands. That does not in any way negate what I think is a legitimate basis for Marilyn's objection to IRV.

Doesn't this whole issue strike you like the noises made by what sounds like a woman scorned? Not from Marilyn's voice, mind you, but from Michael's.

Cheers,
2. Michael Conniff | November 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Okay, so now I'm a woman scorned. What an insult! (I think.) Or maybe it's a compliment, a nod to my feminine side. Maybe that's why I've grown a moustache and goatee for Movember, because--like Ali--I'm just too pretty.

Anyway, Mitch, I'm delighted you (and "even" Sue Gray) have emerged from your self-imposed exile from Aspen Post, but I would suggest to you that until you see the emails between Marks and Mini-Me, as I and others have, then you're blowing smoke up your posterior. Read the emails, and the pattern of selfish corruption is unmistakable. The attempt to subvert the objectivity of the Election Commission by Marks and Milias is obvious.

Or would you rather remain as Marilyn's last apologist?

When Marks first sued the city, I had no idea about these emails, but I thought the suit was crap and I said so. I remember that Nathan in New Castle called mybcriticism "pathetic" just before he took his marbles and went home. (Another blogger in self-imposed exile, by the way.) But my criticism, as it turned out, was right on target.

Yes, Marilyn is obviously right about Instant Run-Off: I hated it from the start and said so over and over, as you know better than anyone. That's not the point--the point is she is trying to overturn an election where she came in second. Thus, her claims of unselfishly doing good are just another pile of crap, and you, in particular, are way too smart to fall for it.

Pile on top of that her attempt to intimidate the local press, as she did with FAIR, and you have not a woman scorned, but a woman under the influence.

Welcome back.

Best, Michael!
3. Mitch Mulhall | November 15th, 2009 at 11:37 pm

[[Marilyn's] trying to overturn an election where she came in second.]

Citation, please.

[Pile on top of that her attempt to intimidate the local press, as she did with FAIR, and you have not a woman scorned, but a woman under the influence.]

You do know how to carry a grudge, don't you? You came in second on the FAIR fiasco, and from my vantage for good reason. You've been looking for payback ever since, you think you've found it, and you're not about to let this opportunity to pile on pass you by.

Were Marilyn's post mortem of the election coming from anyone but her, you'd be giving the issue all the air time you gave a masturbating Swede running against Bob Braudis.

Cheers,
4. Michael Conniff | November 16th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Mitch:

For the citation, read Roger Marolt's column or the Post Time News story and focus on the phrase "voiding the election...."

I wouldn't argue with your characterization of the FAIR "fiasco," but I would say this--after our story appeared here on Aspen Post, a member of the FAIR board and his wife gave major contribution to Marilyn Marks's campaign for Mayor a few months later. The same board member had argued MM was not "a public figure" and therefore not within our FAIR purview. He obviously was carrying a conflict that he did not disclose, and he was more than happy to leave Post Time News (and me) twisiting in the wind. Pretty disgusting if you ask me, and at least one of the FAIR board members agrees with me that this was the real fiasco..

It may come as a shock to you but I am also happy to stand by that story. I re-read it over the weekend and was surprised by how mild and fair it was, giving credit where credit was due, despite Marilyn's attempts to characterize it as "slander" and "libel" even before a word was written. Given her continuing attempts to silence any coverage of any kind, I actually consider this a real high point of my career in Aspen as an editor: under pressure, with a gun to our head, with FAIR bailing, with Marilyn wailing, we still went ahead and published a story that put us in peril, one that in retrospect looks prescient and even courageous.

You are welcome to condemn us for that but I will stand by that story any day. When your subject is screaming bloody murder, and that's Marilyn's specialty, you are almost always on the right track, as we were in this case.

Nathan in New Castle calls it "pathetic" and you call it "piling on," but you would say no such thing if you saw the emails between Marks and her campaign treasurer, the putatively unbiased Elizabeth Milias. Is it piling on when a candidate conspires to overturn an election, and (re Marolt) goes so far as to write the language of indemnification so her pals on the EC are covered when she sues? If that's collusion, I don't know what is.

As for your contention of "looking for a payback," my silence on Marks was long and wide until she sued the city and I said enough already. That hardlly constitutes "looking for payback" that was literally hand-delivered to me by former Councilmember Jack Johnson. Sometimes payback brings the facts and the scoundrels to llight. And make no mistake: Marilyn Marks and Elizabeth Milias are indeed scoundrels..

Finally,you are now defending Bob Braudis!!!

Was I piling on there, too--or was that merely taking on a public figure that everyone else was intimidated by? Again: a high point of my career in Aspen, one I'm immensely proud of. Perhaps you would also like to endorse drug dealers going unchecked and sexual assault allegations in Pitkin County going unvetted. Apparently you are also opposed to masturbation by Swedish Americans. I understand other hyphenated Americans do this too from time to time. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Best, Michael!
5. Mitch Mulhall | November 16th, 2009 at 10:45 pm

Michael,

One sure way to make my return to this forum brief is to refuse to address my inquiry. You asserted that Marilyn is "trying to overturn an election where she came in second."

I asked you to cite your source.

You briefly cite an article by Roger Marolt, and you reference Marolt's analysis of an email subject line, an analysis that lacks any meaningful disclosure of the email's content.

If you have proof that Marilyn is trying to overturn the election, enumerate your case right here, right now.

Cheers,
6. Michael Conniff | November 17th, 2009 at 7:21 am

I think it's a reasonable request but it will take me a little time to read all the emails (again).

I think you would agree that someone who writes "in addition to voiding the election," ESPECIALLY in an email subject line, is trying to actually void the election. You might argue otherwise in a court of law, but the intent is crystal clear in the Nixonian sense. Otherwise a man of your skill is forced to argue why the phrase "voiding the election" meant no such thing.

You might also agree that a candidate who comes in second and then spends months trying to overturn the results might also be found guily of wanting to voice the election in addition to other things as yet unknown.

I might also further argue that a candidate who came in second, and hence has everything to gain by challenging the resutl, who would have to come under even more suspicion if she were actually writing the language of indemnification for two Election Commissioners--right before she sues the city!!!

I'm happy to read the emails (again) if you don't have the time, but your gallant defense of two indefensible citizen scourges is akin to defending Richard Nixon without knowing the contents of the White House tapes, or defending Braudis because you really, really liked "Fear and Loathing."

Best, Michael!
7. harvie_branscomb | November 17th, 2009 at 9:02 am

MC, a.k.a. "The Con Man" which implies you are a master of deception:

Where is my comment from last night? And where is my comment from last Wednesday night or Thursday morning?

Each presumption you make in the above comment #6 paragraphs 2,3 and 4 happens to be false.

Your comparison of Marilyn Marks to Richard Nixon is astounding, again showing a lack of political proportionality as well as a total failure to recognize the truth, even a failure to attempt to recognize it. See my unpublished comment from early Tuesday morning November 17 which I believe you do have access to as a site administrator but which the public cannot yet read.

This comment I am writing now has no link in it, in hopes that this will bypass your moderation filter. If it does not post by 9AM Tuesday, I will know you are filtering (blocking) my posts by name.

For a way left liberal Democrat who knows her well, Marilyn Marks is not only defensible but must be defended against your Limbaugh or McCarthy style of trash criticism.

"Fear and loathing" are emotions deliberately incited by the content of your own words.

Harvie Branscomb
9631369
8. harvie_branscomb | November 17th, 2009 at 9:20 am

To Michael Conniff, a.k.a. the con man - i.e. a master of deception

(apparently any post with a link in is blocked by the moderation filter- warning to the uninitiated- be careful with any link in a post on aspenpost [dot] net. This is the missing comment mentioned in Comment #7)

Mitch is correct to ask and you have not answered adequately, nor will you be able to do so because Marilyn Marks is not trying to "void the election". I am someone who would actually know this. 9631369 is my phone number. I am waiting for anyone who cares to discuss this but no one from this blog has so far.

It is decent of you to read the emails again. You might actually consider asking Marilyn Marks what she meant by the email subject line! She doesn't bite.

Sadly, even pathetically, Johnson, Marolt, Lum and Rapkin among others including yourself have all been stunned and stupefied by reading the simple phrase "in addition to voiding the election" in an email subject line. This phrase only made any sense in the context of a continuing thread. The oversimplified phrase was not written to stand alone nor was it written for publication. It plainly and simply does not imply anything that Marks intended to accomplish.

The many echoed suggestions that it means something sinister, some of which have probably been floated by irresponsible blogomania on this site, are mere sandbox conspiracy theories. Naive and incorrect but once they escape the sandbox -- dangerous for everyone. They easily evolve into hate speech and possibly even into violent actions motivated by deliberately or accidently induced hatred.

This brings me to the subject of the photo which now links to this thread. The photo of the GUN pushes this misdirected rhetorical diatribe into a new and truly dangerous realm- that of potential incitement to violence. Are you actually kidding with GUNS Michael Conniff a.k.a. "The Con Man?" Would it be too rude to ask that the photo of the GUN be removed as in yesterday? Very inappropriate indeed and definitely in need of an apology to your public.

Michael, your Wednesday radio excoriation of Fox News was right on target. Unfortunately you probably haven't realized that your own habits on your own site match or exceed the impropriety of Fox... They say "Fair and Balanced, We report, you decide". Your version is "liberty and justice for all?" Where is the justice in your vengeful attack on Marks? More importantly, where is the sense of political proportionality? You say you are proud of yourself for this stuff? Just because others are copying your style does not justify it in any way.

If you need someone to pick on or to incite someone to prosecute, how about George W. Bush, Cheney and their war crimes causing thousands to be killed? You can cut and paste a really potent argument which would actually benefit humanity by going to www [dot] democrats [dot] com instead of Jack Johnson's pathetic allegations and selected pdfs.

Marilyn Marks is pursuing election reforms for the correct and also altruistic reasons which will benefit her both as a possible candidate and as a voter just as it will benefit all Aspen voters and potential candidates.

Michael bring on your ridicule, sarcasm and spin... do your "darndest" to turn what I know from direct personal experience into an argument against me or against Marilyn Marks. She is Aspen's latest whipping boy.... oops I mean girl. Aspen desperately needs some excitement to chase wandering liberals like myself back to the herd. All in a well compensated day's work for "the con man"?

Vilifying Marks on a daily basis? Marks and Nixon? What a tragic charade you are playing, but yes, we will forgive you. That is after all the role of a CON MAN.

Harvie Branscomb
9631369.
9. Mitch Mulhall | November 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

[I think it's a reasonable request but it will take me a little time to read all the emails (again).]

I take this as further indication of the speculation and conjecture necessary to draw any conclusion about Marilyn's intent from these emails. If so, this not only undermines the veracity of your assertion, it speaks to motive: this is not about revealing intent; it is about smearing a local figure.

Oh, and btw, nice Joycelyn Elders crack-back.
10. Michael Conniff | November 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

For the record, I promise on Richard Nixon's grave and Dick Cheney's pacemaker that no comments in this thread have been deleted by me or anyone else at Aspen Post. I don't know where they are. Re-submit them and they will probably appear.

I am sorry for any confusion but trust me the problem is technical, not personal.

Best, Michael!
11. infowars.com | November 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

"no comments in this thread have been deleted by me or anyone else at Aspen Post. I don't know where they are. "

lol
12. Michael Conniff | November 18th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

Aspen Post is the most UNCENSORED media on the planet and it amazes me that infowars.com continues to insist that he's suppressed.

I guess it's all part of the conspiracy.

Cheers, Michael!
13. infowars.com | November 20th, 2009 at 6:36 am

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."