Withering Enstrom "Nose Candy Man" Attacks Continue

9 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

A new TV ad hitting GOP Colorado House District 23 candidate Rick Enstrom hard over his 1985 arrest for selling drug paraphernalia is reportedly up with targeted cable buys:

And here’s a new mailer attacking Enstrom on the same issue:

Yesterday, Lynn Bartels of the Denver paper updated the Rick Enstrom drug paraphernalia story. Bartels quotes Kate Porras of the Grand Junction Police Department confirming the original police report’s correct use of the term “arrest.” But Bartels also quotes a spokesman for the Colorado Bureau of Investigations saying that a court summons of this could would not necessarily count as an arrest, saying “usually an arrest also entails booking into jail.”

Our own sources with law enforcement experience tell us that they’re essentially both right–law enforcement do commonly refer to these as arrests. In the case of CBI, they are wholly dependent on the arrest and court case information given to them by local governments, and many misdemeanor arrests, especially older ones, are never entered into the system. As for whether or not a person in this circumstance can “truthfully” say they’ve never been arrested?

Our friends tell us you shouldn’t contradict the police record unless you want a headache.

Bottom line: as we said when this story broke, the real problem here is Enstrom’s hasty blanket denials. He would have done much better to have simply acknowledged this misdemeanor incident from the 1980s and moved on. Enstrom’s first reaction, to threaten legal action over the “false claim” he had been arrested, was severely undermined by the police report clearly stating he was arrested. Bartels’ latest story has Enstrom walking that back that rhetoric almost completely, quibbling about semantics, giving the Grand Junction Police Department another opportunity to impugn his credibility, and too-belatedly acknowledging “I did what I did.”

For a top-tier GOP legislative candidate, it’s stunning Enstrom wasn’t better prepared for this.

9 thoughts on “Withering Enstrom “Nose Candy Man” Attacks Continue”

allyncooper says:

October 4, 2012 at 12:12 am

So he did some stupid things when he was 20 years old? So did I, and I did some even dumber things until I finally quit drinking.

Obama has admitted and been quite frank about his drug use when he was younger. I doubt it’s going to be a hot topic in the debates tonight.

You handle the situation by admitting what happened, making your amends, and moving on. But you don’t move on by staying in denial.

Log in to Reply
1. BlueCat says:
  
  October 4, 2012 at 3:02 am
  
  he’s a GOP candidate. They like to maintain the myth of moral superiority, superior toughness on crime, superior family values. Heck, you can’t run as a GOP candidate if you are openly gay, not that there’s anything wrong with that but you’d better be in a safe Dem district or deep blue state.
  
  Since they aren’t actually morally superior to non-Rs or more successful at keeping their families intact or raising more moral ethical kids or any less likely to be gay than any other group, you get lots more denial and self loathing on the GOP side. It’s complicated.
  
  Log in to Reply
ClubTwitty says:

October 4, 2012 at 12:28 am

For Rick.

Log in to Reply
1. ClubTwitty says:
  
  October 4, 2012 at 12:29 am
  
  Looks Jerry was visiting the candy man before that one… clearly per-teleprompter days.
  
  Log in to Reply
Gadfly says:

October 4, 2012 at 1:33 am

Log in to Reply
rathmone says:

October 4, 2012 at 2:15 am

…is breaking, bad

Log in to Reply
Barron X says:

October 4, 2012 at 2:31 am

this attack on Rick is way more detached from facts

than whatever you didn’t like about the attack on Mr. & lobbyist Perlmutter.

Log in to Reply
1. Barron X says:
  
  October 4, 2012 at 2:34 am
  
  nothing authentic in the ad.
  
  All made up.
  
  Quite dishonest.
  
  Folks with dignity would be ashamed.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Danny the Red (hair) says:
    
    October 4, 2012 at 7:28 pm
    
    Demanding that politicians are perfect from cradle to grave is irresponsible.
    
    However a simple “when I was young, I did some dumb things and learning from your mistakes is part of growing up. If you want to talk about something that happened over 25 years ago: here’s my answer, ‘I made a mistake’, now can we talk about the future and how we can help families that are hurting today,” would have ended most of this.
    
    Unfortunately he denied it happened and threatened to sue people for expressing the (irrelevant) truth and that speaks to his character in the present.
    
    Log in to Reply