Holbert stands behind statement likening Hick actions to spousal abuse

(Stay classy, Rep. Holbert – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rep. Chris Holbert (R).

Rep. Chris Holbert (R).

In a Facebook posting yesterday, state Republican Rep. Chris Holbert wrote that Gov. John Hickenlooper "treats us like we are his abused spouse."

In explaining why he'd vote for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, Holbert wrote in response to a Facebook post of one of Holbert's Facebook friends:

Because Hickenlooper treats us like we are his abused spouse. He smiles and tells us that things will be better, signs bills into law that trample on the freedom and prosperity of the People, apologizes, becomes angry when we don't forget, swears at us, then promises to abuse us again.

Don't put Hickenlooper back in office for another four years. That ONE person can cancel out anything that a Republican Senate might accomplish. Don't allow ONE Governor to cancel out 18 or more Senators who would work to repeal eight years of Democrat control.

Reached by phone this afternoon, Holbert stood behind the comments.

Asked if he thought his comparison to spousal abuse could be offensive to actual abused spouses and others concerned about domestic violence, Holbert said:

Holbert: "I think there are various kinds of abuse, and what I am pointing to is verbal. I’m not comparing it to physical abuse. People would have greater respect for the governor if he would have one story and stick to it."

"He tells us one thing and tells his supporters another thing," Holbert said, explaining his Facebook post further. "He suggested to the sheriffs that he didn’t talk to Bloomberg and records show he did. He apologized for signing bills that he claims he didn’t understand were so controversial. And then he talked to Eli Stokols, I believe, and says he’d sign the bills again. So which does he mean? I feel that’s abusive to the people of Colorado who look to him for leadership."

36 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    In the name of everyone who has ever actually suffered abuse: fuck you, Chris Holbert.

  2. bullshit!bullshit! says:

    Chris Holbert is a deep fried douchebag.

  3. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Lies, promises, negotiations, cheating on voters with oil and gas lobbyists, putting the health and safety of gas patch residents behind O&G profits,  a promise that a blue ribbon commission will make it all better…..

    I see Holbert's point, from a completely opposite direction – Hick is like an abusive spouse. And the sad thing is that we'll probably take him back "one more time".

  4. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Whose enemy am I, BS?

    Hickenlooper is committing mental abuse, not physical or emotional. In mental abuse, the partner is routinely deceived, and told that their perception of reality is what makes them crazy. It's as if someone told you that you did not post on Pols, and that your delusion that you did post here was what proved that you were crazy. 

    I see a perfect analogy with Hickenlooper lying that 

    • a fracking ban is planned
    • that this will destroy 110,000 jobs

    At the same time, he is saying that he wants a commission with "responsible citizens" only.  Apparently, the citizens who sponsored a health study showing grave concerns about health effects and birth defects from pollution in air and water from fracking, or citizens who did ban or create moratoriums on fracking within their communities are not "responsible". The fracktivists are portrayed as dirty hippies, bought off by Polis, even terrorists. Crazy, in other words.This denies lived reality on the ground. It is mental abuse. 

    The responsibility of this commission will be to regulate the organization which regulates oil and gas. But that's not crazy. The people who think it's crazy are crazy. Get it?

    At the same time, I'm encouraging and supporting people to sit on this commission, just because it is at this point the only chance to make any change on limiting oil and gas production around residential communities.  That's crazy, too. 

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Mama Jama: feel free to vote for Bob Beauprez in November.

      Frankly, I'm glad the whole idea of local control over O & G is done for now; the concept of local control. There always are unintended consequences. I refer to HB 4272 which, if passed by Congress, and signed, would give local governments the primary word on management decisions on the national forests. In other words, if local county commissioners want to log everything in sight, or turn their jurisdiction into a racetrack for off-road vehicle abuse, they would be able to do that.

      My point is that the conservation community could lose credibility by pushing hard for local control over O & G, but then saying no, no, no over local control of the national forests. The enemies of good environmental policies; the special interests; are forever watchful for slip-ups.

      Regards, C.H.B.

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        Not voting for Beauprez. Not voting for Hickenlooper. Not voting for the stripper-bar guy, Mike Dunafon. Probably mine will be an undervote.

        Commence with your lectures about how I'll waste my vote – but Hick needs to get the message to stop taking his constituents for granted.

        As far as local control goes, I was all for the original local control bill, the original initiative 75. Then it got twisted into a "sovereign citizen" whacked-out unconstitutional mess, and shit flowed downhill from there.

        I haven't read the text of HB4272, but will look into it. Thanks for the tip.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          Write in Michael Bowman…smiley

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

            That works.smiley

          • BlueCatBlueCat says:

            Let's ask Mike what he thinks about that. Would you, Mike, prefer those who admire you hand votes to BWB by making statement votes or statement withholding of votes or would you prefer making sure we stop BWB by voting for Hick? I'm voting for Hick myself. Care to share who you plan to vote for, Mike?

            • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

              I've just returned from Hawaii where I got to watch, first-hand, the Abercrombie train wreck (he outspent little-known Ige 10:1).  There is something going on in the electorate that no poll is properly quantifying.  The problems that lead to Abercrombie's demise aren't unlike the dynamics we have here.  

              To your question BlueCat, I'm still undecided as to my decision.  I've met with Mike Dunafon and find him refreshing (I'm meeting with him again this week).  He's excellent on energy, cannabis & marriage equality.  I can live with his position on fracking (pro, but with very tight regulations and local control) – and I'm OK with his second amendment position.  I've never owned a gun and I'm not a sportsman but certainly support those who do so responsibly.

              If I don't go that route, I'll be an undervote.  As I've mentioned before the erigiousness of the land conservation issue that has unnecessarily bankrupted Colorado ranchers and farmers could have been mitigated; his latest choice for the PUC was nothing short of disappointing – and I don't think any of us appreciated the willful deception of drinking fracking fluid before a Congressional committee.  

              I'm a solid Udall supporter. Mark has earned my vote with is leadership in setting the stage for Colorado to be known as the global epicenter of the "New Energy Economy". Without Mark's efforts in 2004 to establish our initial renewable standard (Amendment 37), we wouldn't have the nearly $6 billion in wind farms across the Colorado prairies today.  Ditto for Andrew – I've long been a fan of his (although I'm in CD-4 and won't get to vote for him).  I'll be a vote for Vic Meyers, although I know how tough the landscape is for a Dem in CD-4.  I would have preferred that Jerry Sonnenberg been the R candidate – and I'll lay that blame squarely in Gardner's camp.  That said, Jerry will return to the dome next January as my state senator.

              I understand the angst of the petitioners who feel betrayed by the "compromise" – but I'm more neutral on that issue. I think we all know that yet another blue ribbon commission will deliver us nothing of substance.  I hope I can find a way to help harness that energy and put it where it can give us the biggest benefit, addressing the constitutional crisis in this state.  Having some Jesuit training in my background, I'm a firm believer of going to the root of the problem.  Let's stop whacking at the branches, or putting bandaids on cancer – and reestablish our constitutional right for local control that our state constitution guarantees us.


        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          mama jama wrote: not voting for Beauprez…Hickenlooper….Mike Dunafon…. Commence with your lectures….."   You won't get a lecture from me. For president in 2012, I voted for the only conservative in the race, Gary Johnson from New Mexico.

          • BlueCatBlueCat says:

            That would have helped elect Obama if he hadn't won by such a large margin. Refusing to vote for one of the two major choices only affects razor thin elections. In a very close race that might feel great but it really helps elect the one you agree with the least.

            If neither choice is my ideal I'll vote for the best I can get to block the worst. That way, if the worst wins I at least have the right to bitch about it because I didn't personally help elect that person. If all progressives follow Mama's example and BWB gets elected they will have helped elect him and, yes, there is a difference, yes BWB is much worse and no, they will not have the right to bitch about it by virtue of having helped to make it happen. Period.

              • BlueCatBlueCat says:

                Nice to see another grownup around here.

                • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                  So …that means the rest of us are adolescent?

                  Lighten up, BC.

                  • BlueCatBlueCat says:

                    I won't lighten up. I don't appreciate starry eyed idealists helping to elect the worst possible alternatives. Sorry. I meant every word I said. You can stay home or vote third party and convince others to do so if you want but if it results in a close election going to BWB don't say you're not among those responsible for that and don't say it doesn't make any difference because Hick is just as bad. Both of those statements, in the event that happened, would be untrue.

                    It's unlikely enough people will be so silly as to to cause that to happen, it almost never does, but it is a supremely silly risk to take in any potentially close election.  We need all the votes we can get to stop BWB. You're either with that effort or against it. If your against it, we are not on the same side in this election. Of course we are under no obligation to always be on the same side.

                    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                      The insinuation that those who have a different view are not grown up is dangerously close to a dwyerism. I have always respected your point of view, BC, but your characterization of those who would vote for any reason besides stopping BWB as starry-eyed idealists is unwarranted. Your opinion is held in high esteem around here, but petulance is never attractive.
                      If you say I can’t be on your side unless I am in lockstep with you on this, then I guess I’m not. What you are saying sounds a little too much like the other side…
                      and since I have probably pissed you off already, how about letting go of the chip on your shoulder about Andrew? Are you aware how often you throw in a dig about that?
                      I will most likely vote for Hick, unless you manage to talk me out of it…..