The liberal Center for American Progress caught this magnificent Mitt Romney deer-in-the-headlights moment on public lands policy, in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal last night. It's hard to imagine how this could have gone worse:
I don't know the reason that the federal government owns such a large share of Nevada. [Pols emphasis] And when I was in Utah at the Olympics there I heard a similar refrain there. What they were concerned about was that the government would step in and say, "We're taking this" - which by the way has extraordinary coal reserves - "and we're not going to let you develop these coal reserves." I mean, it drove the people nuts. Unless there's a valid, and legitimate, and compelling governmental purpose, I don't know why the government owns so much of this land.
So I haven't studied it, what the purpose is of the land, [Pols emphasis] so I don't want to say, "Oh, I'm about to hand it over." But where government ownership of land is designed to satisfy, let's say, the most extreme environmentalists, from keeping a population from developing their coal, their gold, their other resources for the benefit of the state, I would find that to be unacceptable...
Now there are particular reasons why so much of Nevada's territory is managed by the federal government--the biggest of which is the enormous military presence in the state--and areas like the Nevada Test Site that Romney would probably prefer stay public once he "studies" them.
Here in Colorado, while not as extensive as Nevada, we certainly have broad swaths of public lands too--places like Great Sand Dunes, Mesa Verde, and Rocky Mountain National Parks. Not to mention national monuments, forests, grasslands, wilderness, plain old BLM...how many billions of dollars in economic activity do we owe to our public lands in Colorado?
Anyway, we sincerely hope Romney gets a crash course on this stuff before he sits down with editorial boards in our state. This is a little like Arizona's John McCain telling the Pueblo Chieftain in 2008 that the Colorado River Compact "obviously" needed renegotiating, then being somehow confused when people started showing up at his rallies with pitchforks.
A major snowstorm bearing down on Denver has closed the Colorado General Assembly Friday. Barring anything unexpected, Rep. Laura Bradford (?-Collbran) will drive home this evening, and decide some time this weekend whether or not to disaffiliate from the Republican Party--and if she does, whether to become and independent or, as has been reported a possibility, a Democrat. There's really no overstating the importance: control of the one-seat GOP majority Colorado House, and the future of Speaker of the House Frank McNulty, even if the House remains Republican-held, hangs on her decision.
Assuming she does leave the GOP, as Rep. Bradford is reportedly "95% decided" to do, it comes in the aftermath of a traffic stop last week in Denver that spun out of control into damning allegations against her. Since DUI is an embarrassing but not necessarily career-ending offense, the worst Bradford faced was accusations of abuse of the until-now obscure legislative immunity from misdemeanor arrest members enjoy "going to or returning from" the legislative session. After reaching a point where Rep. Bradford's resignation was basically certain, a stunning news conference by Denver Police on Tuesday resulted in her partial exoneration--at least to the original police report's contention that she had tried to evade arrest with legislative immunity.
Rep. Bradford says now that she believes she would have passed tests to determine if she was legally under the influence, something that can never really be proven either way now--we're left with her word versus a police report whose veracity has been called into fundamental question, so we don't see how it can ever really be settled. But more importantly, Bradford says that her House Republican leadership, especially Speaker McNulty, threw her to the wolves before the DPD's false reports were revealed--and that this was the product of estrangement between Rep. Bradford and House leadership that had been building for a long time.
Because Bradford will be forced to campaign as a write-in candidate with any party affiliation other than GOP, and it's fair to say relations with her party have broken down, it's likely that Bradford is not going to run for re-election--she said as much to the Grand Junction Sentinel. It's clear that her beef is with McNulty and Majority Leader Amy Stephens, so she need only disaffiliate to independent and call for an election to accomplish the objective of bringing them both down. This seems to us to be her most likely move, and then serve out the rest of her term.
And it's likely to work if she does. Speaker Frank McNulty has many rivals, folks, who smell weakness now. Since the possibility of McNulty's position being thrown into jeopardy arose yesterday, we have learned more than we ever knew had been discussed about a possible alternative leadership arrangement in the House that could be triggered by new leadership elections. We will not be disclosing any names, except to say it's very possible this could accomplished in a way that the House remains in Republican hands. This would be significant for, among other things, lifelong Republican Rep. Laura Bradford's conscience.
As we said, this weekend, Rep. Bradford will make the decision that will either set these possibilities into motion, or not. The best comparison we can think of for what Bradford will experience, unless she flees the state for the weekend leaving her phone and credit cards behind, is the "encouragement" 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes received from Republican leadership to get out of that race. The rumors of those meetings, if you recall, fell somewhere between a "bad cop" interrogation and an episode of 24.
You wouldn't wish that on an enemy, folks--we'll update, one way or another, when Rep. Bradford emerges on the other side of one of the biggest decisions of her life.
"This Romney thing, it's all about reflexes--and it pains me to say this stuff. This show has not been easy. You don't... Well, maybe you do know, but he just doesn't have conservative reflexes. It's like trying to learn golf late in life: The reflexes just aren't there. You've got to have a foundation, a basic understanding to have the reflexes, and they're just aren't there."
LONGMONT: Today, Brandon Shaffer put an end to rumors that he would change directions and run in the 6th Congressional District.
"While I appreciate the offers of support from those who asked me to consider running in CD6, I live in CD4, I understand CD4, and I plan to represent CD4 in Congress.
In truth, this was an easy decision. My wife works at the school our children attend. I have represented this area in the State Senate for the past seven years. We have built many lasting, strong relationships in Northern Colorado. I'm not running for Congress just to seek political office; I'm running to represent the people. And the people I know best are those in Colorado's 4th Congressional District.
There are people who have said that the newly re-drawn CD4 is too tough of a race-that party registration favors the Republicans. To them I say: "Just watch me." The people in Northern Colorado are tired of bickering, tired of politics as usual, and tired of a Congress that sides again and again with wealthy special interests over the rest of us. Republicans, Democrats, and Unaffiliated voters can agree on at least one thing: the current Congress is not getting the job done. It's time for change - it's time to bring some Colorado Solutions to Washington. That's why I'm running for Congress."
-----
Breaking via the Longmont Times-Call'sJohn Fryar:
State Senate President Brandon Shaffer announced Thursday afternoon that he will not switch his congressional bid from the 4th Congressional District to the 6th District...
Longmont is in the 4th, and while Shaffer would not have necessarily had to move to the 6th to campaign for that seat, he emphasized that "the city of Longmont is my home" and that he's looking forward to representing his Longmont-area Senate district constituents in Congress.
Pinnacol board vice chairman John Plotkin sent Hickenlooper a letter Thursday morning saying that the company felt it needed to slow down what has been a fast-moving process. Several members of a governor's task force examining the privatization plan had made the complaint that things were moving too quickly at a meeting Tuesday.
Statement from the governor's office:
Gov. John Hickenlooper joined Pinnacol Assurance in agreeing today to slow down a proposed restructuring of the company and delay any action during the current legislative session.
"We agree with Pinnacol that additional time is needed to fully explore the proposal," Hickenlooper said. "Clearly, there is more work to do. We look forward to continuing the conversations about restructuring in the coming weeks and months. Our priority remains doing what's best for injured workers, policyholders and the people of Colorado."
Pinnacol Assurance, Colorado's state-chartered tax free workman's compensation insurance entity, has been trying to privatize itself for a number of years. Previous proposals have been rejected as insufficiently beneficial to the state after years of preferential treatment as a state entity--and Pinnacol's strong-arm legislative tactics, belligerent executive management, and frequent appearances in the scandal sheets have done them few favors.
Well apparently, Gov. Hickenlooper isn't the lipstick this pig needs either.
UPDATE: For there's no confusion, WCVB-TV Boston, last September:
"First, you're wrong. That's one. I have never supported the President's Recovery Act, the stimulus. No time, nowhere, no how," [Romney] told them. "That bill didn't work. Throwing $800 billion out the window, that stimulated something, but it was not properly spent."
-----
As reported yesterday, GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney is scheduled to appear in Colorado Springs this Saturday afternoon for a rally at Springs Fabrication, Inc.--a sterling example of the kind of hard working, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps private enterprise success story Romney loves. And, you know, wants to rescue from the "Obama economy."
Just one little problem, breaksJohn Schroyer of the Colorado Springs daily paper:
That's right, folks. In November of 2010, Springs Fabrication, Inc. received half of a $4.6 million grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. "teh stimulus." Specifically, Springs Fabrication helped Merrick Nuclear Services & Technology design and build a special test vessel for something called the the Very Small Angle Neutron Spectrometer, as part of advanced research for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Anyway, it's going to be great when Romney extolls Springs Fabrication Saturday as a model of "free enterprise," so much more so now that you know Springs Fabrication was in part made prosperous by government stimulus contracts in support of government-funded research.
It's so perfectly ridiculous that it almost seems like a trap.
Via the former Colorado Senator's "protected" Twitter feed, here is a match absolutely, positively made in proper noun Heaven. Dave Schultheis (right), who serves on the state steering committee for Rick Santorum (left). Maybe the frothiest mixture ever concocted:
Because we assume Santorum's staff monitors Google, here are some helpful links to articles that help elucidate who's hugging the guy they want to be President.
DCCC's Red To Blue Candidates Outraised Republican Incumbents and Rivals
The most vulnerable Republican incumbents are getting outraised and facing serious challenges from Democratic candidates, new Federal Election Commission fundraising reports show. The top-tier Red to Blue Democratic candidates outraised their Republican opponents, most of them incumbents, in the final quarter of 2011. This comes after the NRCC was outraised by the DCCC for the first year of their majority and new polls show voters prefer to elect a Democratic Congress in 2012.
Average Q4 Raised by Red to Blue Candidates: $201,370
Average Q4 Raised by Republicans Incumbents/Opponents: $178,215
The "Red to Blue" race in Colorado is in CD-3, between Sal Pace and Scott Tipton, where the incumbent Tipton is reeling from bad coverage of his poor fundraising performance last quarter, and Pace's relative strength. As you can see, that's a story playing out elsewhere too.
Colorado's Rep. Jared Polistook charge of "Red to Blue" last May, and we assume the glowing press he's indirectly receiving in these key races has him smiling.
The Grand Junction Sentinel'sCharles Ashbyupdates the Rep. Laura Bradford saga:
"I'm frustrated and disappointed in the speaker of the House when last Friday on the phone, when we were discussing this, he said, 'You're toast,'" Bradford said. "This isn't about the last seven days. This has been going on for the past 15 months..."
Regardless of the department's exoneration of Bradford, McNulty said there are other issues to discuss, such as Bradford's driving after drinking, and her claim that she came from a legislative function at a downtown Denver bar...
Bradford said she is 95 percent certain she will leave the party. The last 5 percent she has to think about is whether she will become an independent or Democrat, [Pols emphasis] and whether she will resign before the end of her term. She is up for re-election for her third term this fall.
McNulty responded that, "It is quite possible that I said that if she's not honest about what happened, and she doesn't show remorse for what happened, that she would be toast."
He said Bradford's comments about possibly leaving the party are "unfortunate and unproductive." He said the forming of an ethics committee shows "the seriousness of the allegations that have been put in play here."
Bradford said she disagrees with having an ethics committee look at her actions - and potentially dole out punishment ranging from censure to expulsion - because the question of whether she abused her power has been settled. She said she's deciding Friday whether to leave the GOP and switch to unaffiliated or Democrat, even though she's been a lifelong Republican.
As of this morning, the consensus view from our sources is that Rep. Laura Bradford'sdisaffiliation from the Republican Party is all but inevitable now. Most expect her to serve out her current term, but not to run for re-election due to the logistical hurdles imposed by changing affiliation so late--and of course the drama and still-unresolved questions about the past week complicating everything. It's considered more likely that Rep. Bradford will go unaffiliated, though the possibility of her switching to the Democratic Party remains out there.
The thing to understand is that in either case, Bradford going unaffiliated or Democratic, it's a very good bet that House Speaker Frank McNultywill not be Speaker when the dust settles. As we said yesterday, if Bradford switches to a Democrat, the majority simply flips. If she goes independent, you've got a 32-32-1 tie, and near-certainty of Bradford--or somebody else--calling an election for a new Speaker. And as you probably know, or if you didn't know you could well be about to learn, McNulty is not universally loved within his caucus.
One possible scenario here is a House that remains in Republican hands, with Democratic help.
That's all we should prudently say right now, we'll update as events warrant (which they will).
red tape n. The collection or sequence of forms and procedures required to gain bureaucratic approval for something, especially when oppressively complex and time-consuming.
(From its former use in tying British official documents.)
We spent much of this afternoon listening to the state Senate Judiciary Committee's debate over of a pair of odd Republican bills worth retelling the story of. Senate Bill 12-027, sponsored by GOP Sen. Mark Scheffel, and Senate Bill 12-073 sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, attempted to impose additional review processes and criteria for rules promulgated by executive branch agencies. Which is a long way to say they "added red tape." After debate this afternoon, SB12-027 was laid over until Monday. SB12-073 was killed on a party-line vote.
The bill creates an additional rule review process for rules adopted on or after November 1, 2011, that are determined by the staff of the committee on legal services (the office of legislative legal services) to be related to legislation enacted during any legislative session, regular or special, commencing on or after January 1, 2011. The rules are to be reviewed by a committee of reference of the general assembly. The legislative council staff determines what committee of reference appears to be the most appropriate based on the principal departments assigned to each committee of reference as specified in legislative rule. The committees of reference must review all assigned rules no later than the 45th day of the legislative session. Each committee of reference may establish its own procedures for the review, but the bill sets forth minimum requirements for at least one public meeting. The bill allows the committees of reference to disapprove a rule for any reason, but provides the committees of reference some minimum considerations.
An executive branch agency is prohibited from adopting a rule pursuant to the "State Administrative Procedure Act" unless the agency finds that the rule is consistent with the clear legislative intent of the general assembly as supported by the public record of committee hearings and floor debates, including any public statements made by the principal sponsors or proponents of the bill or an amendment to the bill before its adoption.
The bill adds another ground for the committee on legal services and its staff, the office of legislative legal services, to use when it reviews rules adopted by executive branch agencies: A rule shall not extend in scope or impact beyond the clear legislative intent of the general assembly as supported by the public record of committee hearings and floor debates, including any public statements made by the principal sponsors or proponents of the bill or an amendment to the bill before its adoption...
In short, SB-027 would send adopted rules back to their committees of reference to perform an additional review early in the subsequent session, giving committees the power to reject rules "for any reason." SB-073 required agencies to evaluate all rules by additional criteria to determine if they conform to the "clear legislative intent of the general assembly," to the point of requiring them to comb through debates, legislative testimony, maybe even press clippings.
Coming from a pair of rock ribbed "red-tape slashing" conservative Republicans, it's fair to say that nobody really knew what to make of these bills in Senate Judiciary today.
You can't roll your eyes much louder than this without pulling a muscle. As the national Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation pulled Planned Parenthood's grant funding this week, its Denver affiliate went rogue, announcing that Planned Parenthood will receive a grant for the upcoming grant cycle, through March of 2013.
According to a Facebook post by the Denver affiliate, Komen has granted its Denver branch a special exemption permitting Denver-area Planned Parenthood health centers to receive funding. Komen grants to Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains are used to detect breast cancer and educate patients about breast health.
Rick Santorum on Wednesday turned his sights westward, picking up the endorsement of a former Colorado congressman and pledging to remain in the race after his distant third-place showing in Florida.
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo endorsed Santorum here calling him "a non-composite" candidate who stands by his convictions rather than changing policy to please voters. "I believe this is the best man, non-composite candidate, we can put forward for president of the United States," Tancredo said at Colorado Christian University.
Santorum said he would remain in the race, insisting that voting had only just gotten started, and voters should not believe that Mitt Romney is an inevitable candidate...
We've heard that before: isn't that what Tom said about Scott McInnis? Or was it John Hickenlooper? No word yet on Dan Maes' endorsement, but we're asking. As the GOP's gubernatorial nominee in the 2010 general election, shouldn't you care what Maes thinks?
UPDATE #3: A quick read of HB10-1271, passed in the aftermath of Rep. Kathleen Curry being forced to contend as a write-in candidate for election, indicates that Rep. Laura Bradford would still need to campaign as a write-in either as an independent or Democratic candidate if she disaffiliates now. Although HB10-1271 reduced the amount of time a candidate must be registered with a given affiliation, this switch would need to have occurred before the first business day in January for Bradford to make the 2012 ballot.
-----
UPDATE #2:Grand Junction Sentinel'sCharles Ashby:
The Collbran Republican said the Denver Police Department's apology and admission Tuesday that she never tried to use the little-known privilege to get out of a DUI, should be the end of it.
But Bradford said she is considering resigning, becoming an independent or even a Democrat [Pols emphasis] because House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, plans to go ahead with a House ethics panel to investigate the matter regardless of that apology.
-----
UPDATE: There are two possibilities should Rep. Laura Bradford indeed disaffiliate from the Republican Party as she reportedly has threatened today. Rep. Bradford could simply become an independent, like Rep. Kathleen Currydid before the 2010 elections--which would place her in a similarly difficult position, with GOP and Democratic candidates likely to run.
Another option would be for Rep. Bradford to join the Democratic caucus like Rep. Debbie Stafford did in late 2007. As Bartels reports, if Bradford were to disaffiliate and go independent, it would result in a 32-32-1 split, and could force a new election for House Speaker. If Rep. Bradford joins the Democrats...well, it's a lot simpler then.
Bartels' story strongly suggests that the disputes between Rep. Bradford and GOP House leadership predate the recent controversy over her traffic stop last Wednesday. We wouldn't therefore assume there's anything Frank McNulty might do in the aftermath of Rep. Bradford's "exoneration" by Denver Police that would change things.
That said, we're not even 24 hours from thinking Rep. Bradford's remaining political career could be measured in days, not terms. So we're fully prepared to be shocked again at any time.
-----
Breaking now via Lynn Bartelsof the Denver paper. Developing.
Republican Rep. Scott Tipton continues to underwhelm in his bid to win re-election in CD-3. According to his fundraising report for Q4 filed late yesterday, Tipton raised $176,532 in the last three months of 2011. That's a pretty weak quarter for a targeted incumbent, but what's even stranger is that Tipton spent $435 more than he raised ($176,967 in expenditures for Q4). Tipton's campaign spent $11,388 on media production, which we assume is for future TV ads, but the bulk of his money was spent on fundraising, via consultants and events. You don't need to be handy with an abacus to know that you're not getting a good investment when you spend more than you earn on a service.
Democrat Sal Pace, on the other hand, outraised Tipton in Q4 ($206,482) and managed his money much better, with only $77,678 in expenditures.
All told, Tipton begins 2012 with a total cash-on-hand amount of $510,384. Pace starts the year with $341,430 in the bank.
Tipton has been a bit of a mess in his first year in Congress, sticking his foot in his mouth on several occasions. And while recent polling shows that he holds an early lead over Pace, Tipton is not popular in CD-3. Maybe Tipton will wake up in Q1 and post numbers that show national Republicans that he is truly prepared to fight for his seat; if he doesn't change the momentum in this race soon, the NRCC may decide that they don't want to expend a lot of resources helping a candidate who isn't helping himself.
Check out the press release we just received from Mitt Romney's campaign:
Boston, MA - Mitt Romney today announced the support of the members of the Douglas County Colorado Board of Education.
"I'm truly grateful to earn the support of the members of the Douglas County Board of Education for my education reform agenda," said Mitt Romney. "They share my vision of taking control of our children's curriculum out of the hands of the federal government. Our kids are served best when these crucial decisions are made at the local level."
Announcing his support, Douglas County School District Board of Education President John Carson said, "We are very proud to be supporting Mitt Romney. He is committed to making our education system more effective by reducing needless federal intrusion, empowering local officials, and promoting choice and competition. He is also a proven leader who has shown time and again that he can turn around troubled enterprises. That is exactly what the bureaucratic U.S. Department of Education needs today. I look forward to having a President Romney in the White House and unleashing our schools and our students to achieve their full potential."
For starters, we didn't know that Colorado public school boards could legally do such a thing--oh, wait up folks, that's why it says "board members" instead of, you know, the Board as a unit. The fact that it is all of the Douglas County Board of Education members endorsing, though, lets the release be worded in such a way that this distinction doesn't really matter!
Seriously, that's clever. We're acknowledging the cleverness.
And as Colorado's most politically controversial public school board by orders of magnitude after instituting a religious school voucher program (halted for now by court injunction), the endorsement of Mitt Romney, and Romney's warm thanks from Boston HQ for their endorsement, might indeed affect next Tuesday's GOP caucuses. Although the Douglas County school board's support could be considered politically toxic in a general election, as some Jefferson County school board candidates discovered last fall, on the right these people still enjoy a folk-hero kind of status for leading the state into a litigious school voucher showdown.
Relax, queasy moderates, there'll be plenty of time to drop them like a hot brick before the fall.
"Any seeming deception in a statement is costly, not only in the expense of the advertising but in the detrimental effect produced upon the customer, who believes she has been misled."
A Florida campaign of vicious personal attacks between Romney and his closest competitor, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, raised questions about whether the process would damage the eventual winner when it comes time to run against President Barack Obama in November...
Be that as it may,
[Romney's] solid victory blunted any momentum Gingrich gained from his January 21 victory in South Carolina.
The bulk of the Republican establishment in Colorado hopes so, and hopes the fruitless bleeding of Romney in this bitter primary season ends as soon as possible--before next Tuesday even.
Then again, they were not the ones at the Ron Paul and Rick Santorum rallies today.
Mitt Romney is to be commended for his honesty. This ranks right up there with "I like being able to fire people," and "corporations are people, my friend." Romney has shown that while he may have the golden touch for all of his personal investment choices, he has a tin ear for politics. Romney doesn't even bother trying to mask his contempt for non-rich Americans. Once again, Mitt Romney shows he has the same compassion level for the non-rich that the Mel Brooks' character King Louis did when he was using live peasants for skeet shooting practice.
Here is a new ad that we are in the process of buying national cable TV news for now.
UPDATE: The House is convening an ethics committee to try to sort this out from their end, as the Grand Junction Sentinel'sCharles Ashbyreports:
The panel is to investigate whether Bradford improperly invoked legislative privilege in a recent traffic stop where she had been drinking, but was not issued a citation for driving under the influence of alcohol.
The panel is to be chaired by Rep. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs. Also on the panel will be Reps. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, Claire Levy, D-Boulder, and Judy Solono, [D]-Brighton. The panel could hold its first meeting as early as Friday.
We're told that the ethics panel will convene despite the new information from Denver Police today that significantly alters the focus on this story. Given the number of unanswered questions about it, that's probably for the best--and likely not the only investigation needed.
-----
At a press conference hastily convened by the Denver Police Department a few minutes ago, dramatic new information about the case of Rep. Laura Bradford'salleged DUI, and use of legislative immunity law to avoid arrest, was brought to light--we quite frankly don't know what to make of the totality of this, so we're just going to lay it out as we understand it.
DPD's spokesman Matt Murray explained again today that police initiated a traffic stop Wednesday night of Rep. Bradford's vehicle, which has state legislative license plates, but she initially did not stop (not unusual, often people will drive a block or two to get out of traffic)--and nearly hit another vehicle once she did stop a couple of blocks away from Colfax. Murray reiterates that initial tests on the scene indicated Rep. Bradford was too intoxicated to drive.
But according to Murray, and we can only characterize this as highly irregular, the original information provided by the supervisor who went to the scene to investigate was not correct. DPD now claims that they asked Rep. Bradford about where she was coming from using language that could trigger immunity--not Bradford herself invoking legislative immunity. And importantly for Rep. Bradford, according to this new version of events, she said at least twice during the incident that she "wanted to be treated like everyone else."
Remember, all of the heretofore information about what transpired between Rep. Bradford and DPD has been provided by DPD, and Rep. Bradford's extremely limited statements.
Murray went so far as to apologize to Rep. Bradford for having mischaracterized her actions during the police stop, and said further that Police Chief Robert White was very concerned about the possibility that his officers had not told the truth. No explanation was given as to why officers would have initially told a version of this story that severely undercuts Rep. Bradford's credibility if it wasn't true. And it's unknown why Rep. Bradford never mentioned that she had said these things to police in her apology on the House floor--only that she answered their question by saying she was leaving a "legislative function."
Folks, it's going to make even less sense to you when you get to Rep. Bradford's gun.
According to Murray, as police were arranging for Rep. Bradford's cab ride home, they asked her if there were any valuables in the car. Bradford replied that there was a gun--in Colorado, it's not illegal to possess a firearm in your car, but it is always illegal to possess one when intoxicated. The spokesman says an officer on scene cleared the weapon, put it back, and was then instructed by the supervisor--read this very carefully--not to talk about it.
If the statements made in this brief press conference leave you with your head spinning, we assure you you're not alone. We'll start by saying that we don't understand how officers this accomodating would have told such a hostile version of the story to Rep. Bradford once it broke in the press--a story that may nevertheless have omitted yet another important angle.
In short, we don't know what, or who, to believe right now. But we'd say it's only becoming more serious. Obviously we'll update as new information becomes available.
UPDATE: The Miklosi campaign issued a rather silly press release this afternoon. Full release after the jump, but here's the opening sentence:
In a sign of growing momentum, the Joe Miklosi For Congress campaign announced it has $173,000 cash on hand and more than 1,300 grass roots supporters who have already contributed to the campaign.
It's a very good idea to point out the number of individual donors that Miklosi received in Q4 -- that's always the best approach when you can't point to impressive totals. But you shouldn't point out a weak cash-on-hand number, and it does more harm than good to say something like "In a sign of growing momentum..."
Remember, a press release is not something sent to the general public -- the people who receive press releases are generally folks who have some idea of what is going on in the race, and when you try too hard to spin horrible news in the other direction, you just end up looking silly.
-----
Earlier this month Republican Rep. Mike Coffman announced that his campaign had raised $415,000 in the final quarter of 2011. When Democrat Joe Miklosi never sent out a news release discussing his Q4 fundraising numbers, it was a pretty safe assumption that the figures weren't going to be good.
Today is the deadline for Congressional candidates to file their end-of-2011 reports, and FEC reports show that Miklosi raised a meager $104,451 in Q4. Miklosi raised just $130,000 in his first fundraising quarter, and we've said since then that it was absolutely vital for his campaign to have a much stronger Q4. Altogether Miklosi now has $173,700 in cash on hand, significantly less than Coffman's warchest of $961,374.
Unfortunately for Miklosi, there's no positive spin that can help him at this point. In order for him to be a top-tier contender that receives the kind of national help and attention needed to defeat Coffman, Miklosi had to be raising at least $200k per quarter by now (which is what Sal Pacedid in Q4, and why Pace is on the top of the DCCC's takeover list). Numbers this low will almost certainly cripple future fundraising, because nobody wants to write a big check to someone who doesn't look like they can win; money begets money in politics, and Miklosi doesn't have the warchest to convince big donors to get on the bandwagon. Miklosi's poor Q4 will also embolden Senate President Brandon Shaffer to make the jump from running in CD-4, where he would almost certainly lose to incumbent Rep. Cory Gardner. Shaffer didn't have a great Q4, either, but he has shown that he can be a better fundraiser than Miklosi by bringing in nearly $300,000 -- a race that is much less plausible for Democrats to win than CD-6.
There are probably a lot of factors contributing to Miklosi's weak fundraising numbers overall, but when you do this poorly it usually means you didn't have the necessary connections to put a big-time campaign in place to begin with. We can't fault Miklosi for trying, but his campaign is all but over now.
The other Democrat currently running in CD-6, unknown chiropractor Perry Haney, raised just $16,025 in Q4 but loaned his campaign $370,000. According to the FEC, Haney now has $684,215 cash on hand -- nearly all of it from his own wallet.
The Perlmutter campaign responded in the wake of the announcement with a release that underlined Coors' wealth and his support for strict anti-abortion personhood laws, which would make illegal abortion in all cases and would even outlaw some of the most popular contraception, such as the pill.
"Ed looks forward to a spirited debate with Joe Coors. There couldn't be a more stark contrast. You will have an ultra-wealthy, highly partisan candidate who fights for billionaire tax loopholes and Personhood Amendments against a man who holds meetings in local grocery stores, fights to create and save thousands of jobs in the 7th CD and has the least partisan congressional voting record in Colorado," Perlmutter spokeswoman Leslie Oliver was quoted to say.
-----
UPDATE: Colorado Democratic Party chairman Rick Palacio gives Coors a volley:
"If Mr. Coors thinks he can connect with the mainstream voters of Lakewood, Arvada, Westminster, and Thornton, he has a lot of questions to answer. Ultimately, he won't able to connect to people's daily concerns when his focus has lately been on country clubs and his helicopter. No working family in Colorado can relate to such a removed existence when they are thinking about this month's mortgage, groceries, and the bills that never stop coming.
"Add that to Mr. Coors's personal support of the radical anti-abortion 'Personhood' movement, and he will have a hard time explaining how he plans to work for the benefit of regular Colorado families. Even a cursory glance at his record shows that Joe Coors is nowhere near the reality that most of us live in. And in the Seventh Congressional District, Colorado voters won't support someone who has nothing to do with their needs and interests."
Most of you know my family name but you may not know me. To start with, I am the oldest of the fourth generation of Coors family members - with deep roots here in Colorado. Throughout my career, I have concentrated on my family, work and community service. This is the first time I have ever run for public office...
My wife Gail and I got married as sophomores, when I was twenty and she was eighteen. And this year, we are celebrating our fiftieth wedding anniversary.
At the time of our marriage, my family - like a lot of other families - had certain unwritten rules, and one of those rules was that Coors children weren't supposed to get married until they graduated from college - and - frankly my comfortable life style was something I had to consider. Family money versus love. Gourmet meals versus fried bread! But love won out...
Then in 1973, I felt called to come back to the family business so we moved to Golden and started my career at Coors Porcelain Company - now called CoorsTek. This company produces ceramics for high technology purposes and because of my study in ceramic engineering - this was the perfect fit for me. Over the next thirteen years, I rose in management to become the President and CEO...
My Great Grandfather's story is a classic American story. He came to this country as a stowaway on a ship. Our family still wonders how he heard about the American dream way over there in Germany in the mid-1860's. My Great Grandfather's life is similar to millions of immigrants like him. It is with pride and humility that I was allowed to carry on his American dream.
I am running for Congress so these stories are not just from the past, but remain in the present and are part of our future.
I am running for Congress because the American dream is rapidly vanishing as government expands its intrusion in our daily lives...
Wasn't it John F. Kennedy who said: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country?"
What Obama and the liberals do not understand - but what I believe Kennedy understood - is that business owners do a lot for their country when they make their payrolls - and pay their taxes - month after month - week after week.
We'll update with coverage and statements as they come in--since we don't believe that Mr. Coors can or even necessarily intends to win this race, Republicans can at least take comfort knowing Coors can pay his own way through the campaign. And as in 2004, either way you come down, your taste in beer should never dictate your choice in the voting booth. Not to mention the CoorsTek spinoff makes high-tech ceramic products, not the beer.
Beer snobs among us understand we're trying to help Mr. Coors by clarifying that.
UPDATE: The Denver Police Department promises "significant new information" about Rep. Bradford's case at a press conference scheduled for 3:30PM. Developing.
-----
State Bill Colorado summarizes today's update to the story of Rep. Laura Bradford's skirting of a DUI charge last week in downtown Denver, due to a constitutional provision meant to prevent the arrest of legislators for petty or political purposes "going to or returning from" legislative business. As reported yesterday by this blog, and confirmed now by multiple sources:
Before her non-arrest, Rep. Laura Bradford attended a happy hour at Prohibition, a bar just a few blocks east of the Capitol, multiple outlets reported. Sources told The Denver Post that Bradford was at the bar for several hours. ColoradoPols.com described it as a "lobbyist happy hour." Speaker Frank McNulty told The Post he couldn't recall whether Bradford told him at that time whether she had been at a legislative function the night she got stopped...
Critical to understand is that Rep. Bradford, although she claims to have not intended to invoke legislative privilege, specifically told Denver Police she was proceeding home from a "legislative function." These are the words she used in her apology on the House floor yesterday as well, and these were the words that DPD says triggered the decision not to arrest her for what seems to have been a fairly obvious case of DUI.
"I was driving my personal car with legislative license plates. In response to the officer's inquiry, I stated that I was leaving a legislative function, was on my way home and was expected to be at the capitol the next day," Bradford said.
Game over, folks. No reasonable person could ever, ever consider a happy hour with lobbyists to fall under the heading of a legislative session, committee hearing, or debate as described in the Colorado Constitution, Article V, Section 16. The fact that Rep. Bradford referred to this happy hour as a "legislative function" when asked by police where she was coming from--not trivia, a key question under the law--is damning evidence that Bradford not only understood the relevance of those words to the police's choices of what to do with her, but despite what she says now, fully intended to invoke legislative privilege to prevent her arrest for DUI.
And if that's true, take a deep breath and acknowledge what it means.
