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.
There's big news on a big name from out of nowhere.
Republican Joe Coors, Jr. is actively exploring the idea of running for Congress in CD-7 against incumbent Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter.
This one surprises us, to be frank, but apparently Coors has been making high-level phone calls about the race since well before yesterday's redistricting ruling was made final. The allure of a potential Coors, Jr. candidacy is obvious for Republicans: They really need someone who can self-fund a campaign to some degree if they hope to make a serious run at Perlmutter in 2012, because they have too many other national races to worry about than to spend resources going after a popular Democratic incumbent.
While the allure for national Republicans is clear, we really can't see why Coors, Jr. would be serious about running for Congress. He retired in 2000 as Chairman and CEO of CoorsTek Inc., and he'll turn 70 in February -- is he really interested in being a 70-year-old freshman Congressman? His current elected office is as President of the posh Rolling Hills Country Club in Golden.
It's no secret that Joe's brother, Pete Coors, really didn't like running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, when he lost to Democrat Ken Salazar, and surely they've spoken about this on more than one occasion. But at least Pete was seeking a bigger prize in the Senate; we have a hard time understanding why Joe Jr. would be interested in a House seat. Furthermore, the Coors family and business were absolutely hammered during Pete's 2004 campaign, but the intensity of the attacks on the Coors clan would be exponentially greater in 2012. With all of the talk about the "99%" and Occupy Wall Street, we can't imagine a worse year to run for public office with such a high-profile last name. Joe Coors isn't as bad a name as "Joe Citibank," but it's not far behind. The guy owns his own helicopter, for crying out loud.
The boundaries of CD-7 changed somewhat in redistricting, but this is still a Democratic-leaning seat with a popular, entrenched and well-funded incumbent in Perlmutter. In 2010 Perlmutter defeated GOP challenger Ryan Frazier by 11 points; Coors is a bigger name than Frazier, of course, but it can't be overlooked that Perlmutter won a blowout victory in what was a huge wave year for Republicans.
Coors would no doubt try to play off his business experience in a campaign against Perlmutter, but even that comes with problems. He made headlines in 2002 for reportedly being swindled in an investment scheme in which he invested family money in a program that promised a "100% return per week" (seriously, he thought "100% per week" was realistic?) but which turned out to be a "Prime Bank" scheme in which investors are tricked into believing their money is being placed in well-known institutions.
Again, Coors has been making serious inquiries about running in CD-7. We're surprised that he's even considering a run, but we'd be even more surprised if he ultimately jumped in the race; there are just too many reasons for him to not run.
Joe Coors, Jr. is the son of Joe Coors, and the great-grandson of brewery founder Adolph Coors. His father, Joe, Sr., was well-known for his conservative political leanings; he was a founding member of the Heritage Foundation and was also involved in the creation of other conservative think tanks.
It's time for another edition of "Worst Week in Colorado," where we ask Colorado Pols readers who it is who had the worst week in Colorado politics.
Previous winners (or losers) include Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and former GOP Gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis. Our nominee this week is the Colorado Republican Party and Establishment in general, for its shamelessly apparent attempts to discredit Gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes and force him out of the race so that they can appoint someone else.
We had no problem with the GOP trying to get Maes out of the race prior to the Primary, or even soon afterwards, but this week the process took on a whole new level of desperate absurdity. If they can't get Maes to agree to any sort of plan to bow out of the race, they could at least try to do it a little quieter while not openly poking in the eye the hundreds of thousands of Republicans who, for whatever reason, did vote for him in the Primary.
Who, or what, else would you nominate for "Worst Week in Colorado" this week?
When fundraising numbers for Colorado's U.S. Senate candidates were all announced earlier this week, it continued a rabid conversation about what individual reporting numbers mean for each campaign. Less discussed, but no less important, is whether or not each campaign is raising enough money just to keep the lights on.
As we've said before, fundraising reports are normally a reliable indicator of potential electoral success, because most large donors (people that give at least $500 to a candidate) write checks to the candidate that they believe is most likely to win.
But the other reason that fundraising is so important is for very fundamental purposes: You need a lot of money to both support a statewide campaign and to get your mug on television. It's no secret that the candidate who does best on TV is often the candidate who ends up winning the election, so an effective campaign has to be able to pay for its day-to-day operations while also saving as much as possible (70-80% is a general rule of thumb) for television.
Obviously, a U.S. Senate race is a costly affair. In 2008, Democrat Mark Udall outspent Republican Bob Schaffer $11.7 million to $7.4 million. Now that the fundraising reports for the 2010 batch of Senate candidates are available, we thought it would make sense to look at just how much money they are going to need just to fund their campaign. The answers tell us a lot about which candidates are in a position to win, and which are just treading water right now.
Sorry to our Western Slope pals, but we had to comment on this bit of nonsense from something called The Snowmass Sun, titled "Can Hick Win the Western Slope?"
When Colorado Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak came to Glenwood Springs last week, she came bearing a message from John Hickenlooper: "Tell everyone in Glenwood Springs hi and sorry I can't be there."
That's nice, but it's not enough. If Hickenlooper is going to win Colorado, he has to win places like this, and that means he's going to have to show up.
Waak knows that. Hickenlooper does, too. He may be wildly popular in Denver, and pretty darn popular outside of Denver, too, but to win as governor of Colorado he has to win the whole state, and that means winning the Western Slope.
His likely Republican foe, Scott McInnis, is an old hat on the Western Slope, and he mastered the art of winning it. As a congressman, he was an unbeatable force. Democrats rarely pitted anyone against him, and when they did, they lost.
McInnis has often argued that winning any state election comes down to winning the Western Slope, and there's some logic to that. Figure liberal Boulder and conservative Denver counter each other out. The conservative 'burbs counter liberal Denver. That mostly leaves the Western Slope to battle it out for the winner.
That's why this part of the state has become a big battleground, especially in recent elections. [Pols emphasis]
The Western Slope is a "big battleground?"
Um, yeah.
We've said it again and again here on Colorado Pols: Population shifts over the last 10 years have completely changed the electorate in Colorado. When Colorado had fewer residents, the electorate was more spread out across the state. But today, well more than 80% of Colorado voters live along the Front Range between Ft. Collins and Pueblo. We have no doubt that both John HickenlooperandScott McInnis know this, even if the Snowmass whatever does not.
Both candidates will come to the Western Slope and will campaign there, but the numbers just don't lie. The first major example of the population shift in Colorado and its effect on elections came in the 2004 Senate race, when Democrat Ken Salazar beat Republican Pete Coorsbecause of Denver voters. In Denver alone, Salazar outpolled Coors by more than 100,000 votes (169,580 to 60,387). That same year, a total of 62,341 people cast a ballot in all of Mesa County, which includes Grand Junction, the largest city on the Western Slope. In other words, Salazar got more than twice as many votes in Denver as there are voters in all of Mesa County, the most populous county on the Western Slope.
Those numbers have only increased in the years since. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain in Denver by a 204,882 to 62,567 margin (a difference of 142,315 votes). In Mesa County, Obama lost to McCain 44,578 to 24,008 (a 20,570 vote margin). McCain would have needed to win Mesa County six more times just to erase the advantage Obama gained in Denver alone.
So will Hickenlooper or McInnis win the Western Slope? It doesn't matter, because if they don't win along the Front Range, and in the Denver Metro area specifically, then what they do on the Western Slope is irrelevant.
Republican Joe Coors, Jr. is actively exploring the idea of running for Congress in CD-7 against incumbent Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter.
