We’ve posted before on this feud between Republicans Ted Harvey and Mark Baisley, who are locked in a primary in SD-30, mostly because we’re entertained by the press releases sent out by Baisley’s campaign. The Baisley camp is trying to make a big deal out of something that, frankly, is really difficult to understand. Take the first paragraph of their latest press release, for example:
Former Senate District 30 Chairman and candidate for Colorado Senate District 30, Mark Baisley (R-Douglas County), today asked Ted Harvey, his primary opponent for the open Senate seat in SD 30, to explain to voters what Harvey did with the money that he improperly raised via the internet. Several weeks ago, Harvey was using scare tactics to solicit funds from pro life advocates outside of the state by using the internet to say that Harvey was in a contested race against pro life millionaires that wanted to punish Ted for his strong pro life stand. This is untrue. His opponent, Mark Baisley, is a strong pro life conservative with broad support in pro life movement because of his well-reasoned positions and his intellectual commitment to pro life philosophy.?
Umm…Yeah. Okay. Because that apparently wasn’t enough to discuss, the press release throws in an extra topic later on:
In another matter, Baisley defended Harvey?s slip of the tongue yesterday when Harvey called Democrat candidate Bill Ritter ?Gov. Ritter? during a press conference held at the capitol.
?Anyone can make an honest mistake when they are nervous in front of so many people,? said Baisley. ?Even people who are well-spoken can. Slips of the tongue can make for funny headlines and I?m sure Ted?s embarrassed by it. But I?m not interested in honest, well-meant mistakes.?
That’s good stuff.Click below for the full press release…
?
?
Former Senate District 30 Chairman and candidate for Colorado Senate District 30, Mark Baisley (R-Douglas County), today asked Ted Harvey, his primary opponent for the open Senate seat in SD 30, to explain to voters what Harvey did with the money that he improperly raised via the internet. Several weeks ago, Harvey was using scare tactics to solicit funds from pro life advocates outside of the state by using the internet to say that Harvey was in a contested race against pro life millionaires that wanted to punish Ted for his strong pro life stand. This is untrue. His opponent, Mark Baisley, is a strong pro life conservative with broad support in pro life movement because of his well-reasoned positions and his intellectual commitment to pro life philosophy.
Harvey went on record June 23rd saying he would not correct his website. ?I?m not going to change it or the link that leads to it,? Harvey vowed regarding his site in a story published in the Colorado Statesman (for a copy of the story go to coloradostatesman.com). Several days later, under pressure from pro life leaders around Colorado, Harvey removed the page from his site, along with the link.
?I congratulate Ted for finally taking partial responsibility for his actions,? said Mark Baisley. ?However, he?s not taken full responsibility yet. He needs to return the money to the donors or donate it to Colorado Right to Life or another pro life charity. It is money that can better spent on doing the real work that the pro life movement was called to do.?
On the week of the 23rd of June pro life leaders expressed regret that Harvey had made such a misstep while representing the pro life movement. ?As a fundraising ploy, it?s heartbreaking,? said Pat Miller former head of Citizens for Responsible Government, one of the most active pro life organizations in the state.
Phillip Hendrix, a long-time Christian activist from Douglas County, agreed: ?The pro-life movement doesn?t need politicians that pander to us rather than propose real solutions to the problems we face on life issues. We would be better served if our elected officials would show some measure of wisdom, morality and courage.?
Beginning on the 17th of June, Harvey raised a total of around $1100 from 17 out-of-state donors through the reporting period that ended the 28th of June. ?I think for Ted personally, the best thing he could do, would be to return the money. If he does so, I will drop the whole issue. But if he decides to not listen to my advice and the advice that I know even his supporters have given him, I think his position in this matter will just get worse,? said Baisley.
In another matter, Baisley defended Harvey?s slip of the tongue yesterday when Harvey called Democrat candidate Bill Ritter ?Gov. Ritter? during a press conference held at the capitol.
?Anyone can make an honest mistake when they are nervous in front of so many people,? said Baisley. ?Even people who are well-spoken can. Slips of the tongue can make for funny headlines and I?m sure Ted?s embarrassed by it. But I?m not interested in honest, well-meant mistakes.?
?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: kwtree
IN: Colorado’s Chris Wright Flunks First Big Test As Energy Secretary
BY: davebarnes
IN: Colorado’s Chris Wright Flunks First Big Test As Energy Secretary
BY: Chickenheed
IN: Colorado Dems Hammer Out Major Gun Safety Compromise
BY: curiousstranger
IN: Colorado’s Chris Wright Flunks First Big Test As Energy Secretary
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Presidents Day 2025 Open Thread
BY: ParkHill
IN: Presidents Day 2025 Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Presidents Day 2025 Open Thread
BY: Early Worm
IN: Presidents Day 2025 Open Thread
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Colorado’s Chris Wright Flunks First Big Test As Energy Secretary
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Colorado’s Chris Wright Flunks First Big Test As Energy Secretary
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
This is hilarious.
First of all, who wrote this? A fourth-grader? I hope whomever is responsible isn’t planning on a career in public relations.
Secondly, I sent a few bucks Ted’s way during the time frame mentioned. And contrary to what this Baisley guy thinks, I was not duped. I sent the dough to Ted based upon everything I know about him.
I’d better not get the cash back, nor should it be “donated” to Mark Baisley’s preferred charity.
Great. I hope Baisley pulls more stunts like this between now and the primary. He looks more and more desperate. Go Ted Go!! We need more men of Ted’s stature in the legislature. In fact if we had more men like Ted in our party, the state GOP wouldn’t be in the mess it finds itself today.
We need people who stand on principles.
“Several weeks ago, Harvey was using scare tactics to solicit funds from pro life advocates outside of the state by using the internet to say that Harvey was in a contested race against pro life millionaires that wanted to punish Ted for his strong pro life stand.”
Why would pro life millionaires want to punish Ted for his pro life stand? Is this a typo?
Not a typo, just a campaign that does not know what they are talking about.
Harvey will win.
Genghis Khan would have a hard time staking out a position to the right of Ted Harvey. Best of luck to you Mr. Baisley.
Ted is the man. Why Pat Miller would ruin her already weak reputation in political acumen by attacking the guy who carried and passed the ONLY piece of pro-life legislation in Colorado history is beyond me.
I only hope Baisley keeps turning quality product like this out! What a dope!
I didn’t realize Pat Miller was even still active. I’m assuming this is something personal because by any objective measure, Ted is a pro-life leader in the legislature.
Anyway, keep it up Mark — can’t wait to see your next “press release”!
Whenever you see someone using animus ad homonym logical fallacies, and ignoring the factual content of your argument chances are they know (perhaps only subconsciously) that they are wrong. This is called cognitive dissonance and is an aggressive response to rationalize ones perceptions with and to dismiss, reality in order to maintain an idea that is in conflict with it. Let me help you to understand by quoting some of your counter arguments:
-“First of all, who wrote this? A fourth-grader?”
Attacking the writer to eliminate their appeal to the ethos is a convenient way to avoid acknowledging the facts that they espouse.
-“I hope Baisley pulls more stunts like this between now and the primary. He looks more and more desperate. Go Ted Go!!”
-“Why would pro life millionaires want to punish Ted for his pro life stand? Is this a typo?”
Yes this is obviously a typo.
“Anyway, keep it up Mark — can’t wait to see your next “press release”!”
“-Genghis Khan would have a hard time staking out a position to the right of Ted Harvey. Best of luck to you Mr. Baisley.”
Genghis Khan was a conservative republican? As a history professor I’d be interested in his explanation for that argument.
“Ted is the man. Why Pat Miller would ruin her already weak reputation in political acumen by attacking the guy who carried and passed the ONLY piece of pro-life legislation in Colorado history is beyond me.”
READ THE ARTICLE, Pat Miller like most people, doesn’t appreciate being used and deceived. Not everything is about politics, some things are more important.
Well professor, allow me to help you understand.
Firstly, this is a light-hearted political board where people like to have fun. When someone issues a press release this poorly-written, with so many errors, it is bound to be mocked. And why shouldn’t it? A press release by definition is indended to be read by lots of people, so why can’t they take a few minutes to proof it? Even without the grammatical errors and typos it is one big syntactical nightmare.
Secondly, whatever crucial “facts” I missed were obscured by the hilariously random comments at the end where Mark seems compelled to defend Ted on “another matter” that nobody has ever heard of.
Thirdly, I can appreciate if Pat Miller doesn’t want to be used. But nowhere in the release does it indicate how she was used. Could you point out this “fact” for me. Does she presume to speak for all pro-life activists who were somehow offended by Ted’s website? Does she have any evidence that Ted is some sort of stealth pro-choicer? Because the public record indicates he is solidly pro-life.
I could go on but you get the point. Crappy press release = people on coloradopols having a good laugh.
I am not above cognitive dissonance, especially when I know I’m wrong, but I was asking a real question. The sentence I quoted made no sense and I wasn’t sure if it was Coloradopols typo or a Mark Baisley typo. No aggression or rationalization intended or implied.
OK, now I’m off to concoct my next animus ad homonym logical fallacy.
Don’t feel bad. It made no sense to me, either.