GOP Congressional Delegation: Whatevs, Cory Gardner

Clockwise from top left: Sen. Cory Gardner, Reps. Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn, and Scott Tipton.

As Colorado Public Radio’s Caitlyn Kim reports, the march to passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, which passed the U.S. Senate with wide bipartisan support and Sen. Cory Gardner’s earnest election-year blessing, went a little sideways yesterday after all of Colorado’s Republican members of Congress voted against the bill:

Republican Reps. Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton all voted against the bill, which represents one of their Republican Senate colleague’s biggest wins in office.

Buck praised his friend Gardner’s work on the measure but said he couldn’t vote for it. While “laudable” in its goal, Buck said, “this bill will convert the LWCF’s funding stream to mandatory funding, much like Medicare and Social Security spending, which will allow this program to continue expanding in perpetuity.”

And that’s not all, Cliven Bundy!

Buck added he has concerns that LWCF will be used to purchase more land and prevent other uses on it, from recreation to mineral development.

“The federal government already owns 35.9 percent of Colorado, and controls 28 percent of the total landmass of the United States — this bill gives the federal government even more power to control land and set federal standards,” he said. [Pols emphasis]

Kind of curious, isn’t it? The exact thing the Great American Outdoors Act principally does, provide a permanent funding stream for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is the heart of the problem for Colorado’s Republican congressional delegation! The 105 Republicans who voted against the bill were not enough to stop it, of course, and the next stop is President Donald Trump–who after allegedly being sweet-talked with outlandish comparisons to Theodore Roosevelt by Gardner intends to sign it.

The opposition of all of Gardner’s GOP colleagues in the House naturally gives rise to questions on the right about Gardner’s conservative bonafides, which is already a problem for Gardner evidenced in tepid support from Gardner’s own Republican base. As for the positives for Gardner in taking credit for this bipartisan legislation, sure–it gives him something to talk about with swing voters. But any goodwill Gardner manages from this bill is offset and then some by the much greater dissatisfaction with Republicans on the part of voters motivated by environmental issues.

For good or ill, Reps. Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn, and Scott Tipton kept it real.

And “keeping it real” makes Cory Gardner look bad every time.

15 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. gertie97 says:

    It looks like Tipton is mailing it in.

  2. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Ken Buck: "the federal government……..controls 28 percent of the total land mass of the United States……"

    Gee, is Ken Buck OK with the millions of acres owned by the Pentagon for military bases and training ranges?

    • kwtree says:

      CHB, and other public lands experts, please weigh in on this.

      I was looking at Lauren Boebert’s website, when I came across this really bewildering press release (downloadable pdf) decrying Negeuse and Degette’s “land grab”.

      The bill in question HR6395, appears to be standard D o D appropriations. There are two amendments; Negeuse’s ( makes permanent the mining prohibitions on land around the Grand Canyon. Degette’s amendment designates some Colorado land as Wilderness areas, but specifies that the military can do fly-overs.

      So JohninDenver, I guess we do know where Boebert stands on public lands; she’s agin them.

      • Duke Cox says:


        Perhaps she is one of these people.

        The wise use movement in the United States is a loose-knit coalition of groups promoting the expansion of private property rights and reduction of government regulation of publicly held property.

        from- Wikipedia

      • Conserv. Head Banger says:

        @kwtree: “Bubbles” Boebert is way out of touch. The lands in both bills have been thoroughly vetted with locals for many years, and vetted for potential for other uses like O & G development, hard rock mining, etc. The statewide conservation community began looking at wilderness potential for BLM lands as far back as 1982 when the first trip guide was published. A more detailed guide to BLM lands was published in 1993. I have a friend in the statewide community who was testifying on BLM wilderness potential in the 1970s, before I arrived in CO in early 1981.

        And there is no “land grab” as mentioned by Ms. Bubbles. The lands in question are already federal, with perhaps a very small amount of state land.

        Check out Duke’s Wikipedia link to learn about those far right wingers who are part of the “Wise Abuse” movement.

        The overflights are for high altitude military training.

        • kwtree says:

          Thanks for the info, CHB. 
          So I wonder which donor(s) prompted this sudden close reading of the Defense Appropriations Act by Boebert? 

          Heretofore, all her press briefings have been either “Guns4all.!” “Masks R Tyranny!” Or “Yay Me!”

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            You’re welcome. Maybe Pete K. can weigh in more on the public lands issues. Pete has been a staff person with a conservation group and actually working on public lands whereas I’m just been an unpaid activist.

  3. JohnInDenver says:

    Has someone asked Ms. Boebert which side she’d be on? 

    Which side are you on boys?
    Which side are you on?
    Which side are you on girls?
    Which side are you on?

    They say in Garfield County
    There are no neutrals, see.
    You’ll either back outdoor lands
    Or side with Mr. Pendley.

    maybe someone can improve the rhyme … V?”

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.