President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 17, 2006 12:19 AM UTC

Has Beauprez Hit Bottom Yet?

  • 62 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Things are not going well for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, who is getting absolutely skewered in the media all across the state.

Beauprez and running mate Janet Rowland were drilled again over her comments comparing gay marriage to bestiality; Beauprez was caught changing his position on same-sex partnerships; and he was criticized for a vote on “matricula consular” cards that may have been cast because of a policy at his Heritage Bank. And this was all on the same day.

(On the bright side, Beauprez spokesman John Marshall did get a chance to fire a funny, though weak-sounding, salvo at Democrats: “They’re bed-wetting, pampered liberals. No one cares what they say about anything. They have no credibility.”)

It’s mid-August, and the election is still a long way away. But it seems as though nothing is going right for the Beauprez campaign lately, and things are starting to snowball. There is certainly time to recover, but if it doesn’t happen in the next four weeks, this one could be over.

Tweet
Share

Comments

62 thoughts on “Has Beauprez Hit Bottom Yet?”

  1. The Rowland/Beastiality story was carried nationwide. I expect Ritter will get a large cash infusion from gay activists across the country and further bury BB.

    1. That’s Rowland’s job in this campaign.

      She’s totally blown the job.

      Too bad. BB deserves better than this. He’s really a good guy from what I’ve seen of him.

      But he doesn’t seem to have a lot of talent for picking people who can help him, unlike W, who is smarter than most people and hires people who are smarter than he is.

      Takes smart people to hire smart people.

      Ritter seems to be the head of his class this year.

      1. The Repubs know how to cut losses with a substandard candidate.  They did it with Harriet Miers who was a disaster and they knew it.  So they found a graceful way out.  Why don’t they do this with Janet Rowland who is a nobody, who brings nothing to the ticket, and actually has done lasting damage. 

    2. So far, BB has done nothing but anger Ritter’s supporters and depress his own. Who wants to walk the precincts for a boob?

      Lots of people will walk for Ritter this year, I’m thinking. They’ll be scaared to death of BB and will do all they can to send him back to his bank, which he’ll probably have to sell because nobody will want to do business with him.

      Bigotry can kill a campaign and a bank.

      2. You forget that lots of us activists who happen to be pro-choice won’t lift a finger for Bill Ritter, and that includes the finger that punches the button next to his name.

          1. While many pro-choice Dems aren’t exactly thrilled with Ritter’s stand on abortions, his comments regarding “safe but rare” positions like re-enstating Planned Parenthood (non-abortion) clinic funding and Plan B OTC availability (assuming the FDA doesn’t get off it’s *** and make the approval) are reassuring.

            To me, throwing your vote away because a candidate disagrees with you on a single issue is short-sighted.  If neither candidate agrees with your position on your main issue, then at least you need to be responsible enough to vote based on other issues.  If you truly don’t care about the environment, job and education opportunities, fiscal responsibility, or transportation decisions, then I don’t know what to say; otherwise, not voting isn’t a protest, it’s neglecting your duty as a citizen.  Most Dems I know have come around to that realization since the State Assembly.

    3. It’s the top story on the Advocate.com front page. I would imagine donations from the LGBT community should be quite strong in Colorado and (to some degree) around the nation.

      It’s not to late to switch her out BWB. Well, maybe it is.

    4. It’s the top story on the Advocate.com front page. I would imagine donations from the LGBT community should be quite strong in Colorado and (to some degree) around the nation.

      It’s not to late to switch her out BWB. Well, maybe it is.

  2. …when you keep digging.  First Rule of Holes applies.

    Marshall sounds like the schoolyard bully after he’s been beaten to a pulp by the school nerd.  Trying desperately to shrug it off like it wasn’t important.

    I just want to know how many more flubs BWB can come up with before the end of the week.

    1. He sounds utterly befuddled.  Yesterday it was something about the real world dropping the issue after she apologized.  I’m not sure these guys are all that familiar with the real world.  In my real world, if you keep screwing up you get fired. 

      I think these guys know it’s over, or they are hoping for a September and October and November surprise (or, miracle) from back east.  I think back east has decided hanging on to at least part of congress is more important (which assumes a planning ability not much in evidence in things like military strategy, etc.).  Mr Marshall is now fighting the good fight for a losing cause, and probably knows it.

    1. And after Both Ways does all his work in D.C. in September, his “Mommy” should reward him by taking him on a two or three week vacation, preferrably out of the country.

  4. I think Beauprez is suffering from many of the criticisms that George Bush is getting hit with these days:

    http://www.crooksand…

    Does he have the intellectual capacity to adequately perform the job as governor?  I think that based on his campaign decisions so far, that answer is clearly no.  The selection of a narrow-minded, homophobic running mate from a small town in Colorado is probably going to sink him. 

        1. A quick scan of a paper sees liberal bias in the staffing decisions, story assignments and placements, headlines and finally the stories themselves.

          Publishers, regardless of their political leanings, tend to let the kids run the day school.

          1. Only problem with liberal bias theory… how do you explain the fact that these stories don’t get widely published?

            http://www.projectce…

            Also, remember those stories about Bush being AWOL that ultimately tanked the cred of CBS news and Dan Rather? That stuff was originally published by the Boston Globe in 2000.

            I suppose most news orgs, if they are in fact left-leaning, are so only to the extent that Joe Lieberman is.

            Personally, I’m over the concept of bias being bad. People can bend over backwards trying to be objective but they are who they are, and they have the perspective life gave them. And thanks to Fox News, everything’s “fair and balanced” now, right?

          2. Reporters tend to be more “left”, editors are in the middle, and management tends to the “right” – in general.  That means reporters write stories that get watered down by the editors and sometimes cancelled by the management.

            Of course, the other dynamic is that reporters tend to write stories that are damaging to the current power structure (it’s their job – it’s news…), editors have to deal with the blowback, and management lately has been siding with that self-same power structure.

            There isn’t really a strong media bias if you consider most news programs now.  Glenn Beck?  Faux News?  McLaughlin?  And the Meet The Press type programs have only recently begun to remember that they’re supposed to ask tough questions.  Liberal media bias is a myth.

            1. I know you’re trying to rationalize this, Phoenix, but you must have your blinders on.

              The lefty to liberal bias in the newspapers and newsweeklies is so obvious. Newspaper copy editors are former reporters who couldn’t make it as reporters, or they’re wordsmiths who were promoted because they write cute heads. When it comes to editing content, their heads are as empty as most reporters’.

              They hook graphs, correct spelling and grammer (most of which is corrected by computers these days), and maybe rewrite a lead to fit their narrow views of the world. Then they write heads that are just amazingly biased.

              Read the stories on gay marriage, abortion, Iraq, Bush, the GOP, Owens, Tancredo, illegal immigration, police and any political topic. You’ll find dozens of stories with bias written all over them.

              This is true in all newspapers. A recent study found that the Wall Street Journal’s news staff is the most liberally biased of them all.

              1. The WSJ is the most liberal paper?  Yah, right.

                I think stories on Tancredo have to be evaluated from the standpoint that not even the White House wants to see his shadow on their doorstep.  On Iraq, perhaps the press here is negative, but it’s not like we’re getting the hard-hitting reporting that the rest of the world gets…  On Bush, the press has been remarkably light on him compared to their efforts against Clinton.  On the GOP, well – tell me Sen. Allen, Janet Rowland, Duke Cunningham and Abramoff’s network of friends haven’t generated the fodder the media feeds off of.

                What is “bias”?  Where is neutral?  I would say the facts dictate neutrality, yet today’s media holds more that an uninvolved restatement of partisan sides is more to their liking.

    2. Does he have the “intellectual capacity to adequately perform the job?”  He did receive an undergraduate degree in phys ed.  What better preparation to be governor of Colorado……

  6. … was on Beauprez’s butt (sorry) this morning on KHOW about Beauprez’s matricula consular vote. Beauprez came across sounding rather stupid, frankly. He claims he was one of a handful of Congressmen who voted to allow MC cards for bank IDs because the guvmint shouldn’t require private companies to be “police.” Boyles was incredulous – and rightly so.

    And Beauprez’s connection to Heritage Bank has no connection whatsoever to his vote. Umm hummm.

    Beauprez could easily have abstained from voting for what was obviously a lost cause based on his bank connection. In fact, it was obviously a conflict of interest for him to vote.

    Beauprez seems to have a unique gift for making wrong decisions. He’s like Bush: “The Decider” who just doesn’t know the right WAY to decide. 

  7. Wow! How can Ritter possibly recover from that AWESOME SMACK-DOWN by the incredibly efficient Beauprez machine?

    Calling Bill Ritter a “bed-wetter” is so incredibly COOL!

    Ritter must be reeling from the blow. After all, he’s SO VULNERABLE to the charge of being wimpy. Ritter was just a chickeny little CRIMINAL PROSECUTOR, and he wasted his youth gallivanting around SAVING PEOPLE IN AFRICA.

    Beauprez ain’t no bed-wetter: he’s a rough, tough SILK-TIED BANK EXECUTIVE who’s even comfortable rubbing shoulders with dangerous RUSSIAN MAFIA.

    Make Colorado a “Dry State”! Elect Beauprez!

    Looking forward to more INCREDIBLE smack-downs of the same ilk from that Amazingly Efficient Beauprez Campaign.

    (To be fair, Ritter came across looking pretty silly chiding Beauprez for not milking cows by hand.)

  9. This reminds me of when Holtzman was getting hit in the media constantly.  Beauprez and Ritter were lucky enough to be left out. 

    Now its Beauprez’s turn. They need to throw some of the mud back at Ritter. Otherwise, Ritter will be given a get out of jail free card for the rest of the cycle.

  10. Ritter has a long way to go. He can still screw up, but in the mean time Beauprez, Rowland, and that whole group needs to stop screwing up every time they turn around.

    2. It was not supposed to be this way.  They were supposed to be doing photo ops. with the victorious prez. and stomping a limp-wristed liberal.  Their beliefs were supposed to be the agenda, not things to be questioned.  They are out of plan, don’t have a clue, and are hoping Karl can throw a hail-mary in the last seconds.  But it’s to the point where they would have to replay the whole game and not muff any plays.

      1. “Who is not Liberal when young has no heart. Who is not Conservative when old has no brain”.

        With age comes wisdom and experience – not intolerance and greed.  You shouldn’t lose passion and sympathy when you get older.

        1. The quote is right on.

          Conservative does not mean intolerance and greed.

          Indeed, in my experience, young lefties are more intolerant and greedy than older conservatives. Just saying.

        2. While some conservatives are intolerant and greedy many just want what’s best for the world, just like any of us lefties do. They have different ideas about how to achieve that. As I grow older, for example, I can see how many social programs for the poor do (or did) little to help people get up on their own two feet. I also see how things like a balanced budget are better for the long-term good of our country and state. I guess that means I’m getting more conservative, but I’m not any less compassionate for the poor and suffering – I just want them to be able to stand on their own and will support anything that EFFECTIVELY can help them there.

          (don’t agree with him about young lefties being greedy, but I knew plenty who were intolerant of those who disagreed with them)

  11. A professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University in Upstate New York says,
    “She is a facinating cultural experiment- a house of cards built on a very finite list of accomplishments.”
    He likens her to the dusty outposts of the early American West towns whose growth relied on big-talking boosters.”
    Janet Rowland?
    No.
    The professor was talking about Paris Hilton…

    “We get old too soon,
    and, smart too late.”

  12. If ever there was a time when the Beauprez campaign could be thankful for being bumped off the front page of media outlets this would be it. 

    Who’d of thunk a six year old girl would capture our attention over a governors race. 

  13.   The outcome of this election is going to be similar to that in ’94 when Bruce Bensen, a truly uninspiring candidate (and a Trailhead fraternity brother of Bob Beauprez), ran an awful campaign against a popular, presentable, centrist Democrat who kicked Bensen’s butt by about a two-to-one margin. 
      In order for Bill Ritter to come close to a win by that margin, Both Ways needs to dropped at least another six points in the polls. I have great faith in Beauprez’ ability to drive his numbers down even further. 
      I can’t wait to see what kind of a “bounce” Both Ways gets in the polls by his introduction of “Beastiality Rant” Rowland as his running mate.

    1. Two interesting observations about this thread.

      Coloradopols is letting it dominate the home page for a long time. Is this because we’re doing such a good job of bashing Bob?

      And where are BB’s supporters. Have the Repulsive Republican Radicals (RRRs) stuck their heads in the sand, or have they just abandoned this blog out of frustration.

      Really, what can you say when your candidate picks an outrageously prejudiced running mate who says what everyone thinks is in his mind. Or do they just think the election’s lost until Karl Rove and world events rescue President Bush’s approval ratings.

      When you don’t counter attack in politics, you die.

      1.   “Where are the B.B. bakcer?”  There are none to speak of, except maybe for Mommy and B.O. 
          As for the R.R.R.’s, I think they dislike B.B. even more than the Dems dislike him.  B.B. went out of his way not just to defeat their hero, the Little Fella, but to rub his face into the ground. 
          Suing Holtzman for $78,000 in “costs” Mike Norton is claiming is just gratutious humiliation which will come back to haunt B.B., B.O., and the rest of the Snakehead Foundation.

  15. Neither of them are looking particularly good. I say vote Clyde Harkins for Governor American Constitution party.

    And By the Way, Roger McCarville of the American Constitution Party is running on the CD-7 race in a big way. He should be on the tracking list. Might be a spoiler.

    1. are where? Why hasn’t his campaign tried to recruit the Holtzman supporters? Could it be that John Marshall is DUMB enough to think they can win without them? The dealings that I have had with John gives me the feeling John is wrapped up in John.

      Beauprez should have picked a moderate instead of a Right Winger. A lot of us moderates are geeting to feel left out.

      I won’t vote for Ritter, but Beauprez is getting to look worse as time goes by.

      If he loses then the blame will be on Holtzman

      1. Looking at the numbers and the direction that Beauprez’s campaign has taken reminds me of Holtzman’s spokesman, (and I quote), “It’s over, man.”

        Beauprez loses…big.

  16. Can I get a bumper sticker made up that says “Dont blame me, I voted for Marc.”

    And I did.  I happen to live in a county that still had his name on the ballot.

    1. I don’t think BB can blame Marc for his problems, and I don’t think Marc would be doing any better.

      Both are RRRs and have propensity to stumble.

      1.   While I disagreed with the Little Fella on about 98% of substantive issues, I had some respect and even grudging admiration for Marc Holtzman. 
          He took clear positions on issues, and his candidacy lived or died by them.  His hero, Reagan, would be proud.
          While I suspect that Ritter would have beaten Holtzman, it would probably have been closer because the GOP base would have turned out for Marc.

        1. If only the REpublicrat in Denver would have listened.  Trailhead should change its name to “Thickheaded Idiots.”  Fact was Beauprez and Ritter, the difference in polling numbers never really moved very much.  Beauprez was always behind.

          Holtzman, on the other hand, was moving against Ritter and Beauprez.  As such, the Republican Establishment can chalk another one up to “Self Engrandizing Stupidity.”  Their “WE JUST WANT TO WIN” philisophy will be the ruin of their strategy once again.  So like the insane practice in futility that this is, they will lose and blame it on everyone but themselves.  So went Coors, so too will go Beauprez I’m affraid.

          Same old strategy, same old result.  Nothing new.  Nothing gained.  Another loss for the books.

  17. What they need to do is devise a strategy where Scott Gessler, Steve Durham, John Zakhem, Mike Norton, and the Colorado Republican Party can sue any and every opposing candidate off the ballot.
    If that fails, they can count on our ever so incompetent Secretary of State Gigi Dennis to rule them out. Maybe she can lose their papers like she did with those voter files.

    Hey, they did and it kept that Holtzman character off the ballot. Why don’t they take up a notch and just litigate everyone they don’t like.

    Wait to go Colorado GOP!!!

        1. In 1986 Robert McClure Indiana 8th District (Republican) was taking on Robert McCloskey Indiana 8th District (Democrat Incumbent).  McClure had defeated McCloskey by 121 votes.  There were ballots that were discovered unopened and unaccounted for.

          Originally, McCloskey (the incumbent) had won.  The Indiana Secretary of State and Attorney General’s certified McClure the winner.  Under the U.S. Constitution it is a fact that the states determine the procedure for electing Congressmen.

          Under the U.S. Constitution, Lee Hamilton refused to recognize McClure as the winner.  Primarily because Congress gets to decide the members and their seating thereof.  The liberal courts upheld Hamilton.

          McClure argued that it was a violation of Due Process and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Their ruling was that this was a “POLITICAL” Issue not a “LEGAL” issue and refused to hear the case.

          McCloskey was sworn in for another term.

          If this is the case, why are the liberal judges in Colorado so willing to hear “POLITICAL” issues when they weren’t before? 

          I think it has to do more with power and not principle.  The courts today, view themselves not as arbiter of disputes, but rather, yielder of power.

          After all aren’t we concerned with “stare decisis” anyway?

          I get it, selective memory.

          1. It’s their job to rule on matters pertaining to the State Constitution.

            The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say anything about electing governors, nor much about state election law.  But the State Constitution and Statutes say plenty, and are not prohibited from doing so.

            Holtzman was a whiner.  Rolodexes, not enough signatures in multiple districts – need I go on?  He didn’t meet the legal requirements to petition on, and then he tried to wheedle his way on anyway.

            As to the 1986 race in the Bloody 8th, your history is a bit off.  “Lee Hamilton” did not refuse to recognize the official results – the House as a whole did, along partisan lines and after conducting their own recount showing a 4 vote McCloskey lead.  (BTW, the 34 – not 121 – vote recount in favor of McIntyre was certified by a Republican AG, as a counter to the bias you present.) (h/t) Wikipedia.

            Courts rarely get involved in “political” rulings, provided you define “political” as “directly affecting the organizational workings of one of the other branches of government or between the other two branches of government”.  When they do, bad things tend to happen.  E.g. the 2000 election was only the second time the SCOTUS got involved in a Presidential election, and it was also the second time they influenced it in a partisan manner.  And they knew it so intimately that they had to put a special notice on the decision saying it wasn’t precedent-setting.  The stay on the recount was wrong, and the final decision was idiotic; that 5 of the supposedly best legal minds in the country created that opinion should have sent shockwaves through the country.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

70 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!