U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

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
October 21, 2006 06:34 PM UTC

BeauprezGate Poll: Salvation or Self-Immolation?

  • 79 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ll update with further developments later today and throughout the weekend.

You’re all doing such a great job dissecting the various angles on the Beauprez/federal database scandal, and Beauprez’s dramatic “whistleblower” assertion yesterday, that here’s a fresh thread to do it in.

Was Beauprez's statement yesterday helpful to his campaign or not?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

79 thoughts on “BeauprezGate Poll: Salvation or Self-Immolation?

  1. Congressman Beauprez won’t even admit the I.C.E. agent is hiis source.  Apparently he still believes he can keep his source secret or is there a third party involved who either introduced the agent to the campaign or vice versa.  Please tell us Congressman Beauprez whether there is a third party involved and if there is, who is it?  We, the public have the right to know before the election.

    Congressman Beauprez, did you ask and did your source access the NCIC database for any other cases on your list of 152 cases you had targeted for use in the campaign?  We, the public have the right to know before the election.

    Congressman Beauprez, why did you or your staff promise your source anonymity?  Was that promise made because you knew you had asked a federal agent to violate his oath of office and violate a crimiinal statute?  Or did your source request anonymity because he knew and told you that if he di this he would be violating a criminal statute?  We, the public have the right to know before the election.

    Congressman Beauprez, please release all the documents you have on all of these cases with information about where you got the information and when you received it and who gave it to you.  When was your first contact with the federal agent?  We, the public have the right to know before the election.

    Congressman Beauprez, do you believe an Internal Revenue Service Agent has the right, based on his judgment and without legal authority, to release confidential taxpayer records in violation of federal law?  If you do, isn’t this a prescription for chaos?  If you do, then you agree that people who carry a badge (e.g. police, sheriff’s deputies)have the right to arrest and charge people with crimes, not based on probable causeor real evidence, but just because they, in their subjective judgment, want to arrest someone?  We, the public have the right to know before the election.

    Don’t try and hide behind the fact the FBI is investigating and your assertions that you and your campaign are fully cooperating with the FBI.  That has nothing to do with your responsibility to give the public all the information you have about this case, including the information requested above.  This is a campaign issue because you at the very least accepted information from a source who gathered the information illegally.  We, the public have the right to see the evidence and judge for ourselves whether you or your staff are culpable in these criminal acts.  We also have the right to know if you believe people have the right to break the law to aid a candidate for political purposes.  The public has an absolute right to know the answers to these questions before we vote.  If you won’t answer these questions, then how can we trust you to be the governor, whose first and most important responsibility is to faithfully enforce the laws of Colorado.

    By the way, since you consider the I.C.E. agent a courageous whistleblower, you would agree that if you made a statement in a closed and confidential hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives dealing with Iraq or Al Queda which a staff member considered inappropriate based on his or her own subjective judgment, even though such meetings are considered secret national security briefings, that that person would be a courageous whistleblower for reporting your statements to your general election opponent even though it was a criminal violation to do so?  We the public have a right to know your answer to these questions before the election.

  2. Mike Littwin’s Rocky Mountain News article says it best when it comes to trying to decipher how Both Ways Bob’s mind operates regarding the current FBI investigation surrounding his campaign:

    http://www.rockymoun

    Well worth the read!

    The “smell” in politics is coming directly from Beauprez!!!

     

  3. Stick a fork in him BWB is done.

    Lamborn appears to be as stupid but doesn’t open his mouth as much.

    But MM – aside from her blatant bigotry which appears to sell well in much of her district has not done anything stupid. Can’t she join the Republican plan and do something to torpedo her campaign?

    Angie is still close enough that we need only 1 big mistake from MM – she does not need to do one a day like BWB.

    Please!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Somebody else pointed it out the other day. Musgrave is attacking AP for the bankruptcy. AP could easily turn it around and use it to her advantage. All she has to do, is point out that the old bankruptcy laws allowed her to come back. Now, the new laws will make it difficult for all. Finally point out that CD-4 district has one of the highest bankruptcy in the nations and it is probable that they are their neighbors are increasingly likely to have a bankruptcy DUE to musgrave’s unwillingness to help the district.

      1. Weld County has the third highest foreclosure rate of any county in the United States. They’re hanging on by a thread up there.

        Colorado has the highest foreclosure rate out of all 50 states.

        As for dumb, being endorsed by the KKK and taking campaign donations from hate groups ought to be a big enough idocy on Musgrave’s behalf, but that story seems to have gotten buried by the press.

          1. lead the way in foreclosures statewide. Weld County, eastern Boulder County, north Jeffco, Aurora are all suffering very high foreclosure rates. And the fact is, you wouldn’t know how many foreclosures there are on your block if you weren’t reading the public trustee notices … there might be more than you think in Parker and surrounding newer Douglas County developments.

            1. There have definately been some in my area, and one new project is now completely broke, but nothing on a scale to make us third in the U.S.  We might get there yet, as there are still more being built everyday in the 300K – 400K range.  No signs of a construction slow down, although established homes seem to take a long time to sell.

      2. If she does something dumb that it requires AP’s campaign to take advantage of it – that’s not enough. We need her to do something Mark Foley level of dumb so we’re not dependent on AP’s campaign to run with it – because they have no idea how to do that.

        1. I know the people working for the last 18 months on Angie’s campaign and have volunteered with them for over a year and I think you’re wrong.

          Perhaps you are more deeply involved in Angie’s campaign than I am aware of and so you are getting your information first hand. If you are, you have a very different view of the campaign than the staff and the hundreds of volutneers that have been devoting themselves to getting Musgrave out of office and sending Angie to Congress. 

          And yes, I wish the campaign would have run ads earlier taking on Musgrave. They didn’t have 3 million plus in the bank to do that. Musgrave does and she’s using every penny to go negative as often as possible.

          From reading your current and prior comments, it sounds like you have some ideas on how to help Angie. I suggest you give the campaign a call and become more involved than you currently are, if you feel moved enough to write about her race in the blogs. I’m sure they would appreciate any amount of time you can give them as a volunteer.

          1. They started prepping for a heavy fight in her district very early, and it shows.  But, as an earlier thread here (last week?) discussed, at what cost?  Might prove to be Ohio, or ROD, or pick one.  Money and incumbency should win, but it should come cheaper than it has.

          2. I know a number of people up there who are not politically active (I live in Boulder) and what has hit me is how ineffective the TV ads are.

            From what I have seen she has a strong ground game and a lot of inspired volunteers. And she is a good speaker. But IMHO most of her TV ads were very ineffective.

            The one about “as long as MM tells lies about me I’ll keep telling the truth about her” was horrible – it kept the conversation on MM’s claims.

            – dave

  4. I just can’t imagine why they would go with “courageous whistle-blower”.
    EVERYONE knows that whistle-blowers expose illegal activities.
    Ummm, Hello! Marshall the Moron!
    Plea bargains are a LEGAL process used in every Jurisdiction in the US.
    Demand the process be reformed, if you must.
    But, don’t call a LAW BREAKER a hero.
    You can’t have it both ways!
    Wait…
      Oops!
    My BAD!
    That’s the way Bob likes it best!

  5. While the whole situation is “unhelpful” for Beauprez. The way he handled it yesterday was “helpful” for his campaign. If he didn’t do anything, everyone was going to think he was a crook anyway. At least this way he gives his base a reason to talk themselves into still voting for him. Sure the reason defies common sense… but it is something they can cling onto to say… see, our guy is still good. Without spinning it the way he did, even some of his most loyal base would have just stayed home on Nov. 7th which would have hurt all the GOP in the state. I’m sure some will still do that (instead of supporting the guy who likes criminals)… but many will still lap up his spin the same way the drank the nonsense coming from Bush.

    1. The man who wants to be the “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” of the State of Colorado, has just dramatically demonstrated that he condones and forgives and encourages illegal behavior, calling it courageous.

      Think about it.  That, my fellow Coloradans, is called corruption.

  6. John Marshall was an idiot to use the information without at least  finding a LEGAL way to corroborate the information.  You just don’t do this as a professional.  You don’t accept the video tape of your opponent canoodling with his mistress (illegal taping?), you don’t use the credit card receipts of your opponents wife shopping in NYC (dumpster diving?) and you don’t make an ad based on information illegally gotten – EVEN IF IT’S TRUE. 

    John will likely have this professional catastrophe follow him for many years.  Vunderkid, my ass. 

  7. Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)
    February 9, 2005 
    Page: A1
    Ex-drug dealer runs for mayor of Fountain
    Author: R. SCOTT RAPPOLD THE GAZETTE

    Fountain City Councilman Al Lender held a news conference Tuesday to reveal he was once addicted to cocaine and served 3 1/2 years in jail for selling drugs in the 1980s.

    Then he said he’s running for mayor of Fountain in November.

    Just another day in Fountain politics.

    In a city where municipal conflict has taken a personal and vindictive tone, Lender often clashes with Fountain’s mayor, other officials and some residents. The atmosphere can be raucous; since Lender took office, a police officer is stationed at every council meeting.

    Lender said he disclosed the arrest because it had been leaked — he thinks by city police officials.

    Lender was arrested in his native New London, Conn., in 1983 and pleaded guilty to cocaine possession and distribution, according to a court document he provided.

    He was released early from a medium-security jail for good behavior, he said. He blamed his addiction and arrest — at age 31 — on “hanging around with the wrong people.”

    “I was hooked, and I thank God within a short period of time I went to jail,” he said. “But I beat it. I changed my life around. I moved to Colorado to get away from all the trouble in my home state.”

    Shortly after he was elected in November 2003, details circulated about Lender’s 1997 conviction for assault in a fight with his daughter.

    He accused police of leaking it and Tuesday claimed former police chief John Morse ran his name through a national criminal history database to locate the Connecticut arrest.

    Morse, who resigned in October to head Silver Key Senior Services, called the allegation “bogus.”

    He said police conducted a background check on Lender but never ran his name through the national criminal database for convictions.

    “At that point, Mr. Lender was threatening city employees. He’d almost pushed a 63-year-old man down the steps at City Hall,” Morse said. “Mr. Lender has made accusations against me that have no truth to them whatsoever.”

    Morse said he didn’t know about Lender’s jail term until a resident informed him, more than a month after he had resigned.

    1. … but that’s a great example of criminal records you wouldn’t have to use NCIC to get. Tip that the guy had a record, and you know he’s from Connecticut? Not using an alias? Piece of cake.

      Incidentally, just like ALMOST ALL of the 152 notorious cases BB wanted to use to make points about Ritter’s plea-bargain record.

        If sufficient info is freely and legally available to make the public-policy point, then how does getting one more bit of info illegally feel justified or neccessary.

      Would someone be justified burglarizing the DA’s office to get copies of the plea bargains? Sure, it’s a bit more info, and could be juicy, but there’s already plenty on the table to argue the question of Ritter’s record on plea bargains.

      1. just wondering if the Governor called out the CBI, National Guard, FBI, and what have you. 

        Is the privacy of a Honduran national, illegally in the United States, more important than the privacy of a citizen of Colorado? 

        If one isn’t a big deal then how is the other?

        Or does this just reinforce the notional idea that there are several legal systems here in the America?

        By-the-way, your comments on Free Speech the other day were spot on.  They took my breath away.

  8. I really do find this whole hoo-ha about the database leak very unbecoming for democracy in the state of Colorado.  There’s a whole lot of really big issues on the table for voters.  I think we can all agree that this will indeed be a watershed election year where the course of politics and the ideological environment here will be set for many years down the road.

    And we’re talking about some silly leak which, although potentially illegal, affects in no way the Beauprez campaign or the substance of the ad.

    It reminds me about the mainstream media’s fascinating obsession with gay pedophiles.  We’re in the middle of a major war and the course of the country hinges on the election and instead of talking about those issues we’re all talking about gay pedophiles and database leakers.  Wow.

    Yes, I know, I know.  It’s a very very very very very serious crime to leak data from a database.  I know that he’ll probably get the death penalty if convicted.  I get that

    I also know that if it comes out that the entire Republican party including me and Ghecko turns out to have been just a bunch of gay pedophile enablers that we too are eligible for at least life in prison.  I get that.

    Or maybe nobody except the ever-sneaky mainstream media cares about a gay pedophile congressman.  And maybe the only people that care about this “scandalous leak” are the few lefties in the state who think this is a bonanza for their wholly unserious party with only a couple of weeks to go before election day.

    Here’s the catch: nobody cares about this stuff.  You’re just turning off voters of every political stripe with this silly scandal-mongering.  I understand that you’re concerned that if the public ever finds out about how the Democrats are largely a bunch of fruitcakes you’lll probably lose.  I understand.  But you’re crapping on the democratic system and it’s terribly unlovely.

    You can save the “don’t you respect the rule of law?” business.  Of course I do.  I question your respect.  When the New Gay Times (oops, the New YORK Times) leaks some really classified and important stuff that keeps the country safe, you’re celebrating journalistic excellence.  When someone leaks some info. about an illegal you freak out. 

    I think you’ll lose the election because of it.  I really do.  The voters know the Democrats are losing on the issues but doing fantastic with the scandals.  You’re fooling nobody.  Except, maybe, yourselves.

    1. Except you forgot that it was YOUR coyote who hauled the Acme safe up to the top of the cliff and tried to drop it on Ritter, tripped on the rope, fell, and had his own safe land on him.

      It’s only hoo-ha when it’s happening to your guy.  To the rest of us, it’s karma.

    2. I’m sorry, but you want to defend Beauprez.  Ritter at least did many ads about himself and what he is about.  What has Beauprez done.  Attacked Ritter either through his own campaign or through Trailhead or whatever names they have subsequently gone by.  Why has Beauprez only attacked Ritter instead of talking about his vision as Governor?  Because he has no vision.  He has nothing to offer.  His only accomplishments are gaining his first term in congress by an extremely thin margin, gaining his second term by smearing his opponent and, unlike this time, getting away with it and throughout his tenure in congress, being a rubberstamp for a President that is on his way to becoming remembered as one of the worst.  To err is human, to use information illegally is not.  Cory Voorhies is not a wistleblower.  A wistleblower would have gone to the authorities, not Bob Beauprez’s campaign manager.  This is the same strident bullshit that I have come to hear from Republicans and we have had enough of it.  Get used to that. 

      1. Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is a former American military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military’s account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. The release awakened the American people to how much they had been deceived by their own government about the war.

        As a Vietnam expert, Ellsberg was invited to contribute to the assemblage of classified papers regarding the execution of the Vietnam war. These documents later became collectively known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed the knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed a deep cynicism towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians.

        Ellsberg knew that releasing these papers would most likely result in a conviction and sentence of many years in prison. Throughout 1970, Ellsberg covertly attempted to convince a few sympathetic Senators (among them J. William Fulbright) to release the Pentagon Papers on the Senate floor, because a Senator cannot be prosecuted for anything he says on record before the Senate.

        When these efforts failed, Ellsberg, with the assistance of Anthony Russo, copied them and finally leaked the Pentagon Papers to Neil Sheehan at The New York Times. On June 13, 1971, the Times began publishing the first installment of the 7,000 page document. For 15 days, the Times was prevented from publishing its articles on the orders of the Nixon administration. However, the Supreme Court soon ordered publication to resume freely. Although the Times did not reveal Ellsberg as their source, he knew that the FBI would soon determine that he was the source of the leak. Ellsberg went underground, living secretly among like-minded people. He was not caught by the FBI, even though they were under enormous pressure from the Nixon Administration to find him.

        The Nixon administration also began a campaign to discredit Ellsberg. (From Wikipedia)

        1. Let me say this. Voorhis is nothing like Ellisburg.  You are comparing Ritter’s plea bargains to the Pentagon Papers?  Ellisburg went directly to the media and authorities.  He didn’t go directly to the campaign manager of an opposing campaign.  You do not go to a campaign to share information about a candidate’s opponent unless you want said opponent to lose and the candidate to win.  It wasn’t about seeking justice, it was about helping Beauprez to win or at least damage Ritter.

          Nobody will believe that Ritter let perps walk free knowing they would kill again.  His plea-bargain rate was as high as many Republican DA’s, John Suthers among them.  Suthers could have very well let some perp walk free that comitted another offense later.  Nobody can predict that kind of behavior.  And it is a problem.  It isn’t a problem with DA’s.  It is mor systemic than that. 

          I say to you again, Beauprez is slinging mud at Ritter because he can’t talk positively about himself because he has nothing to offer.  People are seeing this and this is why he will lose this race. 

          1. he’s had the opportunity to speak.  At least put politics aside long enough to extend him that courtesy.

            You don’t remember how the Ellsberg saga unfolded.  I do.  There are many similarities.  There always are in these cases.  Extend the man some charitable license here and allow him tell his story before you judge him.

            “Nobody will believe that Ritter let perps walk free knowing they would kill again.”

            It happens all the time.  15 murders a day happen in America, every day, just that way.  Prosecutors have become cold to it.

            Besides, you are probably very willing to believe that a President of the United States lied to the Congress in order to wage a war in which Americans are being killed.  What Ritter did is a small dust in comparison.  Why for you is one plausible and the other impossible?

            1. How many years back was this so-called reprehensible plea bargain negotiated?  Voorhis has had ample time to blow his whistle……time to enter judgment.

              1. You make a case against redemption, as if there was a statutory limit on it.

                Look at Ellsberg.  He tried other ways to bring out his information and, failing, finally found a vehicle to present it. 

                We, none of us here, knows Voorhis.  We should with humility grant the man the opportunity to speak on his own behalf, rather than poisoning the well of potential jurors by presenting our thoughts as his actions.

            2. “It happens all the time.  15 murders a day happen in America, every day, just that way.”

              Yes, human beings can sometimes be a sorry lot, and unfortunately we can’t legislate morality.  We have 300 million of us now in this country — the odds are there will be  lot of bad apples in that bunch.  No amount of money, law or sufficient jail space will change that.  If this has been burning in Cory’s belly for three years, well, what can we say — there has been plenty of time to do something illegal (I refuse to consider this particular act “whistleblowing”)to expose the practice.  Let’s call this what it is:  illegal as the law is written.  If you don’t like the law — or the way it’s administered — then change it through the legislature.  Beuaprez’s righteous indignigation and coddling of a felonous act is an offense to me and a large section of the Colorado Republican party.

              1. But I come from a more idealistic time than do you.  Reform is only impossible when we say it is, give up, and then move on.  What would the civil rights movement have been like with that thinking?

                For the rest, see above.

                It is a disgrace that Voorhis’ name was leaked.  A disgrace that he is being tried in public, in the midst of a hotly partisan political campaign, that he is being tried before given the opportunity to present a defense.  He hasn’t even been charged with a crime yet and here is presented as guilty. 

                Not the way it is supposed to work.  But then, I’m an idealist.

                    1. I meant the “brotherhood” that has been written about in this thread — the same CBI that our Governor Owens instructed to “expedite” the investigation.

                1. Comparing this to the civil rights movement is a little off the chart.  Beauprez is no Martin Luther King and Voohis has never had to sit in the back of the bus — although he may feel like that now — from his own doing.  If he is passionate enough about this “outing”, then he can accept the consequences as part of the crusade to change things.  Let’s don’t coddle him on one hand and villify him on the other.  He knew what he was doing when he accessed the material.  If he didn’t mean for the Beaupez camp to use this information politically (which seems like an incredulous thought) then shame on Beauprez for politicizing it.

                  1. Read again:

                    “Reform is only impossible when we say it is, give up, and then move on.  What would the civil rights movement have been like with that thinking?”

                    I was commenting on your statement:

                    “No amount of money, law or sufficient jail space will change that.”

                    The issue we were originally speaking of was the 15 murders a day by convicted criminals released on government supervision.

                    See how spin tends to get away from the issue at hand?

                    1. Your comment”  15 murders a day by convicted criminals released on goverment supervision.  My comment:  No amount of money, law or sufficient jail space will change that (“that” being the ability to absolutely control the actions of a person bent on breaking the law)

                    2. not the public at large.  Certainly there are reforms that can be made.

                      The federal/inter-state compact would treat prison places on the national level and would put violent offenders ahead of non-violent for placement.  An integrated national database (NCIC is actually a joke) that properly tracked warrants is another. 

                      There’s a lot that can be done, but first you have to admit failure and say you want to do better.  Sort of like Iraq.

            3. You really like comparing apples to oranges.  The problem of plea bargains is systemic.  It is not a fault of Ritter or any other DA.  There are so many cases to be tried that those that don’t seem as serious usually get reduced sentences.  I am willing to believe that the President lied to get us into Iraq, which is in large part based on an illegal action on his part.  CIA leak anybody?  If DA’s become cold to this stuff, then the problem is systemic.  It isn’t a problem with Bill Ritter, it is a problem with the system.  And as other posters have noted, the timing is really suspect.  Why let this slide for 3 years?  If it is such a problem for Voorhies, why does it not come out earlier?  You ask me to put politics aside and yet you defend the consummate politician, Bob Beauprez.  Whom it is obvious that he does not have any values, beyond the value of power for himself and for his party.  If that means cutting down an opponent when he has nothing truly positive to say about himself then so be it.  That is his motto and it is what you are defending.

              1. And the fact that it is difficult for government (especially the federal government) to respond to local disasters, these are systemic problems too.  So is no one to be held accountable?

                The lengths to which you will go to defend your precious god are quite remarkable.  I am not defending Beauprez, but you cannot see that because to question in any way the mythology of your god amounts to a blasphemy.  I really do hope you are working for this guy, because you should be.  It would make some sense then.

                Regarding Voorhis.  Let him tell his story.  Don’t do it for him.  You would expect the same courtesy.

                1. …that individual DA’s have to deal with every year are over 1,000, and that is a conservative estimate. DA’s do not have time to try all or even half of those cases.  So they try the most heinous ones.  I am sure that they have tough decisions to make regarding who to try and who to plead out.  That is a systemic problem.  That is not something that you can lay at Bill Ritter’s feet.  Beauprez attacked Dave Thomas two years ago for a 73% plea-bargain rate.  And that was lower than almost everywhere else in the state. 

                  As for New Orleans, you again show your fondness for comparing apples to oranges.  The problem of fixing the levees was a relatively simple albeit not easy. This is more complex.  You cannot blame one DA for the problems and consequences of plea bargains. 

                  I do not consider Ritter a God, nor do I work for him.  I firmly believe that he would be a good Governor.  Far better than Beauprez. 

                  Regarding Voorhies, if he had gone to the media directly first and we had heard about all this from our local news before it appeared in a Beauprez campaign ad, I would be more inclined to listen to him, at which point I would make my own determination.  He didn’t go to the media.  He went to John Marshall and this whole thing was brokend by an ad paid for by Beauprez for Governor.  He had his chance and he blew it. 

                  1. The problem of securing from flood a major city laying below sea level in a hurricane belt is “relatively simple”?  Do you know anything at all about it? 

                    You argue that Bill Ritter should not be held accountable for his decisions as District Attorney.  Who should we hold accountable for Bill Ritter’s decisions as DA — the Mayor, the police, the victims for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

                    Your worship of this man is extraordinary.  I once loved a girl like that, but can claim adolescence as an aggravating circumstance.

                    You don’t even want to consider a reform and can’t conceive that the object of your devotion could make an error.  Wow, and wow again.

                    And as for Voorhis, you have found him guilty already and don’t even want to hear what he has to say.  Don’t even want to give him the opportunity.  A bit lynch mob, don’t you think?

                    Finally, drop the “apples to oranges” clichГ©.  It’s overdone.

                    1. So, since I think Ritter is still more qualified to be Governor than Beauprez, I worship him like a God.  And because I feel that Voorhies blew his chance by going to Beauprez and not the media, that I am not giving hime one.

                      Okay.  Fine.  Rant on.  You can believe whatever you wish.  You seem incapable of having an adult conversation.  So, fine.  I am done.  Get as indignant as you want to get.  It seems to be what you’re good at. 

                    2. But you do seem incapable of making an independent judgment where Bill Ritter is concerned.  He has made mistakes, grave errors, where some plea bargains are concerned.  He has also prosecuted many cases well, as he was paid to do, and these are to his credit.

                      I never disputed that Bill Ritter is more qualified to be Governor than Beauprez.  After all, Ritter has held an executive public office.  You seem to take any attempt to question Ritter’s record very personally.

                      I very much oppose the current system of plea bargaining and have done so for many years.  This issue puts me at odds with anyone who defends that system.  But I do recognize that a candidate for Governor must be judged on a wider spectrum of issues.

                      Now listen to yourself regarding Voorhis.  He blew his chance by not going to the media?  How do you know he didn’t?  Don’t make these assumptions.  I understand that there was a reporter working on this story some time ago.  Because of ill health, it was never completed.  Who tipped him off?

                      It’s better to wait, listen and learn.  At this stage, we really don’t have enough to make an informed opinion of Mr. Voorhis.  Hell, we haven’t even heard from him yet.  Give it time.

    3. Yo! FFF (and trust me there are three other initials which come immediately to mind after reading your post)  the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants Freedom to the Press…”.Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of the press…..” .See it is in the Constiution of the United States…The Constitution of the United States DOES NOT grant freedom to break the law to a federal employee in order to promote a political candidate.  So for example, the Constitution of the United States PROTECTS the right of the New York Times to publish anything it wants to. If the publication is libelous, there are legal remedies.

      The so-called leak, and remember, this so-called leak is entitled to the presumption of innocence (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States…..unless you, as an American citizen,  are declared an enemy combatant by the Executive and then  you lose rights under this Amendment….unless the Supreme Court declares the latest law unconstitutional)  did NOT leak to the press…which could have published this information WITHOUT revealing its source….nor did this so-called leak, whomever it may turn out to be, did NOT take the information to his Congressman or Beauprez for further investigation….did NOT ask Beauprez to request Congressional hearings into plea bargining of illegal immigrants….an very important issue which Congress should have investigated in relationship to the role of the federal agency ICE…

      The practice of the Republicans has been to systemically undermine the Constitution of the United States. PERIOD.  The pattern is to ignore the law, to pass law which undermine Constitutional principles and by word, always, to denegrate the Independent judiciary. I wish to hell you and people like you who hate my  country because of its Constitution would get the hell out of my country.

      1. These matters will be worked out there, if it comes to that.  But as with Ellsberg and the Vietnam War, cold legality is no assurance of morality.

        “The practice of the Republicans has been to systemically undermine the Constitution of the United States. PERIOD.”

        I see you are a partisan in this.  Very well.  But making such broad and ridiculous statements cannot serve your cause.  I suppose you would have argued that the Republican Party was founded on an idea, the goal of which was to undermine the Constitution of the United States — namely, the abolition of slavery.

        1. You see in this country, when there is a problem with the Constitution, and there have been many, we AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.  The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments abolished slavey and laid the groundwork for federal protection of civil rights for all; and voting rights for men….The Constitution was subsequently amended to give the franchise to women.

          If you are so-called pro-life and the Constitution says that a woman has an absolute right to an abortion in the first trimester and the state can intervene in the subsequent months of her pregnancy to protect “developing life of the fetus” as long as the life and the health of the mother is protected and you disagree with this Supreme Court ruling,  then, you work to amend the Constitution.  The Republicans have had  control in the House and Senate and White House and have absolutely failed to even attempt to amend the Constitution to protect any life before birth.

          Instead we get bogus laws which are carefully crafted not to meet Constitutional muster because they ignore the mandate to protect the health of the mother and when the Courts find such laws unconstitutional, the Republican unleash vicious ugly attacks on the independent judiciary….which is a direct threat to the Constitution.

          That is what I am talking about.  What BWB has done in this case is simply to ignore the law.  Just ignore it. Like your president bush did when he wire tapped without going through the courts, specifically  established to give the executive that kind of permission.  Ignoring the law is another way to destroy the Constitution….

          1. He’s as much yours as mine.  Arguably more so, because you were born here.  But if you mean to say that I support him, you haven’t been reading what I write.

            Haven’t you learned by now that the judiciary itself can be a direct threat to the Constitution?  For years we cheered the judiciary when it ruled our way.  It gained and grew in power.  And then in 2000, it took the power and appointed a President.  Your President.  Our President, even though 500,000 more of us voted against him than voted for him.

            Then to top it off, they stood by while the Senate violated the Constitution and let him go to war with out a formal declaration by Congress.

            You do like to jump the gun.  There has been no trial to establish who broke the law.  You start out here sounding so fine citing this amendment and that, and I am enticed for the moment, but then you throw it all away by pronouncing on guilt and innocence.  More humility is in order.

            1.   The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is….that is it…the Constitution has no ability to enforce or define itself. You make excellent points, but we live in the real world not Harry Potter’s magic land. If the Court makes a decision with which citizens disagree, there are two options: Amend the Constitution or continue to press the issue with appeals to the Court of other like cases with stronger arguments to force.  To ignore the law or exploit its unpopularity is to undermine the Constitution…

              Elsewhere, I stressed the fact that the leak is innocent until proven guilty.
              What Beauprez did was to ignore the law.  He did not acknowledge, in his press release. that there is a law governing the information he used in his ad.
              And, he blurred the provisions of the First Amendment which specifically refer to the press and attempted to drape himself in its protections.  As an elected official, he has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. His actions did not reflect that.

    4. “Here’s the catch: nobody cares about this stuff.”  Here’s the catch, FFF……voters do care very much about “this stuff.”  They care whether their children are being molested by gay Republican peodphiles (i.e., Mark Foley) or by straight Republican pedophiles (i.e., Randy Ankeney).

  9. They spent 40% of their column space talking about Bob and his cows, and how “if he could, he would still be there with them”…..UNTIL, Daddy BigBucks comes along and he can make a mint turning his farm into roof-tops (yes, that’s a grand plan for all of rural Colorado, Bob).  Then, he’s approached with a business deal to buy into a struggling community bank.  Bob thinks it’s a great idea because community-owned banks play such a critical role in local economic development.  That’s all well and good, UNTIL a mega-corp from New Mexico offers his bank the equivalent of $16.2mm to sell out (READ:  NO more local, community bank — the very flavor of bank he said was so important). 

    Does anyone get the idea there isn’t anything he wouldn’t sell out for?

    I don’t have a problem with Bob being a nut-cutting, hard-nosed business man….but let’s call a spade a spade.  He is not a “man of the land” and when it means $$ to himself he will sell out.  He claims he needed to “sell-out” so he wouldn’t have any conflicts of interests with him as Governor … or in some other policital position.  The primary between him and Allard in ’08 ought to be interesting.

    1.   As amusing as a primary between Beauprez and Allard in ’08 would be (and it would be a hoot with Mark Udall getting the biggest laugh), I don’t see it happening.
        After the drubbing Both Ways is going to experience on Nov. 7th, I suspect that he and “Mommy” are going to retire from politics and go home to count their earnings from the sale of their bank. 
        Allard’s big concern should be one of the right wing nuts (probably Tancredo) and perhaps a three-way primary race with a rational, presentable moderate-conservative (maybe Scott McGinnis, maybe Bill Owens).

  10. …but you can’t take Washington out of the man.

    Does anyone see the parallel between Dubya “you’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie” and Beauprez “he’s an heroic individual”.  Katrina v. Governor’s race.  Priceless!

    1. ~ Legal Advise for John Marshall  $10,000

      ~ 100,000 mailers mistakenly printed and mailed out with Andrew Romanoff’s picture as Bill.  $25,000

      ~ “Remedial Math Class” for Bob  $600

      ~ Elk Whisperer lessons  $2,000

      ~ Language School to acquire a true Southern drawl.  $12,000

      ~ Dry Cleaning for Flight Suit (Used Once)  $7

      ~ Standing next to a horse’s ass,wearing a beaver blend black hat,scooping poop with a pitch fork waiting on the FBI to call for an interrogation into your criminal activities.  Priceless ~

      1. I think I’ll write to the Senate Judiciary Committee about this.  The law must be applied fairly and equally.  Just because Bill Ritter is law enforcement and Lender isn’t shouldn’t matter.  There must be some oversight.  Yes, the Judiciary Committee.

        1. Other than Lender’s own claim?

          In Beauprezgate, the smoking gun was the fact that it was impossible for anyone to connect the different aliases other than to use the NCIC.

          I would think that Bill Owens would be siccing the CBI on the Lender case as soon as possible if there were anything to it.

          1. But his claim was enough to launch this investigation.  It is the job of the CBI/FBI to gather proof.

            “In Beauprezgate, the smoking gun was the fact that it was impossible for anyone to connect the different aliases other than to use the NCIC.”

            How do you know that?  Because you accept the gospel according to Evan.  But you can’t be sure.  Unless, of course, you work for the CBI or FBI yourself.  In which case, why are you here?

            No, this is just a case of law enforcement’s “old boys” taking seriously something that affects one of their own and pushing-off something that might get one of their own in trouble. 

            Remind me again, how many police officers did Bill Ritter charge and convict for unlawful killing?  The old boys look out for each other.

            1. the claims in Beauprez’ ad, using publicly available information.

              Was that also the case with information about Lender?

              Have you asked the FBI to investigate the Lender matter?  Have you asked Bill Owens to ask them?  If not, why not?

              1. I thought the CBI handled that, or the FBI.  It was on the front page.  Are you arguing that the best way to obscure a crime is to publish?

                “Wanted.  Mules to take cocaine across border.  Bonuses.  Will train.  Call nights.”

                1. You said:

                  Was there any proof, other than Evan Dreyer’s claim?
                  But his claim was enough to launch this investigation.

                  I responded by pointing out that media had been unable to confirm the claims in Beauprez’ ad using publicly available information.

                  Have you asked the FBI to investigate the other alleged illegal use of the NCIC database you claim to be so upset about?  Have you asked Bill Owens to do so?

                  1. However, I do take your point and will make inquiries and contact this week.

                    As for the Voorhis case, there has already been too much political and media involvement.  Leaking the man’s name at the very start of the FBI investigation didn’t help that investigation.  It is the usual prosecution by media circus that Colorado has become known for.

                  2. Do they keep a stable of private investigators, or do they rely on leaks and sources?

                    I seem to recall that a major figure in media, Mr. Dan Rather, completely botched his fact checking of a major story.  The press is not the police.  They shouldn’t be a player in a criminal investigation.  Neither should a political campaign.

                    The Voorhis case has been propelled by a toxic mix of politics and media, and calls into question just how or where this case could go to trial.  If he is charged, how could he get a fair trial now in Colorado?

        1. ~Sell your dairy farm to local developers:  $1.2 million

          ~Defend self in Consumer Fraud Case before Colorado Appellate Court:  $100,000

          ~Buy interest in local bank to save community centerpiece:
          $1.1 million

          ~Buy flowers to plant at front door of new bank:  $12

          ~Two congressional elections:  $(paid for by someone else)

          ~Bush comes to town, you get:  $300,000, raise $22,000 on your own.

          ~Opponent fundraising in same period (sans Bush money):  $365,000

          ~Sell community bank to New Mexico Corporation:  $16.2 million

          ~Have to prop up your own campaign in the last two weeks of the election season with a $50,000 personal loan:

          PRICELESS

      1. And if you do, they call you a shill or — what was that kindness someone bestowed a week or so ago — oh, yes, a “jerkoff”.  Yes, it’s a nice bunch here.  I guess I really am a nonconformist.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

44 readers online now

Newsletter

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