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

50%

50%

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

52%↑

48%↓

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 22, 2006 05:42 PM UTC

Consensus View: Good Move For Beauprez, Who Remains Screwed

  • 40 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

On Friday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez answered the charges that he should have answered definitively a week ago.

Beauprez, as you all know, claimed Friday that the source of information for his recent attack ad on Democratic opponent Bill Ritter—information that investigators have determined was obtained in violation of federal law—was an “American hero” immigration agent who got involved because he was “fed up” with Ritter’s “lax” policies in dealing with criminal immigrants. Though Beauprez refused to identify the source by name, the press has confirmed that the subject of the investigation is one Cory Voorhis, an ICE agent based in Denver.

On Friday, Beauprez did the only thing he really could do in this very bad situation: he appealed to the “whistleblower” in all of us, the feeling we all get that sometimes the law isn’t doing its job. Many have noted the parallels between Beauprez’s claim about the need to get this information out there, even illegally, as a ‘public interest’ and the national Republican strategy of supporting harsh (even illegal) tactics in the War on Terror—to distinguish themselves from Democrats who “aren’t willing to do what it takes to protect Americans.”

If that argument horrifies you, it’s because it wasn’t aimed at your demographic. It works on a large percentage of Americans whether you like it or not. It may indeed work well enough for Beauprez in this situation to render it a net wash for him: certainly no bounce can be expected at this point, but his already bleak standing in the polls may not suffer further. It was a pretty good move.

The biggest problem for Beauprez’s campaign is that it took them a week to deal with a situation that they themselves created. The Beauprez campaign has lost a whole week of meaningful campaigning, three weeks from Election Day, while responding to this scandal. And while Beauprez was negatively on the front page of the news practically every day this past week, thousands of absentee ballots were marked and returned. There’s no way to “recover” from that.

Another problem for Beauprez is the fact that the whole crisis was avoidable. The most incriminating statements regarding the Beauprez campaign’s unauthorized access to these federal records came out of Beauprez’s own mouth, as well as his campaign manager John “I’m a Blathering Idiot” Marshall. There’s no way this situation would have escalated so rapidly if Marshall hadn’t flat-out told a reporter that they got the information from a source it’s illegal to get stuff from. Then Beauprez and Marshall made the situation worse by backpedaling on that statement and stonewalling all inquiries for a week.

The Ritter campaign has not enjoyed dealing with this scandal, but they have successfully avoided the pitfalls of engaging the underlying questions about Ritter’s DA record by keeping their message focused on the Beauprez camp’s alleged violation of the law. Their response to this situation is commendable from a purely gamesmanship point of view. Ritter, unlike Beauprez, hired people to run his campaign who know when to keep their mouths shut.

Don’t forget that in addition to it being a crime to access the NCIC database for unauthorized purposes, it is also a crime to receive those records without authorization. That means Marshall and others in the Beauprez campaign are not out of the legal woods yet, even if Voorhis steps forward and tries to take the fall. Yesterday’s Rocky Mountain News reported that the CBI/FBI investigation is now expanding to other attacks from the Beauprez campaign that may have utilized this protected information, just like we predicted it would last week. If the ongoing investigation reveals new instances of lawbreaking by Beauprez’s campaign, the blunting of this crisis Beauprez hoped to get out of his dramatic press conference on Friday may not happen. And every day this scandal remains the focus of the Colorado governor’s race is a nail in Beauprez’s coffin.

Tweet
Share

Comments

40 thoughts on “Consensus View: Good Move For Beauprez, Who Remains Screwed”

    1. A couple of days ago, on the thread that discusses Beauprez’s defense of the whistle blower, I said:

      Beauprez’s statement will make a lot of sense to Republican and conservative unaffiliated voters, but it will be trashed by Ritter supporters and defense attorneys.
      Beauprez should have gone the next step and called for reform of the criminal justice system in two ways. First, formalize and set rules for plea bargains so DAs can[‘t] give the store away. And, second, make all criminal databases at the state and federal levels open to the public on the Internet.

      Coloradopols agrees with my first sentence, and in its lead editorial today, the Rocky agrees with the fourth.

      I continue to wonder about the second. How can and should plea bargaining be reformed, or should it?

      The point is that Ritter’s mishandling of illegal AND legal immigrants made it less likely they would be deported, and, MOST IMPORTANT, many weren’t and went on to commit more crimes.

      Ritter apologists can say illegals could have been deported anyway if ICE had done it’s job. True. But they can’t dispute that deportion of the illegals would have been much more likely if he hadn’t given them safe plea bargains. And if he hadn’t protected the legal immigrants accused of crimes, they would be gone, too.

      Bottomline, Ritter allowed illegal and legal immigrants accused of crimes to plea bargain their ways out of deportation, and that was wrong and immoral, giving voters substantial reasons to question his qualifications to be governor.

      1. Ritter could no more plea bargain away an illegal’s deportation than you or I could land on Jupiter.  I think we all agree, the criminal system could use some overhauling — but that is going to mean higher taxes for all of us to deal with this issue.  Thank God the nut jobs like Lamborn who want to be in charge—won’t be. 

      2. You sound just like him.

        He lives in your district; voted for Tancredo, again. Although he voted for Ritter.  Voted against domestic partnership. Against 38th.

        I think, as someone mentioned below, this was Beauprez’s plan for his boost before the election.  Unfortunately, I don’t think they counted on the mistakes made previously. 

        The talk of plea bargaining reform posted here recently is interesting and made a nice diversion from the shill-o-rama during the primaries, for that, Mr. Beauprez, I thank you.

        Andy Bradshaw and you, Skeptic, have written fairly passionately about the wrongs in the system.  I agree but also think that the criminal justice system in Colorado isn’t about ready to be reformed – whether you/we want it to or not.  I may not know much, but I’ve seen enough courtrooms and statehouses to know that much

        IMHO, reforming the criminal justice system is like reforming immigration.  Any true reform for both requires change in tertiary systems (jails, agents, visa reform…) the likelihood our government will get it right is, what, 50/50?  So we leave it as is…for now…

  2. Ellsberg was a hero to the left and traitor to the right for releasing the Pentagon Papers.

    Voorhis will be a hero to the right and a criminal to the left because this helps BWB.

    If the person takes the penalty for releasing info like this, then it is basically a form of civil disobedience and that is part of our system. So let that fall out as it should.

    As to BWB & Marshall being brain-dead in how they used it and what they said – well I’ld say that is working out just fine.

    Any way we can get John Marshall to go run MM’s campaign?

    1. argument if Voorhis had gone to the press. In that case, I would have taken his actions as the principled move of a principled man. I even might have gone along if he had given it to Beauprez and Beauprez had fiven it to the press. The smell arises when it is “severl months” (as stated by the beauprez campaign) before the information is released in campaign ads. Very effective POLITICAL move but nit one reiforcing the principles fo the case. For all I know, Voorhis may have brought the data to the Beauprez campaign expecting them to have the media spotlight and ability to get the press covering the case – good for him. But if that is the case, the actions of the Beauprez campaign become worse – not better.

      So, conclusion – I may end up accepting the Voorhis “whistleblower” argument IF Voorhis comes out and states that his objective was to use the Beauprez campaign as a media outlet – not a political tool. Might even get him off the hot seat with the FBI. If he backs the Beauprez actions, he looks like a hack and probably gets jammed with a criminal charge. If he disavows the Beauprez actions, Beauprez gets the auto-nailer treatment on the coffin.

      Be interesting to see how this plays in the next seven days.

      1. I would not be surprised to find a flow of money. As you said, if this had been a real whistleblower, then he would have given this to the press. More importantly, he would have ran numbers to show that Ritter’s record is different than somebody like Suther’s, who does more pleas than does Ritter. And having access to the DB makes it trivial to show what the status of pleas are. IOW, does Ritter have a 100% bad pleas (not likely), or near 100% of them are good (also not likely). What I find funny is that a certain number of pleas will be bad for any DA. But without a reference, then it could be that these are the only ones.

        1. of civil disobedience. Not only for all the reasons cited above (slipping illegally obtained info to a candidate who sits on it until it’ll do the most political damage) but because civil disobedients STAND UP and TAKE CREDIT and WELCOME ARREST for their actions.

          Rosa Parks didn’t hide behind lawyers when she wouldn’t move to the back of the bus. Nuclear nuns don’t perform their civil disobedience in the dead of night and cross their fingers no one will connect them to the actions they’ve performed. Solidarity protests didn’t stand up to communist Poland in secret. Pro-life abortion protesters don’t blockade clinics under cover of anonymity and furtive emails. Martin Luther King marched in full view of the nation and went to a Birminghan jail proudly.

      1. My only point was that people tend to think positivly of people who leak/whistleblow/civil disobedient on things they support and call it something else when it’s for something they do not support.

        I hope Ritter beats BWB. And the fact this guy took it to the campaign does not reflect well on him.

        But would all of us on the left be equally upset if someone took something like this to AP about MM and it gave AP the boost to win???

        1. … except that what Voorhis did isn’t by any stretch of the imagination “whistleblowing” or “civil disobedience” (see multiple posts on multiple threads, my own included) — it’s a grotesque distortion of those laudible actions, and when the BB apologists turn the dispute into one involving those phrases, they’re half way home.

          As mentioned in another post, civil disobedience has a rich tradition on all sides of the political divide — including Rosa Parks, pro-life abortion protesters, Martin Luther King and the Solidarity movement in Poland. The difference being, civil disobedients CLAIM their action, take RESPONSIBILITY for it, don’t HIDE behind anonimity and DO THE TIME. That’s essential to civil disobedience.

          What we have here is simple Nixon-Rove league dirty tricks with an illegal activity at its heart. That’s all.

  3. A couple of polls have shown Beauprez down by no more than 3%.  Other polls have shown him down by double-digits but we haven’t seen any other polls in a couple of weeks.  The latest poll was Zogby’s 2-point deficit. 

    If you guys want to write this thing off early, by all means, go for it!  But strategically, that would be terribly stupid.  When there’s a poll out, no matter whose it is, that shows you up only by 2 when you know that the GOP’s GOTV is much better, you’re smart to play as if it’s even.  Let’s face it, we really have no idea what the real numbers look like.

    I know that it’s elephants not donkeys that have long memories, but remember two years ago?  Right about noon a huge gasp came forth from team GOP when early exit polls showed Frenchie doing quite well.  Nobody expected THAT.  The NPR crowd thought they were living the dream.

    But of course it was all premature.  It’s premature to right off a Republican in a red state.  At the end of the day Mark Foley and Cory Vorhees will matter much much less than the issues and candidates.

    1. I’ll take the poll of the locals at the coffee shop:  My father (in his 70’s), who lives in rural eastern Colorado and has NEVER voted for a Democrat in his life, has come to the conclusion he can no longer support the Republican party.  His views are shared by a lot of his life-long friends in his small community.  Here’s where I think the Democratic party is today:  They have convinced life-long Republicans like my father and myself that we’re going to go out on a limb and support the Dem’s this year and see if they really will fulfill their promise TO LEAD.  We’re watching them closely — and the Dem’s opportunity (both from the state and national level) will be to draw a significant portion of moderate R’s and Unaffilitated’s into the party if they “walk the talk”. 

      1. I’ve heard that meme enough already. “Oh, my best friend’s girlfriend’s parents’ cousin who is, like, the most conservative guy I know and has never voted Democrat has decided to vote against the GOP.”

        Yeah right.  There’s always crossovers for both parties.  There are tons and tons of Reagan and 9/11 Democrats out there who will vote Republican.  They will even vote for Beauprez.  I’ve talked to plenty of registered Democrats who will be voting Republican.  It means nothing, really.

        If there was a credible alternative to the GOP, maybe I’d take you seriously.  But the Democrats?

        Let’s assume that I’m a pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-war (but I think Bush has mishandled the war thus far), pro-tax cut, anti-immmigration farmer from the Eastern plains.  If I’m that guy, I’m pretty pissed at the Republicans.  I’m more hawkish than the president on the war–I want more troops and I want bombs.  I think they haven’t done enough to protect the unborn and they pandered the marriage amendment instead of taking it seriously enough to make it a major highlight of their legislative platform.  I am appalled at the size of government and I am outraged that we haven’t closed the damn borders. (In fact, that is me except that I live in the ‘burbs).

        So what do I do?  Maybe I don’t vote, except, that will de facto hand the reigns over to the Democrats, who scare the hell out of me.  I can vote Democrat.  But because they are the party of cut and run, the party of death, the party of big government, and the party of amnesty, that would make no sense at all.

        Or I can do what I presume most will do–suck it up and vote for the GOP with the promise that if you screw this one up–you’re outta here!

        1. Have you been deluding yourself of that for the past 6 years.  Suck it and vote against you interests, your values, your morality for the most corrupt party in American history.

          These people are not Republicans, but rather liars, thieves, and apologists.

          1. Because no Democrat has ever stuffed millions in his freezer and whacked at police officers on the Hill.  Please.  We all know politics is a dirty business and many in it are terribly corrupt.  It’s bipartisan, really.  I may be voting for a considerably imperfect party, but only a vote for the Democrats would be against my interests and morality.

            2. Waged a war that has now gone on longer than WW2 — untold deaths and casualites with no end in sight.  Energy dependence that sucks the life out of our world leadership capabilities, a health care crisis and a friggin’ national debt that is fast approaching $10 trillion.  As for this Republican — I’m going to give the other side a shot for a couple of years. 

              1. At the state level, take a look at the bills vetoed by Owens.  If you support the Dem agenda set forth over the past two years and are upset that Owens vetoed their bills, vote Dem. If you agreed with the vetoes and don’t want the Dems to have a blank check, vote R.

                1. I’m a social justice Republican.  I doubt the world would have come tumbling down if Owens hadn’t vetoed most of them.  We had a huge budget surplus in this state not long ago and out Republican-controlled legislature, enabled by the Governor, spent the money — right down to the penny — like drunken sailors.  Then they show up last session and try to put a “Rainy Day Fund” in place to make it look like they were the fiscal conservatives and the Dem’s that are out of control.  These guys couldn’t balance a check book if their lives depended on it.  And I’m not ready to buy the “if the Dems are in control they’ll spend us into oblivioin”.  There is so much of our state budget that is on autopilot — nobodoy’s going to have an “open checkbook” that amounts to much, and it’s only the citizens of this state that can decide whether to raise taxes or not.  I’ll give these guys a chance — if they prove me wrong there is always ’08.

        2. I mean come on – the Republican party is so far from the items you listed that the Democrats may very well give you more of what you want.

          Reduced spending – Democrats.

          More competent handling of Iraq – Democrats (or Libertarians or Greens or my dog).

          Better control of the borders – probably Democrats

          Less corruption (notice I didn’t say none) – Democrats (until they’ve been in power for 20 years).

          A logical conservative would definitely at least consider the Democrats. Only a knee-jerk Republican would not.

        3. 9/11 Democrats?

          What does that even mean?  We’re we all affect by 9/11 or just Republicans and Democrats who sided with the President after going to war with Iraq?  That is one of the worst attacks, almost at the same level as DICK Cheney, in calling someone’s love for country into question over 9/11.  You are quite the DICK as well.

    2. By Frenchie, do you mean John Kerry.  John Kerry who was born at Fitzsimmons Army Hospital in 1943 because his father was serving in WWII?
      John Kerry who served honorably in Vietnam? John Kerry, who following the mandate which came out of the Nurnberg Trials, spoke honestly to Congress about what happened and what he did when he was in Vietnam? 

      Is that who you are calling Frenchie?  You are anti American and anti Constitution and you and your ilk are destroying my country.

    3. only confirms the old adage about people who assume.
      But of course, we already know that about FFF.  Republicans as well as unaffiliated voters and Democrats are sick and tired of the Republican culture of corruption.  And Beauprez/RowlandGate just reinforces voters perception of Republicans as the party of criminals.
      The Republican party has found a formula to snare the blind sheep like FFF.  It is evident that their “be afraid….be very afraid” spew has filled the vast void between FFF’s ears.
        Evidently, this Republican party borrowing more money that all the previous congresses and presidents combined is what FFF likes.  Evidently, FFF does not mind giving in to bin Laden through Bush’s usurping of our own civil rights.  Evidently, FFF does not mind the constant flood of lies coming out of the White House and the Republican congress.  Evidently, FFF does not mind that thousands of brave, young Americans have to give up their lives for Bush’s failed policies.  But the rest of America does mind.  And it will be reflected on November 7.

      As a veteran with many years of active military service and someone who has a much loved family member serving in Iraq, I encourage everyone to read what Kevin Tillman wrote about his brother Pat’s death and this Republican leadership.

      http://www.truthdig….

      “Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.” В  Kevin Tillman

  4. I don’t understand why the ICE agent is pissed about the DA’s plea bargining.
    I honestly don’t get it. If someone can be deported because he or she is illegal and that decision rests with ICE; why is Ritter to blame because these illegals are not deported? Is there a triage going on? Does ICE only deport for certain kinds of convections?  Is there a memo of understanding between ICE and certain DAs about who gets deported and who does not.  Where is the public record? If such practices exist, then the press and/or the Ritter campaign or the Beauprez campaign ought to be making FOIA requests to get that out in the open.

    Absent such records or understanding, could someone please explain why a federal agent is blaming a county DA for what the federal agency won’t do?
    I really do not get it.

    1. The ICE agent isn’t mad about the case he sent the Beaurpez camp… I think that is clear. Rather, he is a partisan who thinks that Bob Beauprez will crack down on illegal immigration more than Bill Ritter. So he dug up some information that he thought might be useful to the Beauprez camp and gave it to them. How much of this information came out because Marhsall asked for it will have to be determined by the authorities.

  5. Regardless of which party you belong to or how you feel about either candidate, regardless of whether you are looking for an October surprise (which I suppose BWB thought he had but it blew up on him), BWB was down in the polls last week and is still down in the polls.  Whether it’s 3 points or 17 points I can’t say.  It’s probably safe to say the margin is somewhere between those two end members.  Maybe 10 or so, who knows?  When it comes to Colorado politics, Ciruli’s numbers are as good as any, particularly when they fall in the middle of the range of the others.

    When you’re down in the polls with 3 weeks to go, you simply can’t afford to lose a week.  That’s what happened to BWB last week.  So regardless of whether you buy into the “whistleblower,” “rogue cop,” or “incompetent campaign” arguments, BWB has lost a week he could ill afford to lose.

    The incident itself might not have hurt him, but a week of spinning his wheels, not getting traction, not getting his message out (whatever it is), certainly did.

    Time to update the Line.  Governor Ritter.

  6. It is amazing how the press fails to pick up the obvious.
    Cory Vorhis is a Republican activist who is drawn to the most far out right wing candidates. Vorhis has donated to numerous Republicans including Mike Kopp the darling of the extreme right who defeated well regarded Republican Kiki Traylor in the primary. Vorhis did not leak the information out of a sense of civic duty. He leaked the information to further the right wing Republican agenda.

  7. 1. As a local Denver prosecuter pointed out to me, a 95% Conviction Rate would look good on any prosecuter’s record so that “Plea Bargain” rate starts looking better from that perspective.

    2. Shouldn’t there be a discussion of just why this and other plea bargains occur?  Unreliable witness, not enough evidence, or other features that make for a tough case to prove in court?  Wouild you expect any prosecuter to walk away from a sure thing?

    3.  Beauprez and the Trailhead Group whether working together or independently can only find 152 cases out of the multi-thousands procecuted during Ritter’s term in office?  That is a vanishingly small percentage!

    4.  These case occurred years before the Republicans decided to whip up the dogs of hate agains brown people and “illegal immigrants”. Why does nobody bring up the fact that the increase in immigration has correlated exactly with the Bush policy of eliminating enforcement of immigration laws affecting employers?

  8. My oh my!  Is this like Kos Day on Coloradopols?

    First for clarification: a 9/11 Democrat is somebody whose assumptions of the world were jolted out of place and into the Republican party after 9/11.  Sort of like a neo-neo-con.  There’s many of them.  Leave Boulder sometime and you might meet a few.

    I also never said that a conservative shouldn’t consider voting Democrat.  It’s just that that consideration lasts about five seconds before reality smacks you in the face with some jarring stuff: The obstructionist Democrats have opposed just about every Bush policy designed to secure our nation.

    You may find that mighty fetching.  Conservatives find it appalling.  I’m with Lauren Bacall on this one.  She said that if you support the Owens vetoes you’re going to vote Republican.  If you’d like to see those left-wing policies from the legislature enacted, go ahead and vote Democrat.

    I’m not sure what a DICK is, as opposed to a dick, but I’ll take that as a complement.  So thank you.  Really.  I mean it.

    I really do find the scandal-mongering rather tasteless.  It is, however, a fine way of doing liberal politics.  It’s what the left does best.  Just make sure that when you’re doing it you don’t let those blades from that black helicopter outside your door hack your head off. 

    There is a very visible split in American politics.  Hence why we have so much polarization (catch-word of the decade).  One side, a slight majority in the country and a slightly larger majority in Colorado, believes that small government, traditional moral values, and a robust and pro-active national defense is necessary in the face of Islamist terror.  The other side, representing the vast majority of people on this site, believes that personal liberty trumps, that militarism is self-defeating, and that government should be used as a tool to achieve societal equity.  Fair enough?

    My side looks like what America has been for most of its history.  Your side looks like Western Europe.  That’s the battle in America and it’s an epic one. 

    2. Americans believe in the Constitution of the United States which protects personal liberty. Fascists, of all ilks, believe that individual rights should be subordinated to the will of the dictator, be that a mob, a tin god or some ill defined “moral majority.”  What is it about the Constitution you don’t understand, FFF?

      A robust pro-active military in the face of the marxist threat defines Hitler’s foreign policy. Would you have supported that if you had been in Germany in 1939…..I mean if you had a choice…which by then, Germans did not…but theoretically, isn’t that what you are advocating…US Uber alles??????

    3. Some of us believe in traditional moral values.
      One of those values is that torture is wrong. Another moral value is that you should feed the hungry. Another moral value is to respect your neighbor’s privacy.

      Some of us believe in small government.
      Trillion dollar wars of choice are not small government, nor are wire taps, nor are extra-judicial tribunals, nor stripping people of their rights to habeus corpus, nor trials based on secret ‘evidence’.

      Some of us believe in robust and proactive national defense.
      Allowing Osama Bin Laden to go free, and diverting troops away from Afghanistan, is the opposite of proactive. Going in to Iraq without forseeing the need for more troops and not properly equiping the ones we sent was neither robust nor proactive. Making no plans for what would become of Iraq after Saddam was the opposite of proactive. Making no allowance for the tens of thousand of injured veterans is neither proactive nor moral. Shooting up countries at random while allowing real nuclear states to fester is not national defense.

      Some of us are opposed to the government deciding where on the social ladder people should stand. That is why we oppose  corporate welfare. That is why we feel corporations should not leech on the public for the healthcare of their workforce. That is why we are opposed to no bid contracts for companies like Halliburton. That is why we oppose cronies and incompetence in our public offices. We believe in earning what you get, not handouts based on who you know.  We believe that government is neither a tool for social equity or to further social inequity. When I get the same tax breaks that WalMart gets, we can talk about who is sucking at the government’s teat. Blue States pay taxes. Red States live off of welfare.

      The majority of Americans today agree with the Democratic Party on nearly every issue including the War on Terror. The truth is that they didn’t abandon the Republican Party; the Republican Party abandoned them. You can dislike ‘tax and spend’ and still recognize that ‘borrow and squander’ is worse.

      The Republicans have had years to do anything they really were planning on doing. I’ve seen what they have done. It is time for a change.

      1. Fine.  Fine.  I’m a just another fascist lackey working behind the scenes–in this case some local left-wing website–to help spread propoganda for Halliburton.  You caught me red-handed.  Kind of like you like Mark Foley with his pants down.  Or kind of like you caught Bob Beauprez hacking into some FBI database to harm St. Ritter. 

        I agee with you that “some of us” hate wiretapping and Halliburton and the rest of it.  And I’m sure that those of us who don’t are really just a bunch of inbred sheep following the emperor.  I actually think the Democrats have largely become just a big bunch of gutless ninnies who don’t know why or how to fight a war when you’re facing as formidable enemy as Islamic fascism. 

        Oh by the way, there’s your real fascists.  You can bleat on all you want about us big bad Bushistas who are really just trying to manipulate world markets to gain total world domination.  If thats the case we”re doing a pretty foul job of it.  Your real world dominators are Islamic extremists.  It’s amusing to watch Europe flounder about under the weight of mass immigration from the Arab world.  While they’re out protesting just Guantanamo they’ve got the Islamistization of their cities going on.  Holland’s second biggest city, Rotterdam, has a 40% Muslim population.  The most popular boy’s name in Belgium is Mohammed. 

        But don’t worry about that.  Bush is wiretapping law abiding Jihadis.  The real imperialist here is not America but Jihadism.  But the left-wing ninnies running the show in much of Europe doesn’t have the guts to confront that problem.  They don’t want to have kids leading to demographic crisis but they surely want their health care and pensions.  And they have to look like they’re outraged about something.  Forget the Muslims, we’ve got gay-bashing torturers in Washington!

        You complain about Osama Bin Laden whose probably dead.  You’ve been on Colorado Pols a little too long if you think he’s your biggest problem.  There’s a whole network of Islamist terrorists that stretches from New Zealand to America and most of them don’t wear Al Qaeda uniforms and badges identifying them as Khalid Al Blowyoutobits.  They look like you and me except a little more Western.

        And about your fancy pants poll showing a newfound respect for Democrats on terror, that’s just splendid.  But I suppose that should be what this election is really about.  Let’s see just how accurate that poll is.  But the Democrats are much more obsessed with gay pedophiles and gay pedophile enablers to access illegal databases. 

        After all, if you really want to TakeBackTheHouse you’re going to have to talk about the issues.  And on those you’re fighting a formidably uphill battle. 

        1.   “the Democrats have largely become just a big bunch of gutless ninnies who don’t know why or how to fight a war when you’re facing as formidable enemy”….
            You mean like John Kerry (Vietnam), Bob Kerrey (Vietnam), Max Cleland (Vietnam), Tammy Duckworth (Persian Gulf II), Joe Stasiak (Persian Gulf I), and Jay Fawcett (Persian Gulf I)?
            As opposed to the Republicans who have given us our heroic President (Alabama National Guard), our warrior Vice President (“I had other things to do in the ’60’s aside from Vietnam”), Cong. Bob Beauprez (I had a bleeding ulcer), Cong. Tom Tancredo (I was depressed) and the rest of these chicken hawk, neo-cons hiding behind college deferments, long booze and drug induced binge weekends, various aches and pains, and Daddy’s political connections.

        2.   Remember, Randy Ankeney goes on trial next month.  I wonder if many of his fellow Republicans will show up in the courtroom to offer moral support (for lack of a better term) during his trial….

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

68 readers online now

Newsletter

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