President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 01, 2006 06:48 AM UTC

9News Hosts Marquee Ritter vs. Beauprez Showdown

  • by: Colorado Pols

Tell us how they did.


45 thoughts on “9News Hosts Marquee Ritter vs. Beauprez Showdown

  1. The Republicans seem to be DESPERATE to create some momentum by attacking Kerry for supposedly disparaging U.S. troops. Kerry botched a joke. Kerry was supposed to say, “I can’t overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.”

    Very true! And you end up losing lives in a hurricane.

    How stupid does the Republican Spin Machine think people are?

    1. You can’t even stay on topic and yet you call the President stupid? John Kerry needs to be punched in the mouth for calling the brave service men and women who serve this country stupid.

    2. What’s amazing is to watch the lefty commentators try to defend his indefensible attack on the military.

      His one-liner and followup comments will be used by his opponents in the primaries.

      If he wasn’t done for 2008, he’s toast now.

      1. …is the Republicans attack as unpatriotic yet another war veteran who has served his country bravely. They are shameless, as well as in a state of piss-pants desperation at the prospect of losing the House. Whether it’s Max Cleland, John McCain in the 2000 primary or John Kerry, Republicans LOVE to call war heroes traitors (never mind that our alleged president, George W., was playing hooky in the National Guard during Vietnam). For those of us still living in the “reality-based community,” the sky is still blue, John Kerry fought nobly in Vietnam and has a greater appreciation of what it’s like to be in the military than the alleged president ever will.

        SECONDLY, fine, let’s grant the right-wing nutjobs the questionable assertion that Kerry’s comments were not a joke about George Bush’s imbecility and actually referred to our men in uniform. Let’s say he said something like “study hard or you will end up having to be a soldier and going to Iraq. Soldiers are people who haven’t excelled academically.” Here’s a politically incorrect thought: honestly, who do we think army recruiters target most? Rich white kids? The math whiz with a scholarship to Harvard? No, recruiters find most success targeting poor people, disadvantaged minorities and other people who may have few other options. This group includes…students who may not have studied hard enough to give themselves other opportunities. Do we think that the class valedictorian is going to give up all of his hard-earned opportunities to go get his limbs blown off in Iraq? John Kerry was giving sound advice: study hard so you can have better options in life than joining the army right now at a time when war criminals are running the White House and sending kids needlessly into hellish war zones.

      2. “If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

        I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq . It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

        The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

        Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq .”

        1. My grandfather didn’t fight for our freedom in World War II for chickenhawked jingoes to ruin the foundations his generation set for those that followed. Kerry’s words were taken out of context and anyone who watches them in their entirety on youtube can see that he was making a joke about the President’s lack of intellectual curiosity, not admonishing the troops lack of education. This is a last-ditch attempt by right-wing nut jobs to keep the US Senate because they know the House in gone.

    3.   John Kerry is an idiot.  Not only does he screw up a not-all-that-funny joke but there was his half-assed attempt to organize a filibuster of Sam Aliot, his infamous remarks about voting for the $89 billion before he voted against it, and his delayed response to the Swift Boat attack ads.
        If he really wants to help the Dems win next week, he and Teresa should jet off to the south of France with neither cellphone nor internet service until Nov. 8th.
        Bon voyage!

  2. Ah yes!  Colorful, conservative Colorado, meet Bob Beauprez.  Beaumentum, anyone?

    He’s well on his way.  It’s going to be gut-wrenchingly, nail-bitingly, late-nightingly close.  And that’s just how we like it! 

    1. Because in the debate I watched, Beauprez didn’t do anything to make himself stand out.  He’s campaigning like he’s tied in the polls even though every independent poll (outside of Zogby) puts Ritter ahead by at least 10 percentage points.  Even  if Beauprez has momentum (which he doesn’t) he’ll have too large of a gap to close by election day.

      1. I guess since Kerry won in ’04 by eight points as Zogby predicted, they’re right on the money here too.

        Seriously, you wingnuts attack Zogby as untrustworthy when his numbers look bad.  You’re right to do so–why stop now?

        Oh, that’s why.

        1. Most polls have some level of bias and are skewed.  The analysis of the participant population is generally what determines the accuracy of the outcome.

          Yes, I would like to believe that the Zogby poll results ring true, but the reality for me is something quit different.

      2. It’s not a real poll, you pinheads, it’s an online poll by Zogby Interactive, not the real Zogby. It’s about as accurate as Cosmo’s Yearly Bedside Astrologer. There’s not a local or national political professional that takes this thing seriously, and they’re all laughing at the desperate spin from the Beauprez Trolls.

        1. Your comment, “There’s not a local or national political professional that takes this thing seriously, and they’re all laughing at the desperate spin from the Beauprez Trolls” is an interesting one.  You assume all professionals do not look at Zogby.  I would venture a guess that many professionals, and some hacks, look to Zogby and other (at times) discredited polls and determine the bias of the population.  That is the appropriate way to determine validity.

    2. the only thing nail-bitingly close will be how much money Beauprez has to keep loaning himself to meet payroll for his amateur-hour campaign and the high-priced geniuses who told him to stand next to a horse’s ass in his ad.

  3. While Bill Ritter used his closing time to summarise his vision for the state, Bob Beauprez turned his into another personal attack. I thought the peanut-gallery cheerleading teams detracted from the overall value of the “debate”. It would have been nice to see the candidates truly debate eachother on the issues. I don’t think true/false and multiple choice questions serve well to expose the candidates’ deeper beliefs, knowledge, experience, and motivations.

  4. Ritter’s demeanor and confidence reminds me a bit of watching the final debates between John Major and Tony Blair in 1997. Blair is a bit more direct and cutting that Ritter but the confidence showed in Blair in 1997 and it shows in Ritter now.

    Beauprez continues to be a decent individual who still seems to be spinning his wheels in the sand. Not as prim and proper as John Major but still stuck in a rut and not moving.

    Don’t count of Ritter having the same landslide as Blair. This is Colorado and Ritter is a Dem.

  5. Beauprez hurt himself the most with his answers about stem cell research, abortion and Referendum “I”.

    Ritter hurt himself with his lack of integrity regarding the plea bargains for illegal and legal immigrants.

    Beauprez basically has no health care policy, and Ritter’s health care proposals are long-proven unworkable scams.

    Both promised what they can’t deliver. So they came out even on the promises.

    Since Ritter apparently leads in the polls, he wins by defending his lead.

    1. Really now, those are impressive statements.  I missed the debate, so maybe you can help me here.

      Please let us know:

      What did they promise that they can’t deliver?

      How do plea bargans which convict in cases with inadequate evidence equate a lack of integerty?

      How would angering independents help you win a state with more R’s then D’s if you’re a D?

  6. I was in the audience and it was hard for me to determine at times what points Beauprez was trying to make. It seemed like he was pulling stuff off the top of his head much more than Ritter did. I especially was confused when transportation came up and Beauprez rambled for several minutes without saying much. When the man asked what “tools” Beauprez would use to solve transportation issues, Beauprez said, “All of them.” The hammer, the screwdriver? What Bob?

    Ritter also seems more informed on the issues, as evidinced during one of the lightning rounds when Beauprez was first asked if he believed there should be a law making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in the workplace and he responded, “Well, I believe there already is a law, so any additonal laws wouldn’t be neccessary. No.” Ritter replied, “Actually, our governer vetoed that law. Yes.”

      1. And the Beauprez crowd came across as total “boobs”. Apparantly they weren’t informed that the candidates were told they could answer more than yes or no. The Beauprez camp showed why they are losing. They took time away from their own candidate and even got his cheering at the end cut off and made him look dumb for going over his time because they would not shut up.

        By the way… you lose. Maybe next time you should go work for your opponent… it would give your guy a better chance.

      2. Being concise in the lightning round was Ritter’s one weakness, but I will continue to prefer clarity over bumbling ideology in my political candidates.

  7. When Beauprez was asked if he cut funding to the Community Oriented Policing Services program in Congress, which gives local police money to put officers in our communities and schools, he answered… “probably.” I think this is a very important issue. Beauprez is running solely on his accusations that Ritter was soft on crime. If Beauprez was cutting funding to police hiring… I think that is a very serious flip flop. To be attacking the law enforcement community for not doing enough, when he was in Congress cutting funding to them… makes my blood boil.

  8. In every other state the Zogby Poll is within one or two points of every other poll. Check this out at In CD 7 they have Perlmutter ahead by 14. I understand why the methodology is not so reliable. But, why is it that in every other instance this unreliable methodology produces exactly the same results as other polls — with the one exception of the Colorado Governor’s race.

    1. Without a link, or numbers, I’m not sure which polls you are referring to… but keep in mind there is a major difference between Zogby polls and Zogby Interactive polls. They are both conducted in completely different ways. In short, Zogby polls are legitimate, Zogby Interactive polls are not. This could explain the difference that you see.

      By the way… if any of you have read Beauprez’s website, you will notice that the misleadingly call the Zogby Interactive poll a Zogby International poll. While Zogby International is the main company, it misleads readers into thinking they are talking about the legitimate Zogby poll.

    2. Basically, what it comes down to is this: Zogby Interactive ends up asking a lot of the same people every time they do a poll.  If they get a decent sample, their polls results come out okay.  If they get a poor sample, as they did in Colorado, then it stays a poor sample for many polls in a row.

  9. after watching that entire friggin debate on line I can absolutely make this statement:  I always knew Beauprez really was just a dumb jock who made good by selling the family dairy.  Now, the whole state knows it, too.

  10. thing about the debate was the “Lightning Round” where all the political volunteers of the campaigns competed to see who could yell and scream the most.

    Other than that I thought it was pretty much a debate that might swing a FEW undecided voters towards BWB.

    1. …to those that were not there, the audience was encouraged beforehand to support their candidate during the debate. I wouldn’t have felt comfortable with all the fanfare otherwise.

      1. What debate were you at? She told people that applause would take time away from your candidate. It seemed to indicate to me that applause should be held except in rare situations. Not after every single question.

        1. She told people both to support their candidate and warned them that too much support might take time away, but I think most people heard the first part rather than the second part.

    1. BWB was trying to be human, but he blew it when he said he opposes state support for stem cell research, Referendum “I”, abortion, etc.

      If they’d asked whether he thinks Colorado should interfer in end-of-life decisions, he probably would have said yes.

      Not too warm and fuzzy. Cold guy with cold beliefs.

  11.   I strongly suspect that everyone who posts on here cast his or her vote on the first day of early voting, if not earlier by absentee ballot.  Besides, watching these two debate is comparable to watching paint dry.  (I will confess, I watched about ten minutes of the debate between Ritter and B.W.B. which Stephanopolous moderated, got bored, and put on “That 70’s Show.”) 
      My big disappointment is that we didn’t get to see the Lt. Gov. candidates debate.  Now THAT would have been worth the price of admission!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

60 readers online now


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