Here's a brief but important clip of video from yesterday's interview by Brandon Rittiman of 9NEWS of once-and-future GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez:
Transcript:
RITTIMAN: Have you ever supported Personhood, and do you now?
BEAUPREZ: No, I've got a 100% pro-life voting record, as you probably know. So I'm very much pro-life. But Personhood, uh, as my dear friend and my archbishop Charles Chaput, our previous archbishop here in Denver, said that's not the way to do it. I think it creates a whole 'nother set of problems that probably don't help anyone really. And probably won't save more lives. I don't think this is the right solution to, uh, a big uh, a big issue that's been with us for a long time and probably will be.
Well, the only thing we can assume is that Bob Beauprez hopes you never see his 2006 Colorado Right to Life candidate questionnaire! Because it pretty straightforwardly makes a liar of Bob Beauprez:
Today, Rittiman follows up with Beauprez–who would like to have it…oh, never mind. You know where this is going.
"Bob's answer was the right answer," said Dustin Olson, a strategist working for the campaign.
The Beauprez campaign asserts that "personhood" can mean different things to different people. [Pols emphasis]
"Just like the terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' can encompass a spectrum of specific policy points, the term 'Personhood' in the context of Colorado's landscape actually means 3 entirely different policy proposals over just the last 6 years," Beauprez said. "I'm firmly pro-life, and my record reflects that, but some of the proposals we have seen on the ballot in Colorado over the last 6 years have been written in a way that could have far-reaching unintended consequences."
The campaign says Beauprez did sign on to HR 552, federal personhood legislation, which in a similar manner to ballot questions that have appeared in Colorado aims to confer legal protections on unborn children…
As you can see above, Beauprez answered "yes" to every one of Colorado Right to Life's litmus-test questions. According to this questionnaire, Beauprez supports a constitutional amendment protecting "preborn human beings." Beauprez opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. And most important for this discussion, Beauprez answered "yes" when asked if he would sign on to federal HR 552, the "Right to Life Act." Which reads:
The terms `human person' and `human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, [Pols emphasis] cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.
So there's absolutely no confusion, here's the text of Colorado's Amendment 48, the 2008 "Personhood" initiative that failed in Colorado by over 70%.
Section 31. Person defined. As used in Sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization. [Pols emphasis]
Anyone who entertained the notion that Beauprez might have kicked his 2006 habits, which earned him a place in history as one of the worst candidates for governor ever, can now put that silly idea to bed. Beauprez's 2006 campaign was littered with like incidents of sloppy, disorganized flip-flopping–it's how he earned the nickname "Both Ways Bob."
By our read, he just earned it all over again.
It is not Both Ways Bob.
It is Both Ways Bob™.
Just like you liberals to not support intellectual property rights.
With all due respect Dave wouldn't that require "both ways" to register the name as a trademark and/or be the least bit intellectual?
I'm not sure about the former.I'm convinced on the latter. I highly recommend a book titled Information Feudalism by Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite.
Just for the record; it was the later Personhood amendment that Chaput and many other so-called "right to lifers" did not support. So Beauprez could have supported Personhood in 2006, as did Chaput and others and then not supported later amendments.
Apparently in Bobspeak, "no" can also mean "both"?!?
It is not worth a sematic argument. That there are those who define "personhood" as referring specifically to the various personhood amendments and not to the broad concept of life beginning at conception. So one could be
"pro-life" and stil not be in favor of the "personhood amendents." That was the position of the catholic archbishop Chaput, and many other politicans and religious leaders who profess to be "pro-life."
Beauprez is clear about his pro-life postion and he should be questioned on what that means in terms of how he would act on those positions if he were governor. For example, catholic Owens vetoed a bill that would have mandated that all hospitals inform rape victims of the morning after pill. Catholic hospitals did not want to be required to do that. When catholic Ritter was governor and the same bill was passed again, he signed it. Not a sound from the catholic hospitals.
I would hope that Beauprez would be asked if he would sign such a bill. I think that there is a range of legislation regarding reproductive rights that would require a governor's signature and he should be asked about how he would proceed.
Of course, who would ask Beauprez specific questions about what he would sign as governor? Certainly not the friendly radio talk show hosts.
Perhaps the first question to ask Beauprez: "Will you participate in primary debates with the other Republican candidates?
Maybe Beauprez will use Newt Gingrich's technique of saying that if people quote what he said in the past, they are lying because he's saying something completely different today!
It worked so well for President Gingrich, you know.
Davie It'd be either that or John Kyl's breathtaking sophistry that what he said was not intended to be a factual statement.
The fact you are making such a comparison, regarding comments by our political leaders, is stunning, actually.
So Beauprez was actually for personhood before he was against it?
No, Bob was for personhood in 2006, and now he does not support personhood, nor did he ever support personhood in the past. Its a crystal clear position !
Both!
(of course)
You guys are so wrong about Beauprez. He's not "Both Ways." He's heading one way only.
South.
That depends on whether he's running a better campaign than in 2006. If he isn't we'll have plenty of entertainment to last until November, though it will be hard to beat the horse photo or the flight-suit photo.