CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 24, 2008 04:39 PM UTC
69 Comments
Musgrave, honey. This is called karma.
.
The Musgrave charges are supported by the facts.
They may not be true, but the evidence supports the charge that Markey used her public position for private gain.
This criminal complaint will just rub the public’s collective nose in that evidence, regardless of any underlying truth.
This had already blown over when she resurrected it.
.
People will see this as a very strong statement that Markey is innocent and that Musgrave is throwing mud. It actually reduces the credibility of any further Musgrave attacks. I think with this Musgrave has lost.
Musgrave is running television ads on it right now, which thousands of potential voters are seeing less than 2 weeks before mail in ballots go out.
Markey is right to hit back hard and frankly, I do not see Musgrave’s charges being supported by facts. You said this yourself…Markey may not have turned the company over to her husband in a timely fashion–which is unethical, at the very worst but certainly not illegal. When you have as many skeletons in your closet as Musgrave, it’s probably not the smartest idea in the world to go this route. She opens herself up to every slimy thing she has ever been tied to, including being one of the 10 most corrupt in Congress, being endorsed by the KKK and now CoinGate.
That’s why there is a complaint and when “Misdemeanor Musgrave” is charged, it will be damn well deserved.
Granted, the links are tenuous. Barron X has a moustache (arguendo) Hitler had a moustache. Vote against the Hitler/Barron X team, they are the ultimate Berlin insiders. At the same time, Markey had to hit back, hard, lest silence be seen as assent. David, you’re wrong to say the race is over. We have 41 biter, rancorous, days to go and then, probably, a long slow count. I’ve moving this to the tossup column. Markey’s best hope is the Obma oprganizing bringing more vogters to the table.
It’s a correlation-as-cause fallacy that Musgrave’s people set up in the ad. They just do it skillfully enough that the fallacy will be drawn by the viewer.
Smart ass. 🙂
Gee, if it weren’t for the “I’m Marilyn Musgrave and I authorize this ad,” there’d be correlation at all.
Time for more coffee.
until proven innocent now? What kind of gustapo politiical machine is Musgrave running?
She can’t win fair and square. We both know that. I have a feeling that this time around the voters in my district might know it, too.
when she ran that ad of Matsunaka against the Japaneese Battle flag
the voiceover was something like
‘america was attacked by surprise once before’
throw up a picture of Osama bin Laden and the twin towers
‘Matsunaka wants to let it happen again’
Disgusting.
Yeah, that may just take the prize in the low down and dirty category.
Incredible. How low can you go?
it was a very low blow. Stan’s dad, Harry Matsunaka, was a veteran of the famous 442 regiment that, among other things, fought its way through enemy lines in Italy at appalling cost to rescue a “lost battalion” of the Texas National Guard. A finer group of patriots never served this country.
Don’t you remember the campaign flier she also sent out with Matsunaka on the front, looking much more “foreign” with a little help from photoshop?
with him against the strange moving red background but can’t recall seeing a japanese flag. That was also the year the left was going with its timeless theme: “Marilyn has a fat butt.”
Not the year for philosopher kings, that’s for sure.
I remember seeing her at a debate in Windsor and was struck by how almost fragile she looked. Not sure how she earned a “fat butt” title but it’s undeserved, for a variety of reasons.
Remember the actress in the pink dress who paraded the fat butt pretending to be marilyn in those Stryker/Polis/Gill/Bridges ads? Marilyn is a lot slimmer than her, but no waif. OF course, since I’m 6-3, I find it hard to judge women’s sizes since I look down at almost all of them in the literal, though I hope not in the metaphorical, sense.
Yikes. I’m 5″5. You really would be looking down on me, literally, of course.
I wouldn’t call Marilyn fragile, normally, but at the debate that night she looked really worn out, tired and kind of frail. I can’t think of another word to describe it. I remember hearing somebody (one of her supporters by the look of the buttons and t-shirts she was sporting) saying that she thought the campaign with Angie had taken a toll on her and that night, I had to agree.
You don’t even really do a good job looking DOWN on women in real life. I’ve met you in passing once or twice and you didn’t seem to be looking down my shirt. I hardly ever wear an appropriate shirt because I’m too tall for most to see down, so I notice when tall guys… notice.
when a man stops doing that, it’s time to call the coroner. I was probably in my own little world trying to parry Doug Bruce’s latest attempt to destroy Western Civilization.
That testosterone does a number on us, that’s for sure.
“Records prove Markey violated ethics rules.”
Not true, in fact the ethics committee cleared her of any wrongdoing. So much for clever wording.
From the Coloradoan’s Bob Moore, a reporter who has actually done his homework:
“Musgrave’s new ad said, ‘According to the Senate Ethics Committee, Markey’s company could not accept government contracts while she worked for the Senate.’ However, there is nothing in the letter from the Ethics Committee that said Syscom couldn’t get government contract work if Markey remained both a co-owner of the company and a Senate staffer…”The Musgrave campaign does not have a copy of the letter.”
.
This just sped up the decision.
.
Now I have to use the false analogy
Barron X has a sense of humor.
David Thielen has a sense of humor.
Therefore Barron X’s mother is a liberal Republican state legislator in Hawaii.
Ok, ok, it needs some work 😉
If voter registration means anything, Musgrave is loosing ground. In Larimer County the Republican Party held a 23,157 registration margin over the Democrats on election day in 2006. As of the end of August that margin has declined by 25% to 17,317. Musgrave isn’t going to carry Larimer anyway but Markey’s victory there will be by the largest margin ever against Musgrave. I haven’t tracked down the registration numbers for Boulder County but I believe the same thing is happening there.
The real battleground in the 4th CD is Weld County. If Weld County cracks, Musgrave cannot win because that county has given her the margins she needed to win even while her winning percentage declined from 57% the first time, to 51% the second time, to 45% two years ago.
The cracks seem to be appearing in Weld. Two years ago the Republicans held a registration edge of 20,757 but that has declined by 8.9% to 18,593 as of the end of August 2008.
And even on the East Plains, a Republican stronghold since as long as anyone can remember, there has been significant decline in several counties, counties which can only be considered Musgrave’s home ground. In Logan County over the past two years the Republican registration edge over Democrats has declined by 7% from 3339 to 3115. In Morgan County (Musgrave’s home), the Republican registration lead has declined 7% over the past two years from 3109 to 2876. The same is true in Sedgewick County where the Republican registration edge has declined by 5% from 688 to 652 during the same period. Bill Ritter carried Sedgewick County and almost carried Logan County two years ago. And finally, Yuma County one of the bedrock Republican counties on the East Plains has watched as the Republican registration edge has declined 3% from 1815 to 1773.
In other words, even in the most Republican parts of the 4th CD, the Republican Party is in decline. This is not good for Musgrave. I believe Markey will be going to Washington.
are you still a registered R?
but in my soul I’ve left the Republican Party.
Joe Whitcomb will have talked to every voter, child, & dog in his district by the time we vote. He’s selling himself but as a fellow Dem that has got to help Betsy.
Even the WSJ has noticed this race. See http://online.wsj.com/article/…
To condemn this plan before you’ve even seen it doesn’t seem to me to be responsible, mature leadership. She’s gambling our economy, jobs and yes lives for her own political career.
is that you often have only a few very bad options:
1) don’t respond, which makes you look weak–if you won’t fight for yourself, who will you fight for (Josh Marshall’s “bitch-slap theory”)
2) respond by complaining about the lies to a higher authority, which makes you look like a whiner and also kind of weak. This is what Markey is trying.
3) respond with equally negative attacks of your own, then watch your opponent decry your lack of civility, or watch the public conclude that “they’re all just as bad.”
The main problem, of course, is that lying about your opponent is not actually illegal under any federal law. In fact, a television station CANNOT refuse to air a political candidate’s ad, even if it’s full of lies. Some states have such laws, but it’s impossible to enforce. See FactCheck for a thorough article about this.
Absolutely has to end this practice. Is it even possible to do that? I seriously think that if candidates/interested parties could no longer lie in political ads, this country would become 1 million times better.
I don’t know the constitutional implications, but if a newspaper can’t lie, and a TV station can’t lie, why should pols be allowed to lie constantly?
which may sound Clintonian, but lawyers in many fields are already experts in obfuscating restrictions on lying, and no matter how you try to draw the line, if they want to, they’ll find a way to blur it.
Advertisers do get sued by the government for lying in commercials for products. The standard for candidates is just completely different.
If McCain ran an ad claiming that Obama was a member of a white supremacist organization, with a Photoshopped image of him in full Nazi uniform, no national TV network could refuse to run it.
If Freedom’s Watch ran the same ad, the networks could refuse it.
The standard is insane, but it’s perfectly clear and has been litigated several times.
I guess I was speaking on a broader level. Perhaps there’s a better standard that could be applied in this type of case, but I don’t think there’s a way to legislate electioneering that is truly honest (although if wishing made it so…)
(And thusly do internet rumors get started.)
I hate Illinois Nazis! 🙂
Because what’s the penalty? Unless the penalty for lying in your campaign ad is getting kicked out of office, there’s no real disincentive.
It generally takes a few months if not years to prosecute campaign wrongdoing (remember the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal?), by which time the election is over.
Imagine if the penalty for robbing a bank were a $5,000 fine, but you didn’t actually have to give back the money you stole.
is so depressing…
That I stole more than 5000.
The only problem is these days trying ti figure out which bank actually has more than 5000…..
Life of Crime… thwarted again…
run an ad using outside groups (fact check etc.) to diminish attack.
“Not only are the attacks false, they’re childish”
Then counter with “let’s get off the playground and back to the issues, candidate x’s attack won’t (keep you safe, pay your mortgage, provide energy, etc.)”
Music imagry change
“candidate Y plan to help you (give you, protect you etc.) with a ______.
Didn’t work for Will Shafroth. But maybe it was because he wasn’t the one being attacked.
But I think it did more good than harm.
1. 3 quality well funded candidates
2. Didn’t raise name ID early enough–too much Will who?
3. Endorsements came after early voting started and waited to long to go up air. Early voting v. day of reflect this.
As 76 stated helped him, but not enough.
In addition, Shafroth scolded, but didn’t lay the wood.
I just couldn’t help but think of Shafroth when you mentioned attacks being “childish”.
if you’re already ahead. Then you can look like you’re above it all.
When you’re behind in the polls, you have to fight back harder.
And of course, it relies on outside groups, who may not step up. Frequently the media desperately seeks a false equivalency, so you have one candidate outright lying and another accurately condensing a complicated argument, and they conclude “both sides are stretching the truth.”
For example, what outside group is even paying attention to the Markey-Musgrave race?
Use outside groups to justify calling them a liar.
But riposte and get back to your closer. Your issue that seals the deal.
In the language of business you have to drive your “unique value proposition” not just say the other guy sucks.
Not federal law. From the Colorado Independent:
…this statute is never going to survive constitutional challenge even if someone tried to prosecute a political candidate under it.
I’m reminded of Bismarck’s famous quip, “The biggest lies are told just before the wedding, immediately after the hunt, and in the middle of the political campaign.”
It does, however, give Betsy a platform from which to yell, “Liar, liar,” at Musty for a couple of news cycles. And that’s a good thing.
And how long do you think it would take for that constitutional challenge to go through? More importantly, after a bipartisan panel calls you a liar appealing the ruling on grounds that the law itself is unconstitutional doesn’t get you very far.
If you sue for libel they are liable to prove it.
This is a counter productive and childish move by Markey. Let’s see Musgrave said Markey owned the company when it is actually 100% owned by her husband. OK. Add to that the fact that under penalty of perjury they said the company was majority owned by a woman. So who is telling the truth.
This is not a road that Markey wants to go down.
I love the idea of Marilyn Musgrave in handcuffs and chains as much as any Pols blogger. Yet, this was a crazy complaint for Markey to file.
Just posted this above, but clearly it needs more eyeballs.
From the Colorado Independent:
This was a brilliant move by Markey. It seriously undercuts Musgrave’s message. The only way it bites back is if within the next five weeks the legal system decides that Musgrave was telling the truth. I don’t think things move that quickly nor do I think that’s the verdict they’d reach.
What happens when the DA issues a written statement calling the ad accurate? Which it is by the way. Yes District Attorneys move that quickly particularly when someone is cynically trying to manipulate the system and waste taxpayer time and money as Markey is doing.
I know there is all this sophistry. Oh she had sold the company. To whom? Her husband. We just forgot to tell the Federal Government about this sale in forms signed under penalty of perjury. Oh,, we were eligible for preferential treatment but never received it so are false statements are OK.
This issue is not a good one for Markey. By keeping it in the news she is making a huge mistake. I hope Kenny Salazar is keeping her job open.
Two different papers have had headlines calling Markey’s version of events misleading.
You are right that if the DA says it is without merit that will hurt Betsy (some). But of the DA does not find it without merit, then it damages Marilyn a lot.
There’s a lot of power in saying MM’s attack is so inaccurate, there’s a criminal investigation of her statements.
Before you decide it’s a bad call, I recommend you take some time to learn about how the law works from here.
As far as I understand it, the complaint now goes to a bipartisan committee established by the Colorado District Attorneys’ Council. That committee then reviews the allegations and advises the Larimer DA accordingly.
As for headlines, how’s this one from the Coloradoan – “Federal agency: No proof Markey used position to secure contracts”
someone that supports Bush so much would be shocked that anybody connected with the DoD would make more after a war breaks out? I need lots more information to know if anything is dirty here, but just that idea confuses me. My contracts with the DoD quadrupled.
…to describe someone who simply wrote a letter to the DA.
deceptive political ads, and I can’t think of a single criminal liable case that has resulted in a conviction sustained on appeal in Colorado in the last half century, at least. I would be very surprised if the DA took on the case.
Criminalizing politics is not the solution to deceptive political advertising, and the law that authorizes these prosecutions really ought to be stripped from the statute books, because it encourages destructive political grandstanding.
Do you just not read the other comments before you post? IT’S NOT LIBEL!! Colorado has a law against lying in political advertising, and the DA doesn’t decide the case, a bipartisan panel appointed by the AG does.
For the third time, from the Colorado Independent:
Sorry to blow up at you – I’m sure it was just an honest mistake. It’s just the third time I’ve had to post the law so I’m a little perturbed. 🙂 Smiles and much love!
The statute quoted at length and correctly by Jeff Bridges is a criminal libel statute. It imposes criminal penalties for knowingly making a false statement.
Many states used to have such statutes. Few states now have such laws and even fewer ever enforce them. I know of no case ever actuallyprosecuted in Colorado.
If Marilyn Musgrave is able to convince the District Attorney that her statement was true it will damage Markey. It seems at best that Markey is skating on thin ice with her claim of divestiture.
If you claim someone libeled you they are liable to prove it.
Markey’s new ad attacking Musgrave is well done.
It’s not exactly a libel statute, but is rather a campaign disinformation statute. It is not limited to libel; it covers any kind of disinformation designed to affect the vote on either a candidate or issue. And it applies a different standard than the regular libel of a public figure standard.
As far as I know, it is a relatively unique statute.
Yes it involves slander as well as libel but it is in the same form as the old common law criminal libel statutes. It is unique in that most states had enough common sense not to pass an unenforceable law.
The District Attorney may well ask for her version of events. Truth is a defense.
Ms. Markey may get a favorable story out of this. Than again she may get a formal letter from the DA saying the facts are essentially true and no crime was committed.
I have read everything everyone has put out on this. It seems the violation of the law claimed by Markey is that she claims to have sold her business when in fact all she did was sign it over to her husband. At the same time her husband under penalty of perjury said the business was owned 51% by a woman. Am I missing something?
I would love to see Marilyn Musgrave go down to defeat and to jail as well. This tactic by Markey is not going to help and may blow up or in the word of the day crater.
It goes way beyond libel/slander. It covers “deception” in all forms. If you say “Saddam Hussein gave al Qaeda hundreds of millions of dollars – we needed to go to Iraq and my opponent opposed that war”, then after someone rebuts your claim you’d better have a darned good reason to continue airing it. The statement is neither libel nor slander, but it could materially affect the outcome of the race and it is easily proven to be false and willfully stated.
Closer to libel, saying “Markey’s firm benefited from her position on Sen. Salazar’s staff” and continuing to say so after a Senate Ethics Committee says it isn’t so falls under the statute.
The burden of proof under the CO statute in question is much lower than that for libel of a public figure.
BTW, for anyone still watching this thread – has any complaint under this statute ever gone through, either successfully or not? How many complaints have there been?