Brophy Continues to Fire Away at Fellow Republicans

Sen. Greg Brophy, ready to cripple fellow Republicans running for Governor.

State Sen. Greg Brophy probably never had much of a chance at becoming Colorado's next Governor, particularly after a brutally bad Q3 fundraising quarter, but that hasn't stopped him from taking every opportunity to kneecap other GOP candidates. Yesterday he went after Tom Tancredo for a gun safety vote that occurred in Congress shortly after the Columbine shooting. This won't help Brophy make it much closer to the top of the field, but it could cause some serious damage to Tancredo's campaign.

From FOX 31:

Brophy attacked Tancredo Monday over a 1999 vote by the former congressman who supported legislation to restrict the sale, transfer, importation and possession of assault rifles and magazines with higher than a 10-round capacity, a measure that is, at least generally, comparable to the ban approved by Colorado Democrats last year that outlaws magazines of more than 15 rounds.

“To a lot of people, this is the seminal issue,” Brophy told FOX31 Denver. “Tancredo’s record on gun control is actually worse than John Hickenlooper’s.”

Brophy is highlighting Tancredo’s support for House Resolution 2122 back on June 18, 1999, just two months after the horrific shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, in Tancredo’s congressional district and just blocks from the lawmaker’s home.

In a New York Times article published three days after the vote, Tancredo explained why he supported the legislation, making him the only member of Congress from Colorado to do so (the legislation died, with Republicans arguing that the restrictions went too far and Democrats that they didn’t go far enough).

In response to a question from reporter James Brooke, who asked “what made the difference?”, Tancredo replied: ”Twelve dead children, one dead adult, 24 injured kids and a community that has had its heart broken — that made the difference.”

Ironically, this is the kind of story that would probably help Tancredo in a General Election if he hadn't already decided to be "Captain 2nd Amendment" in the Republican Primary. This also highlights the problem of gun safety for Republicans in a Primary — any perceived weakness on 2nd Amendment issues will be a problem for someone trying to win the GOP nomination.

As for Brophy, he's spent so much time lately trying to tear down Tancredo and Scott Gessler that it's starting to look like he's really running in order to block for someone else — Mike Kopp, perhaps?

View the original article here

Boyles continues to deny that Hudak-recall leader called Tom Mauser a Nazi

(Kind of ridiculous – promoted by Colorado Pols)

KNUS talk-radio host Peter Boyles has yet to acknowledge that a leader of the Hudak-recall effort, Mike McAlpine, during an appearance on Boyles' show, referred to pro-Hudak protesters as Nazis.

Boyles even attacked gun-safety activist Tom Mauser for saying, correctly, that McAlpine called Mauser a Nazi.

I called KNUS recently to talk with Boyles about it, and here's what he said:

Jason: You accused [gun-safety activist Tom] Mauser of lying about McAlpine saying Brownshirts.

Boyles: I said Brownshirt! I said Brownshirt!

Jason: No, you didn't. Listen to the tape.

Boyles: Of course I did.

This is so bizarre because the audio clearly confirms that McAlpine called the protesters "Brownshirts," and he was even called out on it by The Denver Post.

Boyles was apparently unaffected by a Oct. 28 news release from the Anti-Defamation League, calling the Brownshirts comment "deeply offensive" and asking "McAlpine, Boyles, and all public figures and community members to refrain from making inappropriate Nazi analogies in the political arena."

I thought maybe McAlpine could straighten out Boyles himself, so I've been emailing and calling him, asking him to acknowledge his Nazi slur and explain it. Twice I got McAlpine on the phone, and twice he told me to send him emails. (I sent them, and he didn't respond.)

Here's what McAlpine told me today.

Jason: So I just want to clear up this issue on the Peter Boyles Show. Boyles is saying that he said that the protesters were Brownshirts, but I heard the tape and it sounded like you said it. And I'm wondering if you said it.

McAlpine: You'd be welcome to send me an email on that, and I'd be glad to respond.

Jason: I did a couple times, and you didn't.

McAlpine: Ok.

Jason: Real quick. Did you say that the protesters were Brownshirts?

McAlpine: You are welcome to send me an email.

I've received a number of emails saying Boyles shouldn't be allowed to get away with his baseless attack on Mauser, in particular. But he is.

View the original article here

Colorado Congressional Delegation Continues to Ponder Syria

As The Denver Post reports:

Colorado's members of Congress were universally uncommitted Tuesday on whether to take any military action in Syria, saying they want more time to gather information before casting a vote probably next week.

When Congress officially reconvenes next week after its August recess, it is Colorado Republicans who will initially be in the spotlight thanks to House Speaker John Boehner's public support of President Obama on military intervention in Syria. As TPM explains, Boehner's move has D.C. in a bit of a tizzy:

“I appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the Congress over the last couple of weeks. I also appreciate the president asking the Congress to support him in this action,” the Speaker said. His remarks were backed by his deputy, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who also announced his support for Obama’s mission shortly after the morning meeting at the White House.

Boehner’s support changes the politics because scores of lawmakers in both parties have remained skeptical of military intervention in Syria despite the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus. Republicans, in particular, are deeply divided between the foreign policy hawks and a growing strain of isolationists within their tent. (Democrats are also split between war-weary progressives and humanitarian interventionists.)

This sets up a potentially nasty debate between GOP leaders and conservatives like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who have been making the case against intervening. The debate will also test the instincts of 2016 presidential contenders like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to remain on the opposite side of Obama.

This puts Colorado Republicans such as Rep. Cory Gardner in a tight spot; Gardner has been a committed foot soldier for Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who stood behind Boehner in his support for intervention in Syria.

View the original article here

Secession Silliness Continues

Sad Sean Conway and his sad plaid jacket

As The Denver Post reports, Weld County plans to put the question of secession from Colorado on its county ballot, mostly because Sean Conway is sad:

A secession question is very likely to appear on the Weld County ballot in November, commissioner Sean Conway said Monday.

"It sends a very clear message to Denver that people are unhappy," Conway said.

Representatives from Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Logan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington and Weld counties participated in a conference call Monday afternoon, but most said they would not OK a ballot question until county attorneys delivered final wording. Participants agreed, however, that such a wording should be uniform.

Weld County has been spearheading the 51st state initiative, which supports secession from Colorado.

When Conway and friends first floated the idea of seceding from Colorado, it was recognized as the goofy PR stunt that it was. Yes, some people in rural Colorado were not happy with some of the legislation approved last spring, but that's how Democracy works.

The idea has since sputtered, predictably so, as "town hall" meetings were held throughout Eastern Colorado. While Conway seems hell-bent on keeping the nonsense alive, others are seceding from the secession debate:

Lincoln County administrator Roxy Devers said the commissioners in her county are not planning to put the measure on the 2013 ballot.

"They have not heard a lot of their constituents stating this would be a good idea," Devers said. [Pols emphasis]

From what we've been hearing, comments from the likes of Devers are increasingly common. Conway's silly stunt drew some attention to the issues at first, but it's becoming an embarrassment for many rural Coloradans.

We have a hard time seeing where Conway hopes to go with this effort, since it is virtually impossible for his merry band to actually form a 51st state. It's not like Conway can use this as a springboard to run for state office, either; as we've pointed out again and again, around 90% of the voting population in Colorado lives along the Front Range, between Fort Collins and Pueblo. Some rural Coloradans may not be pleased with the state legislature, but it would be completely absurd for an elected body to focus on the wishes of 10% of the state at the expense of everyone else.

It bears repeating that Weld County is the largest of the rural counties, and they have barely one-third the number of voters as Denver. There's no "anti-rural Colorado" conspiracy. People just don't live there anymore.

View the original article here

New Coffman® Continues Epic Battle with Old Coffman

We've written before about how the various versions of CD-6 Republican Rep. Mike Coffman continue to battle each other for Coffman supremacy. Last week New Coffman® was a featured player in a story from the National Journal about members of Congress who are double-dipping (and we aren't talking about potato chips):

Mike Coffman tries to explain the difference between New Coffman and Old Coffman (hint: New Coffman has more money)

To solve the debt crisis, Americans—who are already suffering in these tough economic times—will have to make even more sacrifices, Rep. Mike Coffman told his House colleagues last year. So, leaning on his military service, the 58-year-old Colorado Republican argued that members of Congress should take the first step and abolish their congressional pensions. “If there’s one thing I learned in both the United States Army and the Marine Corps about leadership, it was leading by example,” Coffman lectured them, pointing to his chest at a committee hearing. “Never ask anyone to do anything that you yourself would not be willing to do.” [Pols emphasis]

What Coffman left unsaid that day in a speech about his bill’s “symbolic” importance was that he was collecting a $55,547 state-government pension in addition to his congressional paycheck. Having spent two decades as an elected official in Colorado, he has received retirement benefits since 2009, the year he arrived in Congress.

New Coffman® claims that he is trying to "reform the system," but unfortunately for him, that message doesn't jibe with Old Coffman. Again, from the National Journal:

Reforming that system, Coffman says, is the point of his legislation to eliminate congressional pensions. “The part that I oppose is having a defined-benefit retirement plan for members of Congress—and have argued against a defined-benefit program when I was at the state level,” he tells National Journal.

But isn’t he taking part in a defined-benefit program?

“I am,” he replies. “I am.” [Pols emphasis]

Coffman’s $55,547 retirement benefit is a pittance in the scheme of the state’s pension-fund finances, but, as he argued when he presented his pension-axing bill in committee, symbolism matters. Colorado’s pension fund has been under duress in recent years. State workers there must now contribute more, work longer, and receive less after retirement under a 2010 law, says Katie Kaufmanis, a spokeswoman for Colorado’s retirement system.

A former state treasurer who had a seat on Colorado’s pension board, Coffman had previously taken on the most extreme cases of “double-dipping” at the state level, in which state or school employees would retire, collect a pension, and then be rehired by the exact same employer. “The state’s pension fund is bleeding red, and the little things like this are aggravating it,” Coffman told the Colorado Springs Business Journal in 2004. “Maybe we should suspend pensions [when people go] back to work,” he added.

Coffman’s situation isn’t exactly the same: He’s collecting state benefits and a federal paycheck, not double-dipping with the same employer. (“I’m a military retiree too,” Coffman notes. He resigned his state treasurer post in 2005 to rejoin the Marines and serve in Iraq.) Still, he stumbles in defending his decision to draw both a paycheck and a state pension. “I fought for reform when I was in state, and I’m fighting to reform the system now,” he says. “At states, they ought to end the defined-benefit portion programs.… I’m certainly a beneficiary of it, but at the state level that’s unsustainable, too, and that’s going to have to change.” [Pols emphasis]

Here's how Old Coffman explained his ethical anger to the Colorado Springs Business Journal back in 2004:

"Taxpayers deserve better from those serving in government," said Mike Coffman, Colorado’s state treasurer in a news release. "I will propose legislation next session to stop this abusive practice"…It might be legal, but Coffman maintains "there is no question of its lack of ethics." [Pols emphasis]

Old Coffman once said that there was "no question" that it was unethical to double-dip. New Coffman® has been doing it for years. Or, is that Old Coffman?

We're trying to joke a bit here, but in truth, this looks really bad for whichever Mike Coffman you choose to believe. You could run a million-dollar ad campaign based on the quotes here alone.

Full story: New Coffman® Continues Epic Battle with Old Coffman

View the original article here