Tancredo says Republicans “will not beat Hickenlooper” on gun issues

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

On KNUS radio this morning, host Dan Caplis said it was "legitimate" for Sen. Greg Brophy to spotlight Tom Tancredo's post-Columbine vote for a House resolution limiting, among other things, the size of magazines to 10 rounds or fewer, the same limitation put on magazines by one of Colorado's new gun-safety laws.

In response, Tancredo, who's battling Brophy for the chance to take on Gov. John Hickenlooper in November, downplayed the importance of the gun-safety issues in the upcoming general election, saying, "We are not going to win an election on this."

Here's part of Tanc's response, as heard on KNUS:

Tancredo: "I'll tell you that if, indeed, anybody believes that the Republican nominee, whoever that might be, can win the general election on this [gun] issue, or a couple of others that are fairly focused, they're wrong. We will not beat Hickenlooper, I don't care who it is, we will not beat Hickenlooper on this issue… We are not going to win an election on this. …

The NRA has always supported me. These things are essentially frivolous attacks that do not help in the long run. And as I say, I do not agree with you that this is something that the other side will use. Do you really believe that Hickenlooper would be attacking me for being soft on guns?"

Caplis: I think it would come up. And I think you'd handle it well…. Here's how I would definitely see it coming up in the campaign. You're running against Hickenlooper. You're the nominee. You're bashing him…he tried to restrict Coloradans' gun rights. And then Hickenlooper turns around with their 527s… 'Wait a second. Tom agrees with Hickelooper on this.'

Listen to Tancredo on Caplis saying GOP won't beat Hick on Guns

View the original article here

Top health industry issues of 2013: Picking up the pace on health reform

How will the Affordable Care Act affect states? Will the Medtech industry cope with the new 2.3% excise tax? How will the consumer revolution impact healthcare? Read our in-depth report on the most ...

How will the Affordable Care Act affect states? Will the Medtech industry cope with the new 2.3% excise tax? How will the consumer revolution impact healthcare? Read our in-depth report on the most urgent regulation and market pressures of 2013 for our take on these topics and more.

Total Views0Views on SlideShare0Embed Views0

View the original article here

State GOP’s biz relationship with State Chair’s firm could raise internal ethics issues for GOP

(The knives coming out for Ryan Call – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Reporters covering a press conference last Monday featuring GOP activists from Pueblo should have mentioned, at least as an aside, that the activists said GOP Chair Ryan Call's own law firm was hired to do the GOP's legal-defense work related to the Pueblo recall election.

Speaking to reporters, Pueblo Freedom and Rights founder Victor Head, and Tim Knight of Pueblo’s Basic Freedom Defense Fund, said they weren't sure if the Colorado State GOP was paying their legal-defense bills for the recall campaign, but they told reporters that Call's firm was doing legal-defense work for the GOP's Pueblo recall campaign.

Reporter: Was some of that legal-defense money earmarked from Ryan Call's own law firm?

Knight (@1430): Yes. As a matter of fact, that bill we're discussing, if he did pay us, he's paying his own law firm and he gets his own billable hours.

Watch the press conference here:

Last week I reported the media omission that Sarah Arnold, former El Paso Republican Party Secretary, accused state GOP Chair Ryan Call of using his own law firm for all the legal business of the State Republican Party.

Unfortunately, Call didn't return my request for a comment, but the fact is that Call's firm, Hale Westfall, was doing a lot of the Republican Party's legal work before Call was elected chair.

Now that Call is in charge of the State Party, the continued use of Call's law firm could present internal ethics issues for the Republican Party, just as corporate officers can run into ethics problems for directing corporate work to their personal business enterprises. But there's no public ethics issue involved in the State GOP's ongoing business relationship with Hale Westfall.

Here's a partial transcript of last Monday's press conference featuring comments by Head and Knight:

Reporter @12:50: How much did the [State GOP] actually give you all, in terms of the legal fees, for the District Court case?

Knight: That question remains to be seen. There was a bill that someone else had offered to pay. We're not sure of this. We've been asking for weeks. It appears that the State GOP may have paid that bill in an attempt to buy into the recall, saying, 'We did help. We paid your legal bill.' But they know, and we know, that someone else had agreed to pay that legal bill.

Reporter: How much was it?

Knight: Just short of $40,000. That was not the whole legal bill but part of it.

Reporter: How much is unsettled right now?

Head: I reached out to the law firm this morning to ask what the standing of our bill was, and they can't tell us.

Knight: They had to get permission from people to tell us.

Head: So we're almost in the dark. There are lots of entities that have stepped forward know to help us to buy their way into our success. And it's welcomed, I guess. Our bills will get paid. But that is not what was promised. That is not what happened when we were about to close. When we were short. We have a legal challenge, and we don't have the money to pay it. The recalls are going to go down, unless someone comes forward and helps. A bunch of promises happened. Nothing came through. We did it with 10, 20 callers at a time.

Knight: Selling personal stuff to pay for it.

Head: So as of this moment, as of this morning, I have no idea. Our law firm will not give as an account of who was paid what.

Reporter: Was some of that legal-defense money earmarked from Ryan Call's own law firm?

Knight (@1430): Yes. As a matter of fact, that bill we're discussing, if he did pay us, he's paying his own law firm and he gets his own billable hours.

View the original article here

Westword interview offers illuminating national perspective on abortion issues in state elections

(Promoted by Colorado Pols) In a Westword interview published today, NARAL President Ilyse Hogue says Virginia's November gubernatorial race is "something of a test case" to find out if the anti-choice positions of a candidate prove to be his downfall, just as abortion issues tipped the electoral scales against 2010 Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck here in Colorado.

Westword's Michael Roberts reports:

The Virginia governor's race between abortion opponent Ken Cuccinelli and pro-choice hopeful Terry McAuliffe, which will come to a head in November 2013, a year before most of the other contests, is something of a test case, Hogue believes. Moreover, the strategy NARAL is employing there is the same one that helped elect Senator Bennet in Colorado — highlighting the anti-abortion positions of an opponent (in Bennet's case, Ken Buck) whether or not they make them central to their campaign.

"Senator Bennet and politicians like him recognize that when the extreme positions of opponents are exposed and candidates are forced to speak to them and defend them in the public square, they lose," Hogue maintains. "You hear politicians say, 'I don't want to talk about this. It's a social issue, and people only want to hear about jobs and the economy.' But that's fundamentally untrue. Women's economic livelihood is tied up with their ability to take charge of their family planning. That's the real way Americans understand reproductive health and reproductive choice, and the extremists are very out of step with the common family experience in this country. We applaud Michael Bennet for his willingness to expose the extreme agenda of his opponent, and we think it's a winning strategy we'd like to see replicated around the country.

"In Virginia, we're seeing indications that voters who are otherwise on the fence or identify themselves as independents are being driven to not only go to the polls but vote for the pro-choice candidate when they see the extreme positions of the opponents extreme positions on choice — and Senator Bennet's campaign provided great modeling on that," she continues. "The protection of women to make personal decisions with their families and their doctors has not traditionally been a partisan issue. In Colorado, the laws were passed under a Republican governor [John Love, who signed a bill allowing abortion in the state circa 1967]. So, in these hyper-partisan times, we're looking for states like Colorado to exemplify the fact that this is a family issue, not a Democratic or Republican issue, and that we expect our leaders to act accordingly."

If you've been amazed at the starring role abortion issues have played on the political stage here is Colorado recently, you'll enjoy the national perspective on the topic provided in Roberts' piece today.

View the original article here

Has GOP recall candidate noticed that multiple issues are discussed in the state legislature?

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

You have to wonder what's up with Republican George Rivera, who's running to replace Sen. Angela Giron in a recall election, when he dismisses his unapologetic support for the personhood amendment by saying,

Rivera: "You know, the thing is, is this election is about one thing and one thing only"

That's what Rivera told KZNT talk-show host Derrick Wilburn Saturday.

Wilburn should have asked Rivera if he's ever noticed that guns aren't the only topic discussed down at the Capitol. Actually, it's next to impossible to keep track of all the different issues, including abortion issues.

Voters should know that, based on his opposition to abortion, even for rape, Rivera would have supported the five bills introduced last session that restricted access to abortion services in Colorado or banned it outright. (See Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado‘s legislative scorecard for details.)

Obviously these bills weren't going anywhere in Colorado now, with pro-choice Democrats in control, but things could easily change. If so, Colorado could pass legislation similar to what's become law in states across the country, restricting a women’s right to obtain an abortion. (See the Guttmacher Institute's chart for details.)

It's silly for Rivera to say that the election of any state senator is about one issue. That's not how representative government works.

Wilburn knows this, and he almost certainly saw, at least, that Texas passed one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws just this year. So, he should have asked Rivera what he was thinking.

View the original article here