Gessler says Palacio “uncorked,” “red-faced,” which proves that Dems trying to “game the system”

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



I have to say, it must be tough to interview Scott Gessler.

He says so many half-baked, half-proven, innuendo-laden things that, as an interviewer, you’d have to constantly be interjecting with: Where do your numbers come from? Do you have proof? On what documents do you base these claims? Do you think your behavior befits your office?

Just yesterday I bashed Mike Rosen for failing to interrogate Gessler when he said Democrats like to “rile” up Hispanics to get their votes.

But I have to give Rosen a bit of a break here. I took a second look at the Gessler interview and found yet more outrageous claims that I had missed previously, demonstrating that even with the luxury of sitting at a computer and being able to re-wind a podcast, it’s easy to miss stuff Gessler says that should be challenged.

My first time through the Rosen interview I managed to miss Gessler’s statement that he thinks, categorically, that Democrats are trying to “game the system” by backing a bill in the state legislature allowing clerks can to send ballots to registered voters who did not vote in the previous election.

Gessler said: “So, it seems to me that they were really invested in making this change, trying to game the system. And it was maybe more than just a policy dispute for them.”



In retrospect, Rosen should have asked Gessler for evidence that Democrats are essentially against fair elections, trying to rig the system in their favor. This is a serious allegation, even coming from Gessler.

As it was, the only proof Gessler offered in his interview seems to be that Democratic State Chair Rick Palacio was, Gessler said, “uncorked” and “red-faced” over the issue.

Gessler: You know what I found really interesting?  When we were sort of in this battle at the legislature, I mean, I viewed it very much as a policy disagreement.  And, you know, you can have different views on the policy.  I think that the position they were trying to advocate was completely wrong.  But when you look at how uncorked [Palacio] became, and was just all sort of red faced and angry, it makes me wonder if there was something in there that the Democrats were using to try and game the system.  And remember, this is the same framework that we’ve had for seventeen years, now, in Colorado. And then to sort of trot out these stale claims of disenfranchisement, as if there are thousands of people in Colorado now being disenfranchised, which is simply not the case. So, it seems to me that they were really invested in making this change, trying to game the system. And it was maybe more than just a policy dispute for them.

So here’s my advice for anyone whom Gessler grants interviews to. Schedule two interview sessions, no just one. Tell the Secretary of State that your second interview slot will be for the follow-up questions that inevitably slip by in the rush of unsubstantiated allegations and outright misinformation that comes out of him.

10 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Dan WillisDan Willis says:

    I would say there are defintely different views on policy.

    For example, I have a very dim view of the policy of keeping ballots from registered voters.

  2. ArapaGOPArapaGOP says:

    Palacio went all out for something that he can’t possibly accomplish. What’s that called?

    FAILURE.

    The only ones who can’t see it are fellow partisans. Rick messed up big time and you all know it.

    • Gray in Mountains says:

      what a pile

    • Konola says:

      It is not failure to wage a war and lose a battle. There will be more battles.

      Palacio is trying to make sure that all eligible Coloradans have the right to vote. Gessler wants to make sure that anyone who might accidentally vote for a Democrat has a hard time getting their hands on a ballot–he’s invented fraud that doesn’t exist just so that he can reduce the number of eligible voters.  

  3. The realistThe realist says:

    “gaming the system” by Republicans.  This can be nothing other than a veiled admission that they know they cannot win if all eligible voters are allowed to vote.  

    They’re on their way to guaranteeing themselves a permanent minority, in marked contrast to their proclamations in recent years that Republicans would achieve a permanent majority:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/

  4. gaf says:

    He’s not. His actions are not those of a journalist, and won’t be. He is a guy making a good living with a megaphone, and he happens to enjoy using it in a partisan way. He won’t change. So another go-around with Gessler won’t result in follow up questions that would be uncomfortable for Gessler. It would only result in more soft balls for Gessler to continue his crusade.

    • Jason Salzman says:

      or continue to try to appeal to his basic civic responsibility AND at the same tine hope that a real journalist who stumbles on my blog posts picks up where Rosen and his ilk leaves off.

      My current thinking is to go with the latter option.

      • gaf says:

        It is important to continue to address Rosen to call him out. And I agree with

        AND at the same tine hope that a real journalist who stumbles on my blog posts picks up where Rosen and his ilk leaves off.

        We can hope that will happen, and your posts on Rosen point out the problem. But I think an “appeal to [Rosen's] basic civic responsibility” is a lost cause.

  5. VanDammerVanDammer says:

    Gessler only plays on friendly ground.  He’s a coward so he’ll never give himself up for an honest back & forth.  He’s also a 1-term SoS with bigger plans for himself and it’s fine.  He’s salting the ground here so has no real interest in anything but partisanship.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.