Freshman Rep. Robert Ramirez of Westminster has been represented in a number of stories about the failure of civil unions legislation this year as an example of a Republican who would have voted for the bill had it reached the House floor. As just one example, before the end of the regular legislative session from the Catholic News Network:
The bill has already passed the Colorado Senate. The Republicans control the State House by a one-vote margin, but civil unions supporters believe they have enough Republican votes to pass the bill.Along with Nikkel, Republican Reps. Robert Ramirez of Westminster and Kevin Priola of Henderson have said they will vote in favour of the bill if it reaches the House floor…
And here’s Rep. Ramirez on the radio in late April:
RAMIREZ: I am looking at voting for it if I get the opportunity.
But as you know, Rep. Robert Ramirez never got the opportunity. The civil unions bill, both the regular-session Senate Bill 2 and the special session House Bill 12s-1006 were killed by Republican leadership. And judging by this report from the Colorado Statesman Friday, we really wonder if Ramirez is relieved to have avoided being asked to keep or break his word:
One day after House Republican leadership killed a bill that would have recognized same-sex civil unions in Colorado, supporters of traditional marriage lined up on the west steps of the Capitol to articulate their message that same-sex marriage and civil unions are wrong, and that the only way to halt the “breakdown of marriage” is to elect leaders who support protecting marriage as being between one man and one woman…Also in attendance at the rally were Reps. Robert Ramirez, R-Westminster, [Pols emphasis] Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, and Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock, as well as Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs.
Ramirez attempted to shift the focus back to jobs and the economy, saying that the mission of the legislature was lost during the session to wedge social issues.
So much for that, eh?
This is the same Rep. Robert Ramirez who was quoted in the New York Times last fall lamenting his party’s poor relations with Hispanics, yet who faithlessly pledged to work with proponents of the ASSET legislation for better tuition rates for undocumented students.
Is such unusually shameless double dealing just how Robert Ramirez rolls? This isn’t an entirely sarcastic question. We’re starting to wonder if Ramirez just doesn’t think being consistent on the issues matters. Too far down the ticket, nobody cares, we know consultants who really say this.
For a guy who won his seat by 197 votes, we would be very nervous giving that advice.
Full story: Robert Ramirez Sets Bar For Legislative Flakiness
There’s an app-onent for that.
Tracy Kraft-Tharp is one of the strongest first-time candidates I’ve ever seen on either side of the aisle. If you’d like to flip the majority, I can’t think of a better place for a few bucks or a couple hours of your time to land.
…lives in that district.
Robert Ramirez voted as his constituents asked him to. Listen to the video and Ramirez says he has not committed and will vote his district.
http://www.citizenlink.com/201…
Once again, just because Colorado Pols says that all Republicans must act like Democrats doesn’t make it true. This issue is one of many. Voters must make a choice.
Your handlers didn’t answer your text right away with the party line?
Here’s a hint to pass on to them: If the accusation is “Ramirez can’t be trusted when he says he intends to vote a particular way,” the right way to address that accusation is not, “Well yeah, you’re right, but he says he had a reason!”
Text them back and let them know that those annoying liberals on Pols want to know why Ramirez didn’t poll his constituents before making a public statement, or why he didn’t make the public statement, “I will vote in accordance with the wishes of people who call and/or email me about this bill.”
Ramirez has not had the opportunity to cast a vote on civil unions.
I should have said that Ramirez would have voted as his constituents asked. He claims his constituents told him to oppose civil unions by 35-1.
I stand by my point.
He made nearly the exact same comment about constituent emails regarding the ASSET bill. I think that’s his fall-back line when asked something controversial. I live in his district and I don’t believe for one minute that opposition to civil unions outweighs support 35-1.
Perhaps the reason Rep. Ramirez never responds to my emails is because he only reads emails from supporters. The one out of 36 that disagrees with him must have some sort of misleading subject line that implies it’s from a supporter.
of those in his district opposed to gay rights is 35 fold greater than supporters, so they’re on the phone more.
In studies, it’s called selection bias.
So he got fewer calls from the people who already believed he had made the right decision.
If opponents are passionate and supporters are lackadaisical, the opponents should win, shouldn’t they? Why are supporters so unenthusiastic about this issue that supposedly enjoys 7000000% approval?
One man one vote.
For quoting a FOTF website.
When are you going to retract your false statement (see link in my sig line)?
The guy is just tone deaf; not just on the obvious hypocrisy here. But also because he thinks showing up to an extremist Focus on the Family rally and supporting Frank McNulty nuking dozens of bills is good politics in his district.