Incumbent Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter’s campaign is pushing back hard on a new TV spot from Republican challenger Joe Coors. Eschewing Coors’ previously positive introductory themes, his latest ad very pointedly attacks votes from Perlmutter’s record as a state legislator.
Coors’ spot leads off with a frame from a new Democrat-aligned House Majority PAC ad, which hits Coors on his financial support for the 2010 “Personhood” abortion ban initiative, labeling that ad “false and negative” without explaining what’s false (answer: nothing we can identify). From there, Coors attacks votes in the state legislature by Perlmutter from 1996 and 2001, saying that Perlmutter “voted against the law that protects victims of child abuse from having to face their abusers in court” and “voted against Colorado’s law allowing the use of DNA evidence to convict sexual predators years later.” Both of which are, to be sure, portrayable in ugly ways. That said, these allegations are not new, having been first leveled against Perlmutter during the CD-7 Democratic primary election in 2006 by his defeated opponent Peggy Lamm.
Today, Perlmutter responded to Coors’ ad with a detailed rebuttal:
“Ed Perlmutter voted against the law that protects victims of child abuse from having to face their abusers in court.” (SB-96-174)Reality: In 1996 — 16 years ago — Perlmutter voted against SB 96-174, before closed circuit television had proven itself in the courtroom and because he felt the bill was unconstitutional because the Bill of Rights required anyone accused of a crime to face their accuser. Now that closed circuit has proven itself in the court of law, Perlmutter believes it meets constitutional requirements…
“And Extreme Ed Perlmutter voted against Colorado’s law allowing the use of DNA evidence to convict sexual predators years later.” (HB 01-1334)
Reality: Perlmutter is a father of 3 daughters and has a proven record of being tough on crime and protecting victims of assault. Ed voted against this bill in 2001, because he believes it was poorly written and unconstitutional because of its retroactive clause. The co-sponsor of this bill, Rep. Cheri Jahn, now believes that the bill was unconstitutional and would oppose it as well.
Perlmutter’s rebuttal goes on to list his endorsements from police and women’s groups, and a long list of legislation pertaining to victim’s rights, sex offenders, and crimes against women.
Back in 2008, GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer was hit with devastating allegations that he had helped conceal serious labor abuses, including the practice of compulsory abortions on factory workers in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory. The allegations were credible, well-documented, and the subject of a multi-day exposé by Michael Riley of the Denver paper.
However, these allegations were not what sank Schaffer. Contemporaneous polling showed the charge that Schaffer had helped cover for horrific labor abuses, and even forced abortions on workers, simply wasn’t believable in the context of what voters already knew (or thought they knew) about him. It was such a shrill allegation that it was very difficult to sell to the lay public.
Bottom line: unlike the perfectly believable idea that Joe Coors helped fund the 2010 “Personhood” abortion ban, it’s a big lift for the average voter to swallow the notion that a sitting Congressman with good name ID and a favorable reputation would vote to harm abuse victims. It certainly doesn’t comport with Rep. Perlmutter’s long list of endorsing police organizations and women’s rights groups. Combine that with the over-the-top imagery of a vulnerable young woman looking over her shoulder at a man walking behind her, and already-cynical viewers just aren’t going to accept these high-dudgeon allegations are true–and that’s before Perlmutter has a chance to rebut with his long list of countervailing endorsements and votes.
Of course, if attacks like this didn’t sometimes work, we’d never see them.
Did Perlmutter vote the way the ad says or didn’t he?
If he did, and I know he did, why shouldn’t he be held accountable for it?
Coors supports life. Perlmutter supports rapist’s rights. Let the chips fall where they may!
Republicans are the party of rape.
Crazy statements like that are what Pols is talking about.
You’re a weak advocate for your candidate.
Even if every stupid thing you’ve ever said about Republicans is true, how are we the “party of rape?”
That is silly and classless. The last party of rape was the Mongols. Nothing in American politics deserves to be associated with violent crime. Republicans don’t support violent crime.
. . . hoist!
Separated by all of about an hour — congratulations.
Read it and weep.
Your own comment reflects your lack of understanding of rape. It’s not always a so-called “violent crime.” Taking advantage of a girl who is passed out doesn’t involve physical assault. And usually such girls are treated by people like these Republicans as sluts who asked for it.
So much for that being “stupid.” It’s a cold stone fact.
backing child abuser and sexual predator rights is always wrong.
It doesn’t matter how close you are to the trial lawyers, just ask that Colorado Senator who introduced a leniency bill for her sexual predator brother …. You don’t vote with rapists and abusers.
Where are Ed’s people with his internal polling? Why won’t he use that to change the dynamic here?
This campaign looks like its being run by a bunch of freaking choke dogs.
I mean, just because a Republican wrote a crappily worded, unconstitutional law that would surely have been struck down by the first court that reviewed it, doesn’t mean it needs to go down in flames in the legislature!
The GOP needs to score political points here, folks!
The CCTV law was found constitutional. Perlmutter even says so above.
In denial now? I guess I would be too.
You’re the one saying Perlmutter supports rapists. Classy.
This bill would have the effect of making things easier for sexual predators.
Therefore Coors’ ad is correct.
If that’s true then thank goodness Ed voted against it.
Maybe you should read your own posts before replying.
The turmoil of his posts reflects that of his campaign.
I did get that backwards! You got me there.
You know what I mean, though. Perlmutter’s actions would have made things easier for sexual predators.
Can’t even get your own talking points straight. I think your bosses are going to have to dock your pay.
I’m encouraged.
Had the law passed, any sexual predator convicted under that law would have their conviction overturned when the law would be found unconstitutional.
Double jeopardy would probably have prevented their subsequent prosecution for the same crime. So yes, as you said, the bill would have the effect of making things easier for sexual predators.
So again I say, thank goodness Ed had the good sense to vote NO to a poorly conceived, unconstitutional bill.
You want to beat up on Ed for voting against a bill that would have made things easier for sexual predators? What is your damage?
… would have made it easier for the Japanese to stage attacks inside the U.S., so we rounded them up in camps. Of course, that was later found to be unconstitutional – but still, it was (at least according to your logic) the right thing to do.
It’s probably like supporting Sheriff Joe down in Arizona – sure, there might be a few Latino citizens rounded up in his raids, but better to find all the illegals and infringe a bit on citizens’ rights than to let one (otherwise law-abiding) undocumented immigrant slip between your fingers.
This as much as anything else is why I left the Republican Party – “law & order” has become “ordnen uber alles”, order no matter the cost.
Coors hates the anti-choice personhood. He sees being associated with personhood and the anti-choice movement as something that is negative! To accuse him of supporting it is false.
But thanks for your insight.
but I’m pretty sure he was being sarcastic
We met at a meet up a few years ago.
Harry’s right. It was meant to be sarcastic, but clearly came out poorly. They try and say that his real, monetary support of personhood being pushed in an attack ad by the house majority is false and negative. I was trying, poorly, to make a play on arap’s piece about how Coors support’s an anti-choice (anti-woman, really) position is against the campaign’s message. I apologize for the confusion as it has been a long election cycle (47 days to go!).
Choice is probably one of my top three, if not the most important issue to me. I proudly worked on the No on 48 and No on 62 campaigns. I don’t post enough to have an established rep anymore, but rest assured you and I are on the same side of this issue, and probably, many more.
I, too, was away for a long time. But like a moth to that flame, it’s election year and I wanted to rumble.
Don’t stay a stranger.
I’ve been lurking and I am clearly out of practice when it comes to posting, but hopefully that will change.
But as you can see, at 2100 hours, it was a late post for me as well. I often don’t see the most obvious of humorous attempts at that hour.
Looking forward to more from you.
I am way out of practice on my written sarcasm, not that it was ever that strong, but I should have made it more clear I was being sarcastic. I usually resist the urge to respond to arap, but his comment coupled with ad, and the long day, I couldn’t help it. I like your posts, and will hopefully start posting more myself so no apology necessary.
I actually thought Joe was kind of likable. Just an old fart doing his party’s bidding, maybe trying to fulfill family ambition to have a place in DC. But, now I know better.
but back in the 80s, when someone (the Post or the News) profiled the Coors family, he had some very ignorant and nasty things to say about gays.
When it comes to social cons, the good manners and affable personalities mask some serious hate for those who are not like them. I’ve been looking out for that as long as I’ve been aware of that dichotomy.
cheap handbags
What you said, Mr. handbags. Cheap. If Coors really liked personhood, he’d have given the movement $1000.01. Right Toodles?
give Bill’s line a gander? We could use a couple of new cheap shitbags here — Libertad and ArapaGOP are both looking a little too ratty for this season.
See comments above about late night humor.