Tea-party radio host catches Beauprez pandering to different audiences

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

“Both Ways” Bob Beauprez (right).

If you really want to understand the dynamic playing out right now among conservative candidates battling each other to defeat their primary-election opponents, I might suggest you tune to conservative talk radio, even if it's only for the next couple of months while the primary process unfolds.

You might ask, as a friend did the other day, "Does listening to talk radio make you want to crawl in there and strangle someone?"

No. Not at all.

Take for example, KLZ radio host Ken Clark's conversation with gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez the other day.

Clark asked Beauprez how he's going to get the support of grassroots conservatives when "you make statements like we-have-to-legislate-from-the-middle."

"I don't even remember saying it," Beauprez responded, "but I'll take you at your word, Ken.'"

And then Beauprez flashed his conservative cards:

Beauprez: "I had one of the most conservative voting records in Congress. In fact, I believe I had the most conservative voting record of our entire Republican delegation, including Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo and Joel Hefley at the time. I believe the National Journal had me right at 90 percent of all members of Congress. So that puts me in reasonably elite category of proven conservatives."

Later, Clark did some off-air research and told Beauprez that he made his we-have-to-legislate-from-the-middle comment on KNUS' Peter Boyles Show.

But Beauprez denied being on Boyles show, telling Clark: "I suppose it showed. You couldn't catch me off guard, because that doesn't sound like something I would have said," and, in any event, "I don't think I was on Pete's show." [BigMedia emphasis]

A talk-radio puzzler! Did Beauprez make the heretical statement that we should govern from the middle? He didn't say it on Boyles' show because Beauprez was correct; he did not appear there.

But on KNUS' Dan Caplis show March 4, with attorney Craig Silverman guest hosting, Beauprez didn't use the exact words "legislate from the middle," but he said as much:

Beauprez: You know, Colorado is a wonderful place where we all seem to figure out a way to get along. But you can’t track way far to the right or to the left in Colorado and pretend to still be mainstream and be on the side of the vast majority of people. Listen here.

So Ken Clark wins! In front of a more moderate conservative host (Silverman), Beauprez did advocate for governing from the middle. In front of a Tea-Party host (Clark), Beauprez disavowed any talk of middle-ground-governance. (Read this backwards: bob syaw-thob.)

Thumping is conservative chest on Clark's show, Beauprez suggested that anyone concerned about his conservative credentials should read his 2009 book, Return to Values, where he outlines an "appropriate agenda for America."

"Contact me, and I'll get you a copy!" Beauprez said.

See what I mean about conservative talk radio? On top of all the dramatic conflict and intellectual stimulation and puzzles, you even get free books by guys like Bob Beauprez. Don't miss it. Grassroots Radio Colorado starts at 5 p.m. on KLZ 560 AM.

27 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    I was messaging Ken/Jason last night while they were on air as Ken was speculating a little too much for my tastes on Obama's executive orders as related to immigration.  It was funny because I think my PMs settled their own air argument. 

    • roccoprahn says:

      You're noticably less belligerant re: immigration vs.Americans being within reach of quality, affordable health care.

      Family members wishing to immigrate vs. your own family being well insured. No one faults you for wanting your in laws to be here. Your callous disregard for the health of others……….yeah, that needs some work.

      You're right about one thing. In an inconsistant way, you're very consistant.

      • BlueCat says:

        It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, Fladen-centric world.

      • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

        What's inconsistent? I'm against big government.  Against big government in immigration.  And against it in health care. 

        Again, where is the inconsistency? 

        • roccoprahn says:

          Really?

          You sure that's you rfinal answer?

          fladen, "big government" being Federal legislation?

          How does "states rights"  or  'non-government" remedies move the immigration sitution to a national level?

          You stepped in it.  

          • BlueCat says:

            Can't wait to see his look over there answer. It will probably be something to do with a narrow definition he wants to  get credit points for instead of actual immigration policy. That's probably not what he's here to discuss.See all recent ACA threads.

          • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

            You can't get much more big government than an ICE raid on a family.

            • roccoprahn says:

              That's it????????????????

              Did you read that before you posted it?

              Have we or have we not had this converstion before? You're jerking chains, as you have NO legit position on this.

              Simply put, you have unlimited empathy (maybe that means you're NOT a sociopath, but rather, as we suspected first, simply record breakingly self absorbed) for immigrants, mainly, I posit, because your wife's family is of Mexican nationality and wants to be here…permanently. I not only laud you for your loyalty, but support your position. Factually, making a Federal path to citizenship will be a boon for the US economy. You know that, we've discussed it. Big government good. 

              On the other hand, you demonize the ACA, in spite of the fact the ACA is shown to save our treasury billions over the next 10 years. We've been over that as well, ad nauseum. You know that as well.

              Conclusion to be drawn is that you oppose the ACA because "you've got yours", and the libertarian ideology, as you see it, is that "those people" don't deserve anything that "they can't afford", as Medicaid is involved. You've posted enough here for me to know if you needed help with insurance, while you might not post for it, you'd approve.

              That's not a compliment, and that trait of yours is not a virtue. 

              I keep reminding you, life CAN AND DOES blow up in peoples' faces.

              And stop with the "look over there" bullshit dodges.

              At least you've stopped whining about your new handle. 

               

              • BlueCat says:

                I think when Fladen says big government he mainly means federal government and it's federal government that deals with immigration.  

                We're a big country. Immigration involves huge numbers of people distributed throughout the states. I wonder what small government solution Fladen proposes.  None, I suppose. Just as he doesn't have a ghost of a suggestion for a  health care  delivery system that wouldn't treat sick newborns and cancer survivors like preexisting "accidents".

                Maybe he'll say he isn't here to discuss immigration policy, just his definition of "big government". That should be enlightening…yawn.

                • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                  Elliot's actually pretty good on immigration, and has gone out on a limb to promote immigration reform. His motto: "The modern “conservative” movement’s opposition to immigration is based on a lack of faith in the appeal of its message."

                  He takes a lot of crap from nativists on his FB page.  He also speaks better Spanish than me, or than probably 90% of people on this forum. Credit where it's due…just sayin'.

                  ColoradopolsJune 2013

                  Colorado Independent 3/31/14

                  Colorado Independent February 2014

                  • BlueCat says:

                    I know he's good on immigration in that he expresses warm fuzzy feelings. Pretty sure his deviation on that one issue from rightie orthodoxy is explained by his personal situation and think he has the rather typically childish wannabe libertarian view (Like most self professed libertarians, he's no such thing) towards what they call big government. I don't know what kind of government other than big he thinks our very big country should have but good luck with small government if what you want is immigration reform.

                    Also, as usual, in his comment below concerning the role of government in immigration, he just sets forth his opinion of what that role should be as the definition, generously fulfilling my prediction of the response to expect from him.  You'll note that, as on the ACA threads, he has nothing to say about what he thinks actual policy ought to be. Just more signature Fladen, devoid of any practical suggestions, which I suppose he'd say he didn't come here to debate and also that he regrets I might be sad about that.  No worries on that score.

                • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                  Role of government on immigration is to screen out security threats and burdens for residency purpose and to set up a uniform system of naturalization where citizenship is concerned.  It is NOT to practice racial eugenics or protect us from competition.

              • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                Translation: "you disagree me and thus you are a self-absorbed sociopath."

                not going to dignify that screed with a further response.  

                 

                • roccoprahn says:

                  Translation:

                  "I committed an unforced error with my "against big government on immigration" mistake. It was a foolish post, and it made me look naive and like a rube.. I'm going to stop digging, but will try to fix this self inflicted wound by playing victim, saying you were mean to me".

                  That's not the adult way out, Elliot. You should have simply admitted you stepped in it.

                   

                  • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                    Sorry, but I continue to view the nativist position as the position of big government.  That is not a "mistake"… that is my actual view

                    • roccoprahn says:

                      It never ends. Allways jerkin' those chains.

                      Changing the subject,"look over there".

                      Look Elliot, as one who goes too far, lets my fingers over run my thoughts, I know when somebody commits the old "oh shit" screw up.

                      Let it go, the "big government" libertarian ruse doesn't apply here.

                      Mistakes like these are why the great work you put out here gets minimalized. 

                    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                      Whether you agree with the idea that this is a problem of big government is one thing.  Whether I agree with it is another

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Just because that's your view doesn't make it a fact. It makes it your view.

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      Blaming immigration problems on "Big Government" means Elliott can support immigration reform, while still trying to placate the crazy bastards who want to man the borders so they can shoot brown people.   It takes some flexibility, but luckily, he's not burdened with a spine. 

                    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                      Curmudgeon, seriously, what the hell are you even talking about? Do you just spout random attacks that have no basis in reality? 

                      Tell me the last time you ever volunteered at a Legal Nights for undocumented immigrants.  Or the last time you told a sobbing couple that there was no easy fix for their immigration stiuation?  Or the last time you went to bat at 5:30 a.m. in the morning to save a nationally prominent immigration activist's mother from getting deported in what appeared to be a retaliatiory raid in AZ?  Or the last time you not only took on NumbersUSA/FAIR but designed the arguments that the national people used in their talking points? Or the last time you went to a 9/12 or tea party rally and said they needed to support immigration reform?  Or the last time you took scarce political/movement capital and gave a Tax Day Tea Party speech calling out Tom Tancredo for being a hypocrite because of his immigration nativism?

                      My guess is you have NEVER done ANY of that.  No, instead you just spout your mouth off because you are pissed that you can't hold your own in a debate.  Well sorry dude that your lot in life is to be a bitter armchair activist, but I guess that is what some are cut out for.  Me, I'd rather try to make the world a better place. 

                      Have a good evening. 

                    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                      And by national people, I mean the Alex Nowrahstehs, David Leopolds, Julio Varellas, Stephen Nunos (tilda missing), Pilar Marreras and Ruben Naverettes of the world. 

                      You seriously have no clue of the stuff I do behind the scense on immigration.  But guess what – you simply aren't important enough for me to waste my time enlightening you.  Because my guess is you have no clue who any of the above names are in the first place. 

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      Again, with the pearl-clutching, the shrill protestations, and, most importantly, the deflection: I'm not questioning your sincerity when it comes to immigration. It's one of the things I used to respect about you.  

                      I'm lauging at the "Big Government is the problem" stance, which is an obvious and all-too-familiar attempt to have it both ways. Standing firm on the one honorable thing we've seen you stand firm on, while still sucking up to the crazies. 

  2. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    It's pretty simple – when you have a political philosophy based on perceived self- interest, (libertarian "small government"), you appeal to that enlightened self interest, and form coalitions. My own sorry excuse for a senator, George Rivera, actually did a good thing and voted against  the O&G eminent domain bill, SB93. Why did he do that?

    a) the oil and gas lobby probably hasn't bought him off yet, figuring that he's not long for his senate seat, and

    b) maybe, just maybe, he actually cares about rural people's issues, being one himself.

    Most people on here, including me, disagree with Elliot Fladen at least 80% of the time. That isn't going to change much. But why not celebrate the small areas where there is agreement, like immigration reform and "No white supremacists in the CO House"?

    Outside of our little Pols puddle, on a macro level in Congress, if both sides could agree that the economic benefits of allowing non-criminal immigrants to become citizens outweight the dubious racial arguments of deporting them, so much human suffering and waste could be alleviated.  Millions of families could come out of the shadows. Millions of children could feel safer at school, knowing that Mom and Dad will still be there when they get home. Millions of dollars would be pumped into our economy, into our tax base. America has been a nation of immigrants for centuries.  We just have to be smarter about it now, and maybe ….compromise…just a bit, even with people we disagree with on everything else.

    Getting back to the original post, Beauprez is right, he does actually have to govern from the middle, if he governs at all. The fact that he holds batshit, conspiracy opinions makes it unlikely that he will get that chance, thank Goddess.  But he is right to advocate moderation, even if he isn't actually a moderate.

  3. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    As for actual policy BC, try reading.  You do realize that inadmissibility and visa numbers are a huge part of immigration policy right? Wait, I guess not!

    • BlueCat says:

      I was only responding to a specific comment of yours here and now on this thread which is more than I ever get from you in response to my comments. The particular comment I responded to reminded me of your non-facty ACA comments. I was only making that observation and predicting your likely response to my remarks.  You came through with exactly the sort of response I predicted which I never fail to find satisfying.  A weakness. Thanks for indulging me. Yet again. smiley

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.