It’s Official: Bob Beauprez Thinks You’re Stupid

UPDATE: 9NEWS' Kyle Clark follows up, as this story finally stretches its legs:

Republican Bob Beauprez, who will face Governor John Hickenlooper in November, distinguished between the civil war he said Obama is risking and a peaceful civil war through the ballot box that Beauprez championed…

On Focus Today, Beauprez went on to distinguish between the threat of revolution he claimed is being caused by President Obama's actions and a peaceful electoral shakeup he called for in his 2009 book A Return To Values.

"I did call for a revolution," Beauprez told Focus Today [in 2012], "But one at the ballot box where people take back this great republic, a government of by and for the people."

9NEWS posted the whole original 2012 interview, and Bob Beauprez does say that he himself was calling for a "revolution at the ballot box"–instead of the actual revolution that Obama is pushing the nation to. If we're reading this right, Beauprez undid his clumsy attempt at clarification from this weekend's interview, and made sure we all know this was no metaphorical "civil war" Obama is pushing us to. Clark's Tweet summarizes better:

Note to Bob Beauprez: your "clarification" isn't helping.

—–

“Both Ways” Bob Beauprez (right).

‚ÄčOne of the more troubling clips of video that has emerged from Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez's "time in the wilderness," that is the period since his last electoral defeat and the present day, is a 2012 interview on the Christian television network theDove TV in which Beauprez claims that the Obama administration is "pushing the boundaries" toward "civil war." After we posted the video clip of Beauprez making these comments, the story was picked up and circulated "monster of the week" style on national progressive blogs.

And then last week, Bob Beauprez won the GOP gubernatorial primary. And suddenly, not just some washed up crackpot ex-Congressman making these nutty comments, it's the GOP gubernatorial nominee for Colorado.

Since that time, we've been waiting eagerly for the media to get around to asking Beauprez what he meant when he said that President Barack Obama is "pushing the boundaries" toward "civil war," maybe to offset the daily drumbeat of Denver Post hit pieces adding absolutely nothing new to their two-week-old rehash of Governor John Hickenlooper's remarks to the county sheriffs. And this weekend, 9NEWS' Kyle Clark did manage to ask Beauprez what he meant by that whole civil war thing. At 08:35 in Clark's interview with Beauprez on Balance of Power, here is what Beauprez says:

CLARK: When you said two years ago that you hope and pray that we don't see another civil war in this country, but the Obama administration is, quote "pushing the boundaries like none I think we've ever seen." What did you mean by that? Do you really think that the President is pushing American to civil war?

BEAUPREZ: Yeah, uh, well, civil war at the ballot box. [Pols emphasis] I think I wrote about this in my 2009 book, A Return to Values…

CLARK: Well, you used "revolution" in the same sentence. Were you talking about the ballot box when you said "revolution?"

BEAUPREZ: There are, there are a great…let me finish what I said. In my 2009 book, I called for a revolution at the ballot box. A peaceful revolution. That people needed to rise up and, and defend this republic. As Ben Franklin told the us, "we gave you a republic if you can keep it." There's a lot of people very concerned about this republic right now. Some of them are concerned enough that I do worry they may step over that line. I'm not calling for that…

For everyone's reference, here is the transcript of the original video of Beauprez's comments:

ATKINSON: You know Congressman, this, this, I don't even like going down this road, but if this saw the light of day, and God forbid that it would, but if this saw the light of day, wouldn't this be a modern-day civil war in this country?

BEAUPREZ: Well, some are wondering what will be the, the line that gets crossed eventually, where, where people actually rise up and say enough. I mean, our founding documents refer to it, that people have every right, a free people have every right, that when government becomes too obtrusive, too obsessive, too overwhelming, and infringes on their individual liberty and freedom, free people have the right to overthrow that government and establish a new one.

I hope and pray that, that we don't see another revolution in this country. I hope and pray we don't see another civil war, but this administration is pushing the boundaries like none I think we've ever, ever seen. [Pols emphasis]

What's remarkable about this is not that Beauprez is backpedaling from his very clear implication that a civil war could be the reasonable and appropriate result of the Obama's administration's "pushing the boundaries," which of course contains no disclaimer whatsoever that he is referring to "the ballot box." Obviously, he has to say something, because a gubernatorial nominee speaking sympathetically about starting a civil war is not electable–at least not yet in modern American history. The problem with Beauprez is this: it's going to happen over and over. There are so many nutty statements lurking out there in the record that Beauprez hasn't been made to answer for, just like this one–and all of them were known before Republicans made the decision to nominate him.

What's remarkable today is that Republicans didn't understand how bad this was going to get.

24 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. FrankUnderwood says:

    Civil war at the ballot box?  Isn't that an oxymoron.  If it is change effected at the ballot box, it's not a civil war.

    Eight years ago, BWB was just a klutz who ran an inept campaign during a bad years for Repubs. What possessed him to go off the edge (i.e., birtherism, global warming denial, and the Obama civil war)?

  2. DavieDavie says:

    The Denver Post better stock up on flea and tick powder if they plan to get in bed with that old hound dog, BWB Beauprez.

  3. ModeratusModeratus says:

    We all know that Beauprez has stuck his foot in his mouth a few times, but do you really think he wants a civil war? Of course he doesn't. Don't confuse a gaffe with intent.

    Speaking of which, has Hickenlooper stuck his foot in his mouth today? I bet he has!

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Maybe he doesn't want one, but he sure wants the dumbasses like yourself to believe that Obama wants one !

      Fuck you very much, shill!

      • ModeratusModeratus says:

        I'm not a shill, I just cling to my guns and religion. :)

        • Curmudgeon says:

          Makes sense to be clinging, since you Right Wing nutjobs are wetting your pants of so many things that terrify you.  What exactly will your guns and religion protect you from?   

        • Ralphie says:

          God doesn't carry a gun.

           

        • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

          Moddy- Nobody but a shill would make the comment you just made.I'd work on your throwing arm because tossing buybulls is going to be about as effective as either of the other options you mentioned that is if clinging leaves you a free arm to do any tossing with. I note you've had no comment on your boy Scotty's P-poor showing.BWB is going to be a less satisfying substitute for the full measure of wingnut extremism you could count on from Gessler when he wasn't pandering that is.

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

            Gessler's going to be going back to the far more lucrative practice of election and corporate law. I'm not even sure that he really is a "true beleiver" social conservative – he's much more of a corporatist.

    • BlueCat says:

      You probably meant that to be ironic. No comment on that but the fact is Beauprez has said so many extreme things about Islamic terrorist infiltrating the Obama administration,  Obama not being a real American, the threat of Sharia law, and every other tin foil hat conspiracy theory going, along with his strong support for never allowing women and their doctors to make their reproductive heath decisions, this is way more than the occasional foot in mouth moment. Dems can drip, drip drip a new one into every news cycle from now until election day, long after you are reduced to repeating the same few  dumb things Hick has said so many times nobody hears it any more. 

      What's more, Beauprez has never been smart enough to stop doing it so, in the unlikely event Dems run out of BWB gems already available, he'll just keep creating more. The people of Colorado will, more or less reluctantly depending on whether they're center right center or anywhere to the left, re-elect Hick because Beauprez 's extremist, tin foil views are just too much for the Colorado majority.

       

      • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

        That's been a campaign theme a few times over the years,as you know, B.C.

        "fill in the blank is too extreme for Colorado." And because the Righties works so hard at extremism it never gets old. 

        • BlueCat says:

          Lately it's been working. See recent Senators and Governors. It probably worked because the folks it was directed aganist really were too extreme for Colorado, a state where personhood was defeated first badly, then by even more, then failed to even make it on to the ballot, for instance. 

  4. exlurker19 says:

    One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.  Running ol' Both Ways Bob after his historic loss to Ritter (not in my mind as strong a candidate as Hicky for all his faults) is the equivalent of a recent GOP poll showing Mittens as the top favorite candidate for president in 2016. 

    My biggest fear is that if Mittens does run again, it would signal the return of the Arapagpopher.

  5. DenverMom says:

    Beauprez also told CPR that he would repeal all regulations that negatively impact business on his first day in office.  Never mind that he doesn't have that authority, does that mean all environmental regulations, health and safety regulations, regulations governing drivers' licenses?  It is inane.

     

    • FrankUnderwood says:

      Well, if he wants to be consistent with his principles (ok, stop laughing), he would have to push for such a solution.  Let the market regulate environmental protection, or workplace safety.

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      Theoretically, I think all regulations "negatively impact" business. That is why they call them regulations. They restrict or direct the unfettered flow of business and profit to protect an interest group or other stakeholder.

      You are being generous when you call it "inane". I will go all the way to "asinine".

      There seems to be no floor in the crazy house….

  6. notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

    I swear, that man only oens his mouth to exchange feet. When one loses its flavor he pops the other one in.

  7. JBJK16 says:

    If that headline is all you got~ Beauprez is right, we are stupid.

  8. CaninesCanines says:

    To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants — at the ballot box."

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.