Holbert stands behind statement likening Hick actions to spousal abuse

(Stay classy, Rep. Holbert – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rep. Chris Holbert (R).

Rep. Chris Holbert (R).

In a Facebook posting yesterday, state Republican Rep. Chris Holbert wrote that Gov. John Hickenlooper "treats us like we are his abused spouse."

In explaining why he'd vote for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, Holbert wrote in response to a Facebook post of one of Holbert's Facebook friends:

Because Hickenlooper treats us like we are his abused spouse. He smiles and tells us that things will be better, signs bills into law that trample on the freedom and prosperity of the People, apologizes, becomes angry when we don't forget, swears at us, then promises to abuse us again.

Don't put Hickenlooper back in office for another four years. That ONE person can cancel out anything that a Republican Senate might accomplish. Don't allow ONE Governor to cancel out 18 or more Senators who would work to repeal eight years of Democrat control.

Reached by phone this afternoon, Holbert stood behind the comments.

Asked if he thought his comparison to spousal abuse could be offensive to actual abused spouses and others concerned about domestic violence, Holbert said:

Holbert: "I think there are various kinds of abuse, and what I am pointing to is verbal. I’m not comparing it to physical abuse. People would have greater respect for the governor if he would have one story and stick to it."

"He tells us one thing and tells his supporters another thing," Holbert said, explaining his Facebook post further. "He suggested to the sheriffs that he didn’t talk to Bloomberg and records show he did. He apologized for signing bills that he claims he didn’t understand were so controversial. And then he talked to Eli Stokols, I believe, and says he’d sign the bills again. So which does he mean? I feel that’s abusive to the people of Colorado who look to him for leadership."

36 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    In the name of everyone who has ever actually suffered abuse: fuck you, Chris Holbert.

  2. bullshit!bullshit! says:

    Chris Holbert is a deep fried douchebag.

  3. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Lies, promises, negotiations, cheating on voters with oil and gas lobbyists, putting the health and safety of gas patch residents behind O&G profits,  a promise that a blue ribbon commission will make it all better…..

    I see Holbert's point, from a completely opposite direction – Hick is like an abusive spouse. And the sad thing is that we'll probably take him back "one more time".

  4. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Whose enemy am I, BS?

    Hickenlooper is committing mental abuse, not physical or emotional. In mental abuse, the partner is routinely deceived, and told that their perception of reality is what makes them crazy. It's as if someone told you that you did not post on Pols, and that your delusion that you did post here was what proved that you were crazy. 

    I see a perfect analogy with Hickenlooper lying that 

    • a fracking ban is planned
    • that this will destroy 110,000 jobs

    At the same time, he is saying that he wants a commission with "responsible citizens" only.  Apparently, the citizens who sponsored a health study showing grave concerns about health effects and birth defects from pollution in air and water from fracking, or citizens who did ban or create moratoriums on fracking within their communities are not "responsible". The fracktivists are portrayed as dirty hippies, bought off by Polis, even terrorists. Crazy, in other words.This denies lived reality on the ground. It is mental abuse. 

    The responsibility of this commission will be to regulate the organization which regulates oil and gas. But that's not crazy. The people who think it's crazy are crazy. Get it?

    At the same time, I'm encouraging and supporting people to sit on this commission, just because it is at this point the only chance to make any change on limiting oil and gas production around residential communities.  That's crazy, too. 

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Mama Jama: feel free to vote for Bob Beauprez in November.

      Frankly, I'm glad the whole idea of local control over O & G is done for now; the concept of local control. There always are unintended consequences. I refer to HB 4272 which, if passed by Congress, and signed, would give local governments the primary word on management decisions on the national forests. In other words, if local county commissioners want to log everything in sight, or turn their jurisdiction into a racetrack for off-road vehicle abuse, they would be able to do that.

      My point is that the conservation community could lose credibility by pushing hard for local control over O & G, but then saying no, no, no over local control of the national forests. The enemies of good environmental policies; the special interests; are forever watchful for slip-ups.

      Regards, C.H.B.

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        Not voting for Beauprez. Not voting for Hickenlooper. Not voting for the stripper-bar guy, Mike Dunafon. Probably mine will be an undervote.

        Commence with your lectures about how I'll waste my vote – but Hick needs to get the message to stop taking his constituents for granted.

        As far as local control goes, I was all for the original local control bill, the original initiative 75. Then it got twisted into a "sovereign citizen" whacked-out unconstitutional mess, and shit flowed downhill from there.

        I haven't read the text of HB4272, but will look into it. Thanks for the tip.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          Write in Michael Bowman…smiley

          • BlueCat says:

            Let's ask Mike what he thinks about that. Would you, Mike, prefer those who admire you hand votes to BWB by making statement votes or statement withholding of votes or would you prefer making sure we stop BWB by voting for Hick? I'm voting for Hick myself. Care to share who you plan to vote for, Mike?

            • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

              I've just returned from Hawaii where I got to watch, first-hand, the Abercrombie train wreck (he outspent little-known Ige 10:1).  There is something going on in the electorate that no poll is properly quantifying.  The problems that lead to Abercrombie's demise aren't unlike the dynamics we have here.  

              To your question BlueCat, I'm still undecided as to my decision.  I've met with Mike Dunafon and find him refreshing (I'm meeting with him again this week).  He's excellent on energy, cannabis & marriage equality.  I can live with his position on fracking (pro, but with very tight regulations and local control) – and I'm OK with his second amendment position.  I've never owned a gun and I'm not a sportsman but certainly support those who do so responsibly.

              If I don't go that route, I'll be an undervote.  As I've mentioned before the erigiousness of the land conservation issue that has unnecessarily bankrupted Colorado ranchers and farmers could have been mitigated; his latest choice for the PUC was nothing short of disappointing – and I don't think any of us appreciated the willful deception of drinking fracking fluid before a Congressional committee.  

              I'm a solid Udall supporter. Mark has earned my vote with is leadership in setting the stage for Colorado to be known as the global epicenter of the "New Energy Economy". Without Mark's efforts in 2004 to establish our initial renewable standard (Amendment 37), we wouldn't have the nearly $6 billion in wind farms across the Colorado prairies today.  Ditto for Andrew – I've long been a fan of his (although I'm in CD-4 and won't get to vote for him).  I'll be a vote for Vic Meyers, although I know how tough the landscape is for a Dem in CD-4.  I would have preferred that Jerry Sonnenberg been the R candidate – and I'll lay that blame squarely in Gardner's camp.  That said, Jerry will return to the dome next January as my state senator.

              I understand the angst of the petitioners who feel betrayed by the "compromise" – but I'm more neutral on that issue. I think we all know that yet another blue ribbon commission will deliver us nothing of substance.  I hope I can find a way to help harness that energy and put it where it can give us the biggest benefit, addressing the constitutional crisis in this state.  Having some Jesuit training in my background, I'm a firm believer of going to the root of the problem.  Let's stop whacking at the branches, or putting bandaids on cancer – and reestablish our constitutional right for local control that our state constitution guarantees us.

               

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          mama jama wrote: not voting for Beauprez…Hickenlooper….Mike Dunafon…. Commence with your lectures….."   You won't get a lecture from me. For president in 2012, I voted for the only conservative in the race, Gary Johnson from New Mexico.

          • BlueCat says:

            That would have helped elect Obama if he hadn't won by such a large margin. Refusing to vote for one of the two major choices only affects razor thin elections. In a very close race that might feel great but it really helps elect the one you agree with the least.

            If neither choice is my ideal I'll vote for the best I can get to block the worst. That way, if the worst wins I at least have the right to bitch about it because I didn't personally help elect that person. If all progressives follow Mama's example and BWB gets elected they will have helped elect him and, yes, there is a difference, yes BWB is much worse and no, they will not have the right to bitch about it by virtue of having helped to make it happen. Period.

              • BlueCat says:

                Nice to see another grownup around here.

                • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                  So …that means the rest of us are adolescent?

                  Lighten up, BC.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    I won't lighten up. I don't appreciate starry eyed idealists helping to elect the worst possible alternatives. Sorry. I meant every word I said. You can stay home or vote third party and convince others to do so if you want but if it results in a close election going to BWB don't say you're not among those responsible for that and don't say it doesn't make any difference because Hick is just as bad. Both of those statements, in the event that happened, would be untrue.

                    It's unlikely enough people will be so silly as to to cause that to happen, it almost never does, but it is a supremely silly risk to take in any potentially close election.  We need all the votes we can get to stop BWB. You're either with that effort or against it. If your against it, we are not on the same side in this election. Of course we are under no obligation to always be on the same side.

                    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                      The insinuation that those who have a different view are not grown up is dangerously close to a dwyerism. I have always respected your point of view, BC, but your characterization of those who would vote for any reason besides stopping BWB as starry-eyed idealists is unwarranted. Your opinion is held in high esteem around here, but petulance is never attractive.
                      If you say I can’t be on your side unless I am in lockstep with you on this, then I guess I’m not. What you are saying sounds a little too much like the other side…
                      and since I have probably pissed you off already, how about letting go of the chip on your shoulder about Andrew? Are you aware how often you throw in a dig about that?
                      I will most likely vote for Hick, unless you manage to talk me out of it…..

                    • BlueCat says:

                      I don't have a chip on my shoulder about Andrew. I always thought a lot of him, wanted him to be appointed but was very disappointed when he went off the deep end over it. 

                      You may consider recognizing him as a centrist a dig but it's not. Lefties don't win statewide or in purple districts in Colorado. Running as his centrist self is great. It makes him electable. I see the whole primarying Bennet from the left episode an unfortunate aberration and I'm glad he's back to doing what he does well and running on his centrist (real centrist, not the far rightie's idea of centrist) record.  

                      And I'm not pissed off and don't expect everyone to be in lockstep. However, helping someone like BWB get elected to make a point does put you on the opposite side in this election since I'm someone who considers it very important to make sure we don't elect BWB. It doesn't make us enemies but it does make us opponents, not allies, in this particular election. 

                      That's OK. Just don't pretend you aren't advocating for a BWB win by refusing to vote for Hick because that's (and here I know I'm going to piss you off again) the grown up world reality.

                      Oh and thanks for the kind words even if I just made you want to take them back. I'm sorry we're so far apart on this but using votes to make a point instead of to make sure the best option wins and the worst loses is one of my pet peeves. 

                      .

                    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                      Nor am I pissed off, my dear gato azul. I am one of your biggest fans and you would have to come up with a much more egregious insult to make me angry with you…but there is more than one point of view… and they are all wrong, except mine and yours…and sometimes I'm not too sure about yours…wink

                      Seriously…it's all good…but I'm just a kid…so what do I know? laugh

                       

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Glad to hear all that, Duke and you know plenty.smiley

              • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

                Spot on, B.C. I'd rather hold my nose and vote for the overall lesser of evils than sit by while others choose the Devil incarnate.  

            • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

              And yet, I fully intend to continue bitching…and speaking…and writing about politics, with your blessing or without it! cheeky

              I don't owe the Democratic party anything. I've volunteered for many campaign seasons, in three different districts, am fricking running a HD campaign's data now, have put up with all of the nasty infighting and backstabbing in Pueblo, in particular. I'll vote down the ticket, just not for Hick at the top.

              Odds are, he'll get elected without my particular vote, and without the votes of all of the people who feel betrayed by him. Just by a smaller margin.

              Life…and politics… goes on….

              • Gray in Mountains says:

                hey MJ, you do good shit. But, BC is correct, an undervote could make things a lot worse in CO

                • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

                  Amazing that my one vote and writing here is assumed to have so much power and influence. I never thought that I was that important. As far as my ability to convince others, I'm not planning a campaign to persuade, unless we have a viable 3rd party candidate.

                  So your statement that my undervote "could make things a lot worse in CO" and BC's declaration that "We are not on the same side in this fight" will not move me to change my intention of not voting for Hickenlooper. It makes me a little sad, but people tend to either love me or hate me, so there ya go.

                  You know who could persuade me to vote for him?

                  John Hickenlooper, himself. 

                  So far, his proclamations of the purpose of the great Blue Ribbon Commission are that it will "study" oil and gas development, and "make recommendations to the Legislature for 2015". 

                  Hickenlooper is also on the record as saying that he will personally choose the members of the commission – 6 from oil and gas, 6 environmentalists, 6 solid "neutral" citizens. He has said tht this commission will not deal with air and water quality issues, surface issues only:

                  We're not going to be out there talking about air quality; we're not going to be out there talking about water quality,” he said. “We're really going to look into surface use issues, a very narrow set of issues to talk about.”

                  So if air and water quality are ruled out as issues, where does that put the communities of Broomfield, Lafayette, Boulder, and Fort Collins? Air and water pollution are their main complaints. Longmont is no longer getting sued by the state – but Hick should never have sanctioned that in the first place.

                  And then there is the small-d democracy issue, which really irks me, and where I actually differ with the pragmatists on here – if 141,000 signatures are gathered for each of these initiatives, mostly by volunteers, should we not have allowed the democratic process to play out, let everyone propagandize and promote, and let the voters vote?

                  • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                    As I have said before, mama, my advice to the Denver enviro folks I communicate with was to drop 89 and win 88…but, as is obvious, I was ignored on that point.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    Mama, every group of votes is made up of a bunch of just one votes and those just one votes add up. If your voting decision makes you part of electing a BWB then you are as responsible for that outcome as any other just one vote decision in support of that outcome.

                    Having made a  choice to support the BWB outcome, if he wins you can bitch all you want but you will have forfeited any right to have your bitching taken seriously by anyone who knows which group you chose to be part of. 

                    Of course you're under no obligation to please anyone but yourself. Let's just not pretend we have more than two real world choices in this election. We don't and you know that as well as I do. That's about it for me or I'm afraid someone will post that dead horse again.

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        My point is that the conservation community could lose credibility by pushing hard for local control over O & G, but then saying no, no, no over local control of the national forests. The enemies of good environmental policies; the special interests; are forever watchful for slip-ups.

        That is an excellent point, CHB. This impasse in policy has hooked both the industry and the enviro community on the horns of the same dilemma. How do you determine what should be decided for a community based on jurisdiction?

        A tangled mess…full of land mines. Neither side wanted to go there.

        • ct says:

          It is a fundementally different issue.  Sure it can be complicated messaging but the matters ar separated by law–local jurisdictions traditionally have zoneing athorites over industrial use on non-federal lands in their jurisdicition.  'Local control' would simply assert this right in matters related to oil and gas as well as everything else.  It primairly affects non-federal minerals.  

           

          • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

            Right. That is the point of the decision in the Gunnison case, some years ago. Because the O&G people have had such a stranglehold on the state regulatory process, they have fought like crazy to keep the jurisdiction where they have the most control.

            There were seven specific areas of control the Gunnison decision allowed, coming as close to placing the industry under local zoning laws as they have ever been. The two recent circuit court decisions were about "banning" an activity, which the lower court says they cannot do.

            It would seem, ct, that the easy way around it would be to simply to hold O&G activity as no different than any other when it comes to the interface between industrial and residential activity.

            • ct says:

              To do that we have to change either legisaltion, or if the legislature continues it feckelss ways, at the ballot by amending the state constitution.  People bemoan how 'easy' it is to change the constituion in this state…I note that if our elected leaders did their jobs the voters would not have to.  

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.