Beauprez Says Secession About “Celebrating Diversity”

beauprezncolorado

Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez was featured in a sit-down interview with Fox 31's Eli Stokols that aired Sunday morning on Stokols' #COPolitics public affairs show.

One of the topics of conversation involved the failed Secession movement of last fall, in which voters of 11 counties cast ballots on the question of seceding from the State of Colorado to form a 51st State. The total number of voters able to vote on the topic of secession was relatively small, as we pointed out before, and a majority of politicians on both side of the political aisle did not approve of the proposal.

Stokols asked Beauprez about the Secession effort and where he stood on the issue; as you can see in the video below (beginning around the 7:40 mark), Beauprez says he did not support Secession. But Beauprez does talk a lot about sad rural Coloradans before attempting the odd connection that secession is really about "celebrating diversity" (as opposed to what it really was: a small, loud group of angry partisans who refuse to concede that the majority of Colorado's population is not aligned with rural interests any longer).

"I did not support the secession movement, but I certainly understood the sentiment — that's the key here."

This is a little different, of course, than what Beauprez said about the Secession movement last September. In Voice of America News (Sept. 16, 2013), Beauprez was clearly trying to align himself with sad rural Colorado:

"…maybe we ought to just go our separate ways.  Why don’t you run your state and we'll run ours."


Which state is that, exactly, Bob?

 

18 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DawnPatrol says:

    Yes, well, as we've all seen, there's considerable "diversity" between NewsMax and Fox echo-chamer adherents; between the Chamber of Commerce and the TeaParty Chamber of Horrors; among shotgun, rifle and handgun owners; among those whose hate minoroites, those who hate women, and those who hate the already-born; between what Cory, Coffie and Both Ways themselves each said this year as opposed to what they said last year and previous years on numerous political issues.

    Maybe that's the "diverfsity" Both Ways wanted to celebrate with his hare-brained radical seccessionist movement….

  2. ct says:

    Brown cows and brown n white cows.

  3. hawkeye says:

    How about two new states … North Colorado and Puerto Rico … which would produce four radical senators, two on the right and two on the left.  Heck, the spectacle would make for more interesting viewing on C-Span.

    • BlueCat says:

      OK but what would the great state of North Colorado do for revenue? It would no doubt become just another red state getting way bigger share of federal tax dollars per capita back then it pays in, with it's totally dependent population carrying on about rugged independence and knowing how to spend their money better than the gubmint does.

  4. DavieDavie says:

    Brilliant! He can shake his flip-flopping image by explaining them as merely his support for “diversity of opinions”. His own mostly…

  5. Republican 36 says:

    He certainly has diverse opinions. Last year when it suited his purpose to appeal to the right-wing fanatics, he was openly for secession. Now this year, when he's running for governor, he says he was never for secission last year. He didn't earn his nickname by being truthful and consistent that's for sure.

  6. Diogenesdemar says:

    "Wahhhhhhh . . . I want my own state," is now a sentiment???

  7. Progressicat says:

    I don't think I could listen to the whole thing without throwing up, so did Eli follow through on the secession topic to the other darling of the right– the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment?  I ask because it's a natural partner to secession, in that it seeks to give rural communities disproportionate influence over policy (oh, and the fact that it's mostly supported by nutbags).  I'd like to see Both Ways take a stand on disenfranchising voters.

  8. FrankUnderwood says:

    Why doesn't he run for Governor of Northern Colorado?  They will then have a leader, can hoist their flag (which is a hoot in itself) and declare their independence.

    I don't understand who he pandering to with this position.  The seccessionists lost on their ballot question in most of those counties.  So he's sucking up to a minority within a small minority of statewide voters.

     

  9. Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

    In response to Kristina Cook, you have never be under represented.  House and Senate districts are apportioned based on population so there are x number of person per position.  Rural voters have the same voting power as urban or suburban voters.  The undeniable fact that there are fewer rural voters than urban or suburban voters doesn't mean that rural voters are under represented.  What it means is that your elected batshit crazy representatives don't have the skill set to offer up pratical solutions to real problems so their anti-women, anti-minority, anti-immigration proposals are dead on arrival and go in the trash where they belong because the brutal truth is that the majority of voters in this state aren't homophobic chauvinists who want to ignore a child after it is out of the womb.  Rural residents are not under represented.  They just send representatives to the legislature that have no clue on how to craft legislation that would help their constituents.  As long as rural voters are going to send turds to the capital, their goofy proposals are going to canned.

    • BlueCat says:

      Exactly. Per capita they are just as represented as anyone else. There just aren't as many of them. In the American democratic process majorities rule except in areas such as religious freedom and other guaranteed rights and freedoms which cannot be abridged by majority vote, So the majority can't, by definition, be over-represented.  It's represented as the majority it is via the democratic process.

      • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

        And yet if their positions were in the majority regarding the elimination of women's health care choices, they would insist that there be no exceptions for the minority of people who disagreed with them.  They always want special exceptions for their minority positions but they are the worst of hypocrites when it comes to showing consideration for minorities when they are in power.

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.