Beauprez says Tea Party “uprising” is “healthiest thing we have seen in very long time in America.”

(Um, what? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Tea Partiers.

Tea Partiers.

Remember this Denver Post headline, after the June 24 Republican primary: "In Bob Beauprez, Colorado GOP goes with mainstream contender."

I rolled my eyes at the time because, I'd been following Beauprez for years and knew him to be far outside the mainstream, as seen in his support for replacing income tax with a "consumption" or sales tax, just to name one Tea Party favorite.

Maybe whoever wrote The Post's June 24 headline knows better now than to characterize Beauprez as a "mainstream contender," as his Tea Party leanings have oozed out in the news over the past few months. (See his comments about Obama pushing America close to "civil war" and about 47 percent of Americans being "perfectly happy" to let someone else pay the bill.

If not, Beauprez's statement yesterday, in response to a question from KLZ 560-AM guest host Jimmy Sengenberger, should seal the deal:

"I have said for years, Jimmy, that this [the Tea Party] is the healthiest civic movement I have seen in my lifetime, and I'm almost 66 now. I don't think I've ever witnessed a time where people have stood up and said, I want to save this Republic. I want my government back, and focused primarily on constitutional originality and fiscal discipline. It can't get any better than that. The time is absolutely. Are there disagreements among various groups and various individuals. Sure. Or is it always a perfect, clear smooth path. No, of course not. It wasn't in our nation's founding either. But if this nation is going to survive. If we are going to be that greatest nation on god's green Earth, it isn't up to government. It is up to the people. And this uprising that we broadly call the Tea Party movement in my opinion, again, is the healthiest thing we have seen in very long time in America." [BigMedia emphasis]

What kind of mainstream candidate could possibly say this? None. Ask Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin.

And during a separate radio interview yesterday, reported by The Denver Post's Joey Bunch, Beauprez proved the point.

As you know if you've followed the death of bipartisan immigration-reform legislation in congress, the Tea-Party has distinguished itself as taking the most obstructionist, uncaring, and uncompromising positions on immigration-reform. And the Tea-Party approach is embodied in KNUS talk-radio host Peter Boyles.

Beauprez aligned himself with Boyles yesterday when he said he'd send Colorado National Guard troops to the Mexican border to deal with undocumented immigrants, as Texas Gov. Rick Perry has already done.

"If Rick Perry or another governor requested it, I would certainly step up and do my part," Beauprez told Boyles.

Beauprez later added in the interview that he would stop issuing driver's licences to undocumented immigrants, and he wouldn't house young migrants in Colorado while they await court dates. Tens of thousands of desperate children have been crossing the border from Central American countries, and, in Tea Party fashion, Beauprez writes off having anything to do with them.

A Beauprez spokesman later told The Post that Beauprez would send the Colorado Guard to the border for humanitarian work, as  law would prohibit military activity.

Bottom line, I'm betting The Denver Post won't be writing any more headlines calling Bob Beauprez "mainstream." Unless, of course, the headline writer describes Beauprez as "mainstream Tea Party."

That's more like it.

23 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Big Time says:

    Tom Tancredo is from Pluto (ie no longer a part of our solar system), Bob Beauprez is from Mars … so "mainstream" is a relative term, and back here on Earth, the DP wants us to believe because Mars (Both Ways Bob) is still a part of our solar system, and hasn't been banished like Tancredo, he is therefore "mainstream" … or something. The DP's "logic" is as screwy as my analogy. 

  2. Gray in Mountains says:

    I also think BWB is an insult to those of his/my age cohort. I thought the dude was 10 years older or more both from his appearance and the daffy shit he says

  3. Urban Snowshoer says:

    Replacing the income tax with a consumption or sales tax is, as we know, regressive: i.e. the lower-income folks will end up paying a  lot more, proportional to their income, than those in the top-income bracket.

    I suppose you could enact a tax-emptions to mitigate the problem but before you know it everyone else will want an exemption and we'll be back to where we started with another messy, complicated, tax-code.

    • DaninDenDaninDen says:

      Consumption tax: ruse of the rich.& Tea party cranks..Thx for weighing in on an important topic to me which regressive taxation- sales tax, which comprise most of car registration fees as well as the decades old penchant in this state to tax food, the rationale was to nail the tourists and in the process, undercut consumerism of citizens, the base of the pyramid, and the available income left over for discretionary spending, which as we all know is the engine of our economy at large.  

       Back to car registration fees, the onerous “penalty” for being late on paying, then catching past month(s) yet getting fined. What a sophomoric, juvenile hold over from the 2009 “Deer in the headlights” Colo Legislative session. Memo to polls in the statehouse, the war is over, come out of your bunkers the (siege) recession has lifted. Do away  with a tax, win friends on both sides, or, let venality give substance to the Republican charge that Democrats never saw a tax they didn’t like ( and cling to as if “my precious” )

  4. Old Time Dem says:

    BWB actually endorsed the "Fair Tax" concept, which is a 32% or so sales tax on all new goods and services, with a "prebate."  The prebate is, as I recall, sent to everyone and is intended to be an offset for basic living expenses.

    The tax is both highly regressive and highly disruptive, but one thing is absolutely clear:  it will shift the tax burden to the middle class.

    • Urban Snowshoer says:

      Who is going to be hit harder: the person making $10,000 a year or the person making $100,000 a year?

      While $100,000 a year might be considered middle-class in the more expensive parts of the country (e.g. Manhattan), there is no way $10,000 a year can be considered middle-class anywhere in the United States.  Unless you define the term "middle-class" so broadly as to mean anyone who isn't a millionaire or billionaire, the poor and least well off end up shouldering the highest burden not the middle class.

       

      • DavieDavie says:

        Not only will it shift the burden from the 1% to the rest of us, the so-called "Fair Tax" will seniors especially hard.  Here's the reason why:

        Who might lose under a national sales tax?

        • Seniors. People do not earn income at a steady rate during their lifetime. The bulk of most people's earnings occur before the age of 65. People over the age of 65 have vastly reduced incomes and live off the savings they earned while employed. A switch to a sales tax will be in effect taxing them twice. They've already paid a lifetime of income taxes and now they have the opportunity to live off of their savings and consume, they'll be taxed on that consumption. Unless special consideration is given to the current generation of seniors, they will end up paying a disproportionate share of taxes.
        • http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/fairtax_4.htm
        •  

        But, hey — that's ok with Bob!

      • Old Time Dem says:

        So, you want to argue over whether the "Fair Tax" is worse for poor or middle-class people?  I'm tempted to say, "who cares, it's a stupid idea that's never going to go anywhere" but…here goes.

        First, let's use an objective measure of "poor":  the federal poverty level.  Taking into account the "prebate" (which is, roughly, the tax incurred spending a poverty-level income), poor people pay no tax under the proposal (that is, their tax paid equals their rebate).  On the other hand, they don't pay any other federal tax (a person with an FPL income probably doesn't pay much regular federal income tax now, but does pay social security and medicare tax).  So, poor people pay less under the fair tax proposal.  Wealthy people also pay less under the fair tax.

        So, assuming that the fair tax is revenue neutral, and poor and wealthy people are going to see their taxes go down, it must be the case that the folks in the middle are going to see their taxes increase.

  5. DavieDavie says:

    I saw the DP article, and it demonstrated that not only was Beauprez ignorant of the law (can't deploy CO National Guard for military operations outside the state), he is happy to disregard the law as well:

    Beauprez also stirred controversy with a radio interview during the Fourth of July weekend, when he said governors should be allowed to enforce immigration laws if the federal government won't. He invoked the tougher measures Arizona put in place in 2010. Most of the measures were struck down in 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which maintained that immigration law is a federal responsibility.

    Even his Elephant Party Pooper Scooper crew can clean that big of a mess up.

  6. skeptical citizen says:

    Hey, Bob, just be honest and acknowledge publicly that you have joined the growing herd of fellow Republicans who love the Koch Brothers. The Tea Party is nothing more than a corrupted astroturf group for the selfish billionaires.

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.