Colorado GOP state senator ducks questions from Aurora victim’s father (via Raw Story )
The father of one of the victims of the July 2012 mass shooting in Colorado told Talking Points Memo on Friday that his state’s Senate Minority Leader, Bill Cadman (R), rebuffed him while sharing pictures of his son. “I walked right up to him, and I handed him one of the pictures, and I said, ‘…
Full story: Raw Story: Colorado GOP state senator ducks questions from Aurora victim’s father
As featured at Mugshots.com.
That is, unless you live in Grand Junction, Colorado. The Sentinel's Paul Shockley reports on the final disposition in the domestic violence case against newly sworn-in City Councilor Rick Brainard:
Grand Junction City Councilor Rick Brainard pleaded guilty Friday after a thwarted bid to end his domestic-violence case with something less than a guilty plea.
Brainard, 51, tried to plead “no contest” under a deal with the Mesa County District Attorney’s Office in which he would have been placed on a deferred judgment and sentence for 18 months, aside from a suspended jail sentence. Brainard sought permission to travel out-of-state…
“I will not accept a nolo contendere plea,” the judge said. “It’s guilty or not guilty.”
And with that, Brainard was left with little choice but to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault. He received an 18 month suspended sentence, with a domestic violence screening and community service. If Brainard successfully completes these requirements, he can get the conviction expunged from his criminal record.
As far as the public record is concerned, what's done is done.
Shockley reports that another contingent of taped-mouth women protesters was present as yesterday's hearing. It still appears Brainard intends to live this conviction down and remain on the city council, but either way the difference between a nolo contendre and a guilty plea wouldn't have helped his popularity much with them.
Laiche acknowledged his client “at some point and time needs to apologize to her.”
…When confronted by an officer with details about the incident, Brainard admitted he’d grabbed her, pushed on her chest, pulled her hair and slapped her on the left side of her neck and cheek area, according to the affidavit. Brainard told the officer he slapped the woman because she needed to “shut her mouth,” the affidavit said. [Pols emphasis]
This isn't some indiscretion in the distant past–Brainard assaulted this woman three days after winning office. As we've said previously, the indifference shown by Brainard in taking office after this is something we don't think would would be tolerated in many other parts of the state–and points to a, for lack of a better word, dysfunction in the culture of beet-red Mesa County, Colorado. Where are the civic leaders to say "enough, Mr. Brainard?"
Each day is a welcome fresh opportunity to prove us wrong.
"The most common lie is that which one lies to himself; lying to others is relatively an exception."
–Friedrich Nietzsche
Late this afternoon, the office of Colorado Attorney General John Suthers released a long-awaited technical guidance letter prepared for the Department of Public Safety on the implementation of House Bill 1224, the magazine limit bill. This technical guidance was requested by Gov. John Hickenlooper at the signing of HB-1224 into law, following the many objections raised by opponents of the legislation that the bill would "ban all magazines," or at least all magazines "with a removable baseplate" or other design feature that could hypothetically allow them to be expanded beyond the legal maximum of 15 rounds.
As we have reassured our readers over and over, but unfortunately local media has failed to clarify for an anxious and misinformed public–even helping spread baseless speculation–that is not going to happen.
Definition of "Large Capacity Magazine"
Under House Bill 1224, the term "large capacity magazine" is defined, in part, as follows: "a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds of ammunition."
The phrase "designed to be readily converted to accept more than fifteen rounds of ammunition" has prompted questions regarding the scope of the definition, particularly because some ammunition magazines include features, such as removable baseplates, that can be removed and replaced, or otherwise altered, so that the magazine accepts more than fifteen rounds.
The term "designed," when used as a modifier, denotes a feature that meets a specific function. This suggests that design features that fulfill more than one function, and whose function is not specifically to increase the capacity of a magazine, do not fall under the definition. The features of a magazine must be judged objectively to determine whether they were "designed to be readily converted to accept more than fifteen rounds."
Under this reading of the definition, a magazine that accepts fifteen or fewer rounds is not a "large capacity magazine" simply because it includes a removable baseplate which may be replaced with one that allows the magazine to accept additional rounds. [Pols emphasis] On many magazines, that design feature is included specifically to permit cleaning and maintenance. Of course, a magazine whose baseplate is replaced with one that does, in fact, allow the magazine to accept more than fifteen rounds would be a "large capacity magazine" under House Bill 1224.
Here's the full text of the memo, which also explains the meaning of the "continuous possession" language in the bill–and again, the plain interpretation of the bill does not lead to the wild unforeseen consequences Republican opponents insisted would be the result. With both of these provisions but particularly the language on whether magazines were "designed to be readily converted," it is obvious now that opponents like Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute were not telling the truth when they claimed that House Bill 1224 would mean "almost all guns in Colorado will never be able to get a magazine again." It means that every reporter who uncritically reprinted this lie now needs to write another story explaining how that wasn't true.
And folks, we're not going to forget this. The amount of misinformation spread about this legislation by opponents, and too often subsidized by reporters dismayingly willing to trade long-term credibility for short-term scoops, was totally unacceptable and needs to be called out. A lowly political blog should not be the only media source telling the public the truth about this bill, but that really does seem to be what happened in this case.
The people of Colorado deserved better. And we hope they finally get it now.
Full story: BREAKING: Sky Will NOT Fall When Magazine Bill Takes Effect
With the 2013 legislative session behind us, we've updated The Big Line with our latest projections. Of note:
UPDATE: A photo forwarded to us from today's press conference announcing the lawsuit against Colorado's new gun safety bills, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute on the right:
See the man in the black shirt on the left? That's Clint Webster, a 2010 GOP candidate for House District 24.
What's so special about Clint Webster, you ask? We reported on Mr. Webster as part of a 2010 release of the criminal records of a number of legislative candidates, mostly Republican:
Webster was arrested in 1987 for disturbing the peace, and in 1991 for assault. Webster pleaded guilty to felony assault and menacing. The arrest report obtained from the Jefferson County Sheriff shows that Webster was apprehended after firing two shots from a semi-automatic pistol at his ex-wife. [Pols emphasis] When asked by arresting officers what his intention was when he fired, Webster stated something along the lines that he had warned his wife to stop bothering him and had even threatened to kill her, yet she ‘showed up at his home anyway.’
The Denver Post's editorial board had this to say about Webster's 2010 bid:
Many of the infractions are examples of poor judgment that occurred during candidates' younger years. But some ought to take them out of the running. Take Republican Clint Webster of Lakewood, who is running against Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, for the House District 24 seat…
Though that charge was dismissed, a more troubling incident arose in 1991. Webster was arrested after threatening to kill his ex-wife and firing two shots at her and another person from a pistol as they drove away from his house.
Here's a video report from FOX 31's Eli Stokols on Webster's 2010 bid:
"I said I was going to shoot, not kill."
Now, what do you suppose Clint Webster, of all people, was doing at this press conference today?
We can't shake the sense of amazement: these same county sheriffs stood before the Colorado legislature this year and testified against Senate Bill 197, a bill to protect victims of domestic violence from partners with guns. Today, they're standing with one of the worst Republican mistakes of the 2010 election season, a man whose biggest claim to fame is having fired shots at his wife?
Hubris, folks. There's no other word to describe it. Original post follows.
As CBS News reported last night, a story that could dramatically change the narrative of Republican attacks on the Obama administration over handling of the attack on a consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last September.
The Benghazi attack is a political controversy. Republicans claim the administration watered down the facts in talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for television appearances while Obama was running for re-election. Republicans on Capitol Hill claimed they found proof in White House emails that they leaked to reporters last week. It turns out some of the quotes were wrong… [Pols emphasis]
On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from [deputy national security adviser Ben] Rhodes: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation."
But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.
It read: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation."
TPM's Josh Marshall comments on the journalistic significance of this:
Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true.
In another example cited by CBS News, Republican sources appear to have added references to Al Qaeda that didn't previously exist. The changes in question, once compared to the original emails released yesterday, significantly worsen the relevant quotes in terms of implying the GOP's desired frame of a "cover-up."
If Republicans really altered these emails before releasing them to the press to make them fit their accusations, it would be an astonishing new low point for their credibility. To be honest, this seems like such a brazenly deceptive act–and risky, given the existence of the original emails–that we'd like to see some further investigation of the facts before we start tossing around accusations of our own too freely.
But needless to say, not a positive development for the old second-term scandal factory.
Gov. Scott Gessler, anyone?
That's the word late today from the Denver Post's Kurtis Lee:
Republican sources have told The Denver Post Gessler is strongly considering dropping a re-election effort for his post as secretary of state — where he's served since being elected in 2010 — to seek the GOP nomination to challenge Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper.
"No doubt, Gessler is frustrated with the state's current leadership and he's evaluating how best he can serve the people of Colorado," Rory McShane, political director of Gessler for Colorado, said via e-mail Thursday.
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler has been listed on our 2014 Big Line as a possible gubernatorial candidate since last November, so this shouldn't come as a big surprise. As the possibility of a vanity Tom Tancredo rematch against Hickenlooper, or the statewide-unelectable Sen. Greg Brophy's name is batted around, it's become obvious that Colorado Republicans just don't have many options.
And no, we don't think Gessler would fare much better than any of these other candidates against the popular Gov. Hickenlooper–but his popularity on the hard right would certainly be good for base turnout. Above all, we've heard that Gessler is not terribly happy in the job of Secretary of State, laden as it is with mundane responsibilities for relatively low pay compared to what he could be earning in the private sector. Following the principle that it's better to burn out than fade away, a hard-fought Gessler gubernatorial bid would raise his profile for a glorious re-entry into the world of Republican campaign lawyering–or maybe something else with a suitably plump salary.
As usual, you heard it here first.
Full story: Confirmed: Gessler Considering 2014 Gubernatorial Run
Huffington Post quotes from a commencement speech this month by freshman Rep. Kevin Kramer, (R-ND).
Forty years ago, the United States Supreme Court sanctioned abortion on demand. And we wonder why our culture sees school shootings so often.
And if that wasn't enough for you,
Cramer also mentioned the 9/11 and Boston Marathon attacks, saying, "Innocent people in New York have airplanes flown into their places of work, and marathoners in Boston are victims of bombs, yet Christianity is singled out as bigotry in our public institutions because politicians and academics lack the courage to speak truth. We've normalized perversion and perverted God's natural law to the point where the only thing not tolerated anymore is a stand for truth."
We're thinking this is about…Al Qaeda and the gays? That might not seem any more connected than abortion and school shootings to you at first, but the solution to that is–obviously–to pray harder.
Also filed under "At Least They're Not Your Legislator."
This fascinating infographic from Emerge Colorado we were forwarded today makes the case:
When you look at the important bills from this session a large majority of them were sponsored by women. These include: the Colorado Asset Bill led by Sen. Angela Giron and Rep. Crisanta Duran, gun safety bills led by Rep. Rhonda Fields Rep. Beth McCann, and Senator Evie Hudak, comprehensive sex education led by Sen. Nancy Todd and Rep. Crisanta Duran, a bill to connect wrap around support services to early childhood education led by Rep. Millie Hamner and Sen. Mary Hodge, and a bill extending the job growth incentive tax credit championed by Rep. Dianne Primavera.
The charge to pass legislation was led by women legislators. Some of the bills they championed and succeeded in passing garnered the most fanfare and some passed with little attention, but all will make the lives of Coloradans better. The Colorado legislature was hugely productive and passed 440 bills in 120 days compared to Congress only passing 148 bills during the entirety of 2012. Specifically, Colorado women helped make our communities safer, a contrast to the gridlock we see in Washington.
Colorado far exceeds Congress in the percentage of women who serve; Congress is composed of only 18% women compared to Colorado’s 41%. According to the Center for American Women in Politics, women tend to run for different reasons than men and have different policy outcomes as a result. Women focus more on policy goals than on power and prestige. Women favor a leadership style of collaboration and consensus building. As a result, on average, women sponsor and co-sponsor more bills than men and are able to enlist more co-sponsors. Regardless of party women are, on average, 31% more effective at advancing legislation and see continued success farther into the legislative process than men…
The high proportion of women in the Colorado General Assembly has been a point of pride for a number of years, although recent attrition among Republican women (see: Jean White, B.J. Nikkel) have made the trend more of a Democratic talking point. Likewise with this year's historically productive legislative session, full of policy goals sought by Democratic women that were generally opposed by Republicans irrespective of gender.
Our legislature did make Congress look pretty dysfunctional though, and your mother would agree as to why.
It's one of the last remaining questions from this year's legislative session, reports FOX 31's Eli Stokols:
On Tuesday, Hickenlooper met with both Vestas, the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer that has several facilities in Colorado and supports the measure, and with Tri-States Generation and Transmission, which provides electricity to 18 state energy co-ops and has been the bill’s most outspoken opponent.
After those meetings, Hickenlooper’s Chief Strategist Alan Salazar told FOX31 Denver that the governor is “still gathering information.”
…S.B. 252 would require rural co-ops with more than 100,000 meters, and utilities that generate and supply electricity on behalf of member co-ops, to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020.
The Longmont Times-Call reports from last night's anti-252 rally in Johnson's Corner:
A rally at a windy parking lot behind the landmark Johnson's Corner Café and Truck Stop in Johnstown late Wednesday drew about 40 local residents and a half dozen lawmakers who fought against the bill.
Members of the General Assembly from Larimer and Weld counties, all of them on the short ends of votes that sent the measure to the governor's desk, took turns at a microphone on a flatbed trailer to fire up the small crowd, telling them their messages needed to reach the governor.
The Durango Herald's Joe Hanel:
The company that supplies coal-powered electricity to rural Colorado is waging a media campaign to try to convince Gov. John Hickenlooper to veto a renewable-energy bill.
It’s the biggest political advertising blitz since last fall’s election, and it included a full-page ad and half-page ad Sunday in The Durango Herald…
In one of the most controversial claims in the ads in the Herald, Tri-State says complying with the bill will cost billions of dollars.
“Senate Bill 252 would impose billions [Pols emphasis] in increased electricity costs on rural Colorado consumers and individuals,” the ad says.
What does this even mean?
Like so many other issues this legislative session, the rhetoric over Senate Bill 252 has escalated to an over-the-top fever pitch, to the point where opponents seem to be relying on arguments that aren't intended to persuade Gov. John Hickenlooper, or for that matter any rational person–it seems more to fire up the conservative base with even more hyperbolic nonsense stories of impending doom wrought by Democrats this year.
Some might interpret a shift to the irrational from opponents as evidence that Hickenlooper isn't buying it.
Gov. Hickenlooper has been widely criticized, even in the context of a session where liberal Democrats were made very happy, for his deliberate work to undo numerous oil and gas reform bills this year. Signing Senate Bill 252, what is in fact a moderate increase in the renewable mix for large rural co-op utilities, won't invalidate the criticism that Hickenlooper has richly earned on this issue–but it would give him something affirmative to point to in response to it. From a purely political perspective, it would seem rather pointless for Hickenlooper to bow to a minority of hysterical voices and veto SB-252. Critics of SB-252 aren't going to support Hickenlooper no matter what he decides, so there's no political gain from again poking environmental groups in the eye.
Many sources have told us that Hickenlooper has been personally stung by the criticism he has received from his positions on fracking. We think this is a chance he should, and probably will take to walk some of that back.
"One must always hope when one is desperate, and doubt when one hopes."
–Gustave Flaubert
Kurtis Lee of the Denver Post reports today that former Congressman and 2010 third-party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo is considering a rematch run for Governor against incumbent Democrat John Hickenlooper:
Contacted Wednesday by The Denver Post, Tancredo said he has not made a final decision on whether to run.
In 2010, Tancredo ran in a tumultuous gubernatorial contest as a third-party candidate, netting more than 35 percent of the vote in a lopsided Democratic victory by then Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Republican candidate Dan Maes received 11 percent of the vote.
Tancredo has since switched his party affiliation back to Republican.
A more interesting prospective GOP candidate for 2014 that we've been hearing about in the last few days is Tim Foster, who currently serves as the President of Colorado Mesa University in Grand Junction. Foster was Colorado House Majority Leader in the 1990s, and was appointed to CMU under former GOP Gov. Bill Owens in 2004. As we've reported in this space previously, Foster has at least to some extent operated CMU as a rotating employment service for Republican operatives and their families.
Bottom line: we don't think Tancredo has a shred of viability for a run in 2014. Foster would certainly do better than Tancredo, but a run against the popular Gov. John Hickenlooper–for an undeluded politician, that is–would be more about raising one's name ID for another run for office down the road than actually hoping to win in 2014. And we could see that as a legitimate long-term incentive for Foster to run.
Above all, the uptick in rumors about Republican gubernatorial candidates not named Sen. Greg Brophy, widely reported to be considering a run for Governor, is bad for Brophy. We consider the prospect of a Brophy run for Governor to mostly be wonderful news for Hickenlooper–and for the sake of downticket 2014 races, perhaps Republicans realize that a different candidate from the gaffe-prone and immoderate Brophy is needed.
