May 18, 2011 01:31 AM UTC

Mayoral Tensions in the Legislature

• 10 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

In our experience, Mayoral campaigns stand out as particularly heated, divisive races in the state of Colorado. Every single municipal campaign we’ve witnessed has always proved both incredibly divisive and incredibly heated. This year’s race, especially the run-off, is no different.

What we’re seeing in this race particularly, though, is a division within the ranks of Democrats within the State Legislature. Of course, we saw the same tension from our elected officials in last year’s senate primary between Andrew Romanoff and Michael Bennet. In that race, however, legislators and their staffers refrained from attacking their peers publicly over their choice of Senate candidate. They had to; a divided party in the General Assembly would lead to Republican gains.

This year’s race has gotten a bit more personal, it would seem. From an e-mail we received from Michael Hancock‘s mayoral campaign:

Dear Supporter:

Today the Romer campaign reached a new low with another desperate and deceptive campaign attack.

Acting on behalf of the Romer campaign, state Rep. Dan Kagan sent out a blast email attacking Michael’s credentials as a progressive on issues such as choice and religion.

Let’s send Rep. Kagan and the Romer campaign a strong message – Spreading false facts is not the Denver way.

Let them know Romer’s campaign has lost sight of its decency. Call Rep. Kagan at (720) 289.8858 and join us this Saturday at his House District 3 Monthly Meeting from 9 to 10:30 a.m. at the Friends Meeting House (2280 S. Columbine). Let’s send a loud and clear message that Denver deserves an honest and clean campaign for mayor!

Sincerely,

Colorado State Sen. Joyce Foster

Now obviously Senator Joyce Foster affixed her name to an e-mail drafted by Hancock’s campaign, much as Rep. Dan Kagan probably did with regards to the e-mail referenced above. That doesn’t make the situation any less bizarre. Foster and Kagan serve in the same building in the same party. Sure, they aren’t in the same chamber, but Foster and Kagan are natural allies.  

Foster’s Senate District 35 runs adjacent to much of Kagan’s House District 3. In fact, part of Kagan’s seat is within Foster’s.  For all intents and purposes, the two represent the same constituencies.

Going further, Foster was a co-sponsor of Kagan’s HB 11-1019 in the session that just ended. They’ve worked together on countless bills over the past few sessions, and yet this Mayoral race has pitted them against each other so much so that Foster is encouraging Hancock supporters to gate-crash Kagan’s town meeting.

This is getting ridiculous. Neither the Romer campaign nor the Hancock campaign should be using elected Democrats to target other elected Democrats. It hurts everyone involved. The fact remains that once the campaign is over, Kagan and Foster will have to work together by the nature of the positions in which they serve. If they can’t work together, then what good are they to the people they represent? It seems as though Kagan and Foster are using their titles to promote their Mayoral campaigns of choice at the expense of best representing their shared constituents and interests.

It might be fair for Foster to attack Kagan on what he said regarding Hancock’s views on choice; there’s some ambiguity there to be sure, but not enough for Kagan to be able to accurately question Hancock on the issue. However, it’s ridiculous for Foster to call Kagan out on what he said about Hancock’s views on Creationism. Hancock is on the record with his views on Creationism in public schools, and it’s not negative campaigning if you’re pointing to something that someone said on the record. In fact, Joyce Foster, and by extension Michael Hancock, may be guilty of negative campaigning by calling out Romer and especially his surrogates for pointing out information that is publicly available and calling it “negative.”

What seems utterly absurd about this whole situation is that Foster is encouraging Hancock supporters to attack Daniel Kagan, her Democratic colleague, because Kagan happens to support Chris Romer. It’d be different if Sen. Foster was advocating that people call the Romer campaign office to complain–that’s something different entirely, and it’s appropriate in a situation like this. But why target Daniel Kagan? What does Foster want people to do? Call Rep. Kagan and get mad at him for pointing out that Hancock has been less than progressive publicly in his statements on evolution and creationism? Kagan is pointing out the public positions of Michael Hancock. There’s nothing wrong with that. And we know Kagan is going to be less than thrilled with his Democratic colleague when dozens of angry Hancock supporters swarm his unrelated town hall and litter his voicemail with infuriated messages. Kagan’s “monthly meeting” relates specifically to what he’s been doing in the Legislature for the people of his district: it’s constituent outreach. Foster wants Hancock supporters to politicize that event and distract Kagan from discussing his work as a state representative, not a surrogate for Chris Romer. It’s politics distracting from public policy, which is just as bad as any kind of “negative campaigning.”

It was a mistake for Foster to attach her name to such a pointed attack at a member of her party with whom she serves. Why couldn’t Hancock’s campaign put someone else’s name on the e-mail? A former legislator like Terrance Carroll or even Michael himself? Instead, now Foster has to deal with the fallout from attacking someone from her own party. Kagan also took a risk by sending out the e-mail that he did supporting Romer; if you’re going to get involved in a campaign that isn’t your own, you better be 100% accurate in anything that you say on behalf of that campaign. Kagan opened himself up to attack, but he shouldn’t have to defend himself from the state Senator next door. It’s absurd.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of in-fighting at the state capitol over this Mayoral campaign. In fact, we’ve heard some horror stories of tensions building inside and outside of the building. If anything, this reflects why we consider Denver’s Mayor to be the marquee elected position in Colorado: nearly everybody in politics has an opinion on the matter, and they’re willing to burn bridges to make sure their candidate wins.