President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 05, 2009 05:03 PM UTC

Nobody Ever Said Penry Was Stupid

  • 43 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve had a few adjectives to apply to Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry over the last few months, but “stupid” has never been one of them. And we’re not above pointing out when possible gubernatorial candidate Penry actually says something quite smart, and reflective of strategic thinking–as the AP reported earlier this week:

A bill allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition survived a narrow committee vote in the Colorado Senate on Wednesday, with Republicans accusing majority Democrats of using bare-knuckle “Tom DeLay tactics” to keep the measure alive.

Democrats scheduled the vote during the absence of a Republican senator whose vote likely would have stalled the bill.

That prompted Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry of Grand Junction to compare the Democrats to DeLay, the Texas Republican whose strong-arm tactics as speaker of the U.S. House earned him the nickname “The Hammer.”

Democrats denied manipulating the schedule…

The bill had originally been scheduled for a vote Friday, when [Sen. Ted] Harvey is due to return, but it was rescheduled for Wednesday.

Penry said Democrats didn’t give Republicans enough time to ask for another Republican to temporarily take Harvey’s place on the committee. He accused Democrats of moving up the vote to take advantage of Harvey’s absence.

“It’s either that or an amazing coincidence. It’s reminiscent of what the Republicans did in Washington. These are Tom DeLay tactics,” Penry said.

Just makes you want to explode–the hypocrisy, right? Not so fast–Penry may have an (R) after his name but one thing you can’t claim is that he’s in any way associated with the Tom DeLay clique of ruthless Republican congressmen from the 1990s. The fact that he can credibly say he’s not a part of that corrupt culture is, when you get right down to it, one of Penry’s greatest assets going into an election for higher office.

Unlike, and you’d be a fool to think this wasn’t in the back of Penry’s mind, that guy (above photo). Scott “McLobbyist” McInnis (left) knows a thing or two about Tom DeLay (right)…doesn’t he? Well, doesn’t he? “How the hell did this just become about me?” Scooter will ask when this quote gets pulled out in a primary debate…

Like we said, Penry can be accused of plenty of things, but lack of basic political cleverness isn’t one of them. We think he knew very well what he was saying, subtext not just included but key–and it was a very smart thing to say.

Tweet
Share

Comments

43 thoughts on “Nobody Ever Said Penry Was Stupid”

  2. It is Penry’s job as Senate Minority Leader to know what is on the up-coming agenda.  Penry simply failed his caucus and did not get another R “to temporarily take Harvey’s place”.  Just another example of Penry’s poor leadership skills. And to then attempt to turn it around for an attack on his mentor and possible primary rival just shows that Penry will stop at nothing to satisfy his own ambition.    

    1. Tapia moved the vote, and Romer gave the final ok on it going through.  It was moved specifically because Harvey had to go out of town.

      It takes two days to appoint a replacement.  Procedurally there wouldn’t have been time, which is one of the reasons Tapia moved it in the first place.

      This one is going to bite you guys in the ass, hard.  Very classless, and totally unnecessary. Legislation like this would never pass a vote on a ballot, which makes it even more senseless that they’d risk so much PR damage over it.

      1. Show me anywhere in Senate Rules where it takes 2 days to replace a committee member.  A caucus can choose to replace a committee member at anytime it wants to vote on it, as I read the rules.  

        The applicable rule here is that the chair can change the schedule   …”provided the chairman publicly announces the meeting to the Senate at least twenty-four hours in advance of the actual meeting.”  Are you saying that rule was violated?  

        If Penry was too busy working on his campaign to take care of his caucus, he should step down as Senate Minority Leader.  

        1. maybe you could reference?

          What I do see is your quoted part in the rule about changing the meeting time, not the agenda.  It’s a small error, but, well, an error.

          Senate Rules 22-2(d)

          No final committee action shall be taken upon a measure unless notice of the measures that are to be considered is posted at least one calendar day prior to the scheduled meetings at which the measures are to be considered.

          What I do see, right above it is, same section, but (c):

          Proxies, either written or oral, shall not be permitted for any purpose.

          Getting permission to break a senate rule does take time.  And usually a sitting senate.

          Not so much arguing, just looking for clarification.  I may have completely missed it.  Thanks.

          http://www.leg.state.co.us/ine…

          1. Caucus rules are established by the respective parties. Now, if Republican caucus rules make it difficult for Penry to do his job, R’s need to change them.  But that has nothing to do with following proper Senate procedure which the Democrats did do.  If Republican rules hamstring their leadership, then maybe they need to take a different approach.

            But it does not matter in the end.  The minute Harvey notified Penry that he would not be able to fulfill his duties, Penry should have gotten on with replacing him on committees.  In any business, when you have an employee in an important position who tells you they won’t be coming to work for a few days, any good employer would make sure that the employee’s absence does not harm customers or business interests.  The scheduling rules were there for Penry to read.  Either he failed in his duties to make sure business was not harmed or he purposely let down his clientele for his own political gain.  Either way, it is very poor leadership.  

            1. …whenever they reassign a Senator to a different committee, the leadership has to introduce a resolution, and then it’s voted on.  It needs second and third readings, which have to occur on separate days.  

                I don’t know the specific rule #, but in the journal, it’s done by resolution, and it’s usually sponsored by the majority and minority leaders.  

              1. ..I am the last person to notice or know such things.  I have no idea. I’m was just trying to follow the discussion.  Thanks for your input!  It sounds like, by custom anyway, 2 days notice is necessary.

              2. not rule.  The bottom line is that anything can be voted on in the Senate on a particular day regardless of resolution:

                Senate Rule 21c:  

                (c) Except as otherwise provided in Rules 3 (b), 6, 7, 9 (b), 9 (c), and 25 (b), the Senate may at any time, by the affirmative vote of a majority of all members present, proceed out of order to any order of business or return to an order already passed.

                I see no attempt at that made by Penry.

                1. 21

                  (c) No committee shall sit during the sessions of the Senate nor at any time occupy the Senate chamber without leave granted by the Senate.

                  I don’t even know what you’re quoting.  Anyway, if OQD is right, (willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but am still researching the rule) you can’t vote on the 2nd reading and the 3rd on the same calendar day.  Ever.

                  2. Penry knew since last week that Harvey would be gone.  And he did absolutely nothing to secure Harvey’s committee seat in the meantime.  The vote was on Wednesday.  Penry had the time to replace Harvey but never made the attempt.  He got caught snoozing on the job and now wants to blame others for his failures.  From the Denver Post:  

                    But supporters of the bill caught a lucky break. Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, last week said he would be out of town until Thursday helping his wife prepare to bring her father, who has Alzheimer’s disease, to a facility in Colorado.

                    But you are right about the SR#, droll.  It should have been 3c not 21c.

                    1. Let’s say that Penry could’ve pointed at a Repbulican member and said, “You’re up, go vote no.”  He would have stopped a bill that will ultimately do very little.  It does have the possibility to do harm, without helping the group of people we’re actually wanting to help.

                      Instead Penry gets to blame the Dems for playing dirty (if technically fair) and taking away from Colorado’s legal citizens!  Can’t you see the commercials?

                      One way is good politics, one is good policy.  With a rough election coming up, Penry’s probably smart for using the former.

                      Hey, wow.  That’s the closest I’ll ever come to complimenting him.

  3. that Penry’s failures will come back to bite him in the ass come primary time. McInnis or any other R can simply point out that Penry had the power and opportunity to stop this bill but did not lift a finger to do so.  By not doing his job, Penry assured the bill’s passage out of committee.  

  4. is that Penry is right on this. The Democrats took advantage of Ted Harvey’s personal family matter and they deserve to get called out on this.

    I support this legislation, but when you have to pull stunts just to get it to a vote in the legislature, it doesn’t do Romer or Tapia any favors–and the same goes for the rest of the Democratic delegation.

    If we’re right on the issues, we can win without using backhanded tactics to pass legislation–no matter how controversial it may be.

    1. Democrats followed the rules.  Penry could have stopped it if he simply wanted to.  I suspect he saw an opportunity to say there are shady dealings here for purely political purposes and purposely ignored his responsibilities to his caucus.  And some, like Faux News and you are buying into it.  Schedules are changed all the time.   Had Penry simply replaced Harvey, then he wouldn’t have had this political slight of hand to use against D’s.  You have to understand that it is all about ego and future ambitions with Penry to know his motives.

      Now, could have Democrats handled it differently?  Certainly, yes.  And if they allow Penry to spin his failure, then they will lose this argument.  The key is, bring Penry’s actions to the light of day and all will see his motives.

      1. …I haven’t seen any Dem challenge Penry’s assertion that he needed more than a day to replace Harvey.  If Penry is wrong, why haven’t the Dems said so.  Or, maybe I missed it.

      2. Penry is wrong 99.99% of the time, but he’s right on this. They took advantage of Ted Harvey, and that was just plain wrong.

        You’re right that Penry probably should have replaced Harvey, and maybe I’m falling into a trap, but the Dems still messed up.

        I’m not going to give them a pass just because they’re Democrats.

    2. ..I think you may have to accept the fact that the Dems would not have won on this bill without the tactics you dislike, no matter how “right” the Dems are on this issue.  

      I don’t think this statement of yours is true here:

      If we’re right on the issues, we can win without using backhanded tactics to pass legislation–no matter how controversial it may be.

      In other words, even if the Dems were right on the issue, they could not have won without using these tactics.  When analyzing the tactics, you should include this fact in the analysis.  So, you have to ask yourself if would you have preferred the Dems not use these tactics even though that means the bill would have failed.  

      1. Sometimes the edit function of my brain doesn’t do its job. It was probably what I was trying to say in my head, but it didn’t make any sense on the screen. Maybe my rhetoric was just so damn altruistic I just knew it would make sense.  🙂

        You’re right that it wouldn’t have worked this year without using that kind of tactic, but you can always try to reintroduce it next year. While I support it, it’s hardly the most pressing issue facing higher education.

        All this does is shine the spotlight at how controversial it is, and makes its passage more in doubt. Then the Republicans get a win even in the eyes of a liberal blogger like me.

        2. 2010 is an election year, no way it gets run again. With Ritter up for re-election in 2010 this may be the last chance to pass something like this for another 4+ years.

          Did they take advantage of Harvey being away? Sure they did. It’s called politics, sometimes to move an important piece of your agenda you have to play a little hard ball. Frankly I’m glad to see the Dems in the legislature playing a little hardball. I wasn’t sure they had this in them.

          I’d have a problem if this was a regular occurrence but the fact is when you’re in the majority you have certain privileges and powers – setting the calendar is one of those.

          Sherrod Brown had to fly back from his mother’s wake to get Dems the 60th vote on the stimulus bill. Should one of the Senate GOP have voted for cloture so Brown could stay at the services?

          Penry knows full well that this wasn’t outside the norm. He also recognized that its an issue where he can drum up some phony outrage and subsequent press coverage. It’s simple politics and he’s played the issue well.  

          1. I wouldn’t call this bill “an important piece of [their] agenda” though.

            I see it as legally the right thing to do, but I don’t see it as doing anything to help the economy in the here and now–which is what they should be concentrating on. If what droll said below about it potentially costing the state money, it seems like they’d have better things to play hardball on.

            But I always appreciate your comments, and now I can at least see where you’re coming from.

          2. Advertise this one.  Congrats!

            If this went to a vote of the people this bill would get buried.

            Go ahead – don’t just pass it, but be really shitty about the way you pass it.

            I actually am really happy they did this.

            1. …it still must pass the whole Senate and the whole House and be signed by the Gov, before it becomes law.  So, it may be over-dramatic to hyperventilate over such an early procedural move.

              1. Was dead in committee.

                Hey, I’m ecstatic they did it.  It’s going to be like a car accident watching the Dems and Ritter play hot potato with this one.

                  1. I was totally amazed at the level of animosity directed at him by some other big time Dems I’ve been working with.

                    I hope he signs it, but it’s really going to be worth watching him sweat it out if it gets to his desk.

          3. sometimes to move an important piece of your agenda you have to play a little hard ball.

            …is that he was going to help move a family member with a medical condition. And he set it so that he would not miss any key votes. This is like the Senate moving a vote to occur while Ted Kennedy goes in for an operation.

            I think it was an “ends justify any means” and I tghought we ended that when we replaced Bush with Obama.

    3. this year, isn’t even the problem.

      Senate Appropriations just passed a bill with a possible $165,300 – $661,200 fiscal note.  How much does the JBC want to cut from higher ed?

      I never really sorted out how I feel on this bill, certainly not enough to actually oppose it, but this is the committee that deals with money.  And the Dems are playing games.  Like maybe there might be a non-controversial reason to vote against the bill.

      1. …that the bill would cost the state money?  I thought there were arguments that the bill would bring in money?  I have no idea which is correct.

        1. The first one suggested that there might be a funding increase, based on the idea that colleges turn a profit on tuition.  Clearly not, so it will not bring in money.

          On the premise that teaching an in-state student is directly connected to the tuition we pay, the new note nets $0.

          I can’t wrap my head around that, probably why I was so willing to see it as funding loss.

          Instead of teasing me with a question, just correct me :).  Now I’ve read every damn document and have serious issues.  I can’t even check out my concerns because no one has anything but hate material, or accusations of hate.

          1. ….of time.  I seriously have no idea.  I am merely repeating the gossip I read in the papers, etc.  I wish I were more help, but my function is to question everything, answer nothing.  You’re welcome!

            🙂

        2. Students under SB170 would not only have to pay in-state tuition but they would have to pay an additional $2,400 per year because they would not be eligible for the College Opportunity Fund (COF).  All other Colorado high school graduates are eligible for COF.

          As a result of the positive fiscal note (which could be up to $3 million depending on how many undocumented students enroll) the bill should have never been in the Appropriations Committee in the first place.  It was political maneuvering by Senate Republicans (namely Spence and King) that put the bill in danger of not making it out of the Senate.

      2. SB170 kids are students who otherwise wouldn’t attend higher education.

        The equation is pretty simple:

        high school dropout = $0 .

        student who pays full in-state tuition plus up to $2400 more a year because they’re not COF-eligible = $$$$$$$$.  

    1. 50 is a mob? The Governor knows that anywhere he goes, there will be people who want to bitch at him. If you think he is intimidated by a small group of Mesa County anarchists, you don’t know him very well.

      The shrillness of the GOP outrage is directly proportional to their increasing sense of helplessness. The right wingnuts don’t run the world anymore and they just can’t quite get over it.

      AND…with the disrespect showed to the Governor the last time he spoke to Club 20 (or 19 or 17, or whatever it is now.) I wouldn’t blame him if he never spoke to that group again.

      1. If you think he is intimidated by a small group of Mesa County anarchists, you don’t know him very well.

        One guy screamed at him in front of a bunch of other Governors and it scared him into going totally insane on Labor issues…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

89 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!