So, while not directly gun related, this story is relevant as it is a direct response to the successful recall elections of last year.
After last year's recalls, Colorado House Democrats pass change in law
After last year's recalls, Colorado House Democrats pass change in law
By Anthony Cotton
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/17/2014 04:33:57 PM MDT8 comments | Updated: about 6 hours ago
The House of Representatives passed, on a 37-28 party-line vote, a bill that will allow citizens to cast remote ballots in recall elections.
Senate Bill 158 was being pushed by Democrats angered by the recalls last year of former state Senators Angela Giron and John Morse who were voted out of office after their support for gun control measures. A third Democratic senator, Evie Hudak, resigned rather than face a recall battle.
Morse and Giron were removed following voter turnouts of 21 and 36 percent respectively. Democrats argue that the outcome was, at least in part, the result of recall election laws, which effectively required voters to physically turn in ballots on a single day. That differs from how most voting, with mail-in and absentee ballots, is conducted today.
The new bill would bring recall ballots in line with general elections; House Republicans argued that the measure would be tantamount to changing the state's Constitution.
A second bill regarding election law, this one covering voter registration and residency, was scheduled to be debated on the House floor Thursday afternoon.
So, following the recent trend of the Democrat party ramming through election law revisions that tip the balance in their favor, they have now applied the same tactics to state recall elections, in an attempt to either squash or influence them.
I suspect that this same, or similar, tactic will be exported by Democrats to other states, in an attempt to influence the outcomes in their favor.
It will be interesting to see if the Governor signs this into law... but, in for a penny, in for a pound...
Unable to locate any supplimental reports on the hearings. Looks like we'll be in the dark for another ~5 months.
|SIGforum's Indian |
Off the Reservation
You can run, but you cannot hide.
If you won't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.
No, nothing. The organization I was pulling a good bit of my information from prior to the trial has either deleted or moved the pertinent webpage... but even before they pulled it there wasn't any new info posted.
I'll put some feelers out to my contacts again... but at this point we all seem to be in the dark on this case. I haven't heard much in regards to the RMGO law suit so if anyone has any news as to its status please update us.
Thanks for the bumps and the interest fellas!
All is quiet on the Western Front.
Speaking of what's happening here, RMGO has a radio ad running.
I've never much liked Beauprez, seems like an establishment RINO. I think it's interesting that he entered the race fairly late when all the candidates were for the most part strongly pro-gun. My feeling is for whatever reason his job is to crater the primaries and having Romney's endorsement I feel just highlights his wishy-washy noncommittal platform and record. I know the goal is to oust Hickenlooper, but I'm tired of seeing the GOP keep pushing weak candidates who never stand for anything. Voting the lesser of evils is just dragging us the wrong way slowly.
|Yew got a spider |
on yo head
Vote for Mike Kopp! Do it now.
He got my vote!
Hmm, interesting information!
I've heard a number of interviews with Bob Beauprez in the past, and have listened to him as a guest host for local talk radio shows. As a Colorado rancher and small town banker he seems to exemplify the "traditional" values of the West...
... having said that, I have never heard him comment on his 2A stances and admittedly assumed that he wouldn't pose any problems for Colorado gun owners.
I have to say that while the RMGO allegations have peeked my curiosity about Beauprez's 2A positions, I'm more than a little dismayed that they simply made allegations against him with no substantiation/ verification/ or footnoted references.
As I'm learning, from your posted links, RMGO has made 3 allegations:
1) Beauprez supported trigger lock legislation. I don't know whether he did (he denies it)... but even if he did I consider that a pretty small "infraction". While I don't like anti-business legislation or the government sticking its nose into what should be a business decision, I don't see how requiring a manufacturer to include a trigger lock with their gun is anti-gun.
2) RMGO has alleged that Beauprez supported a ban against "traditional" ammunition. I'm not sure what exactly "traditional" ammunition is. In any case, they certainly didn't bother to provide any supporting facts and Beauprez denies the allegation.
3) Beauprez's support of Amendment 22. I have to admit that this one troubles me.
I am a gun owner and vote squarely to support the 2A. I am not a "single issue" voter and I also recognize the need for pragmatism in politics.
Ideology is about Ideas, Politics is about winning elections... and you can't implement change if you can't win an election.
I learned a long time ago not to base my political decisions on hearsay, especially from someone/ some party/ or some organization with an axe to grind.
My main concern right now is replacing Governor Hickenlooper with a solid Conservative. I think Beauprez would be a far better governor than what we have now. Admittedly, I've been leaning towards supporting his candidacy... but at this point I am not firmly entrenched in his camp either.
Charles_L, thanks for posting the info! I've got some homework to do this weekend.
It's hard to imagine a Western Republican governor not being fairly strong on gun rights, but I don't think we can assume anything from the GOP. See Christie's non-answer recently on New Jersey's gun laws.
This is particularly true of a man such as Beauprez that has played the game nationally for years and despite his background is not some aw-shucks rancher. He's a mover and shaker, rubs elbows with insiders at cocktail parties.
So despite RMGO being a single issue group I do think we need to take what they say with some consideration so we don't end up replacing bad with just slightly less bad. Dudley's purpose is to support a strong pro-gun governor who can be counted on to work for repeal these laws and Beauprez is unreliable, he might pull the 'settled law' bull.
I do agree that it's wise not to take anything without substantiation to be truth. Just because we agree with the message doesn't excuse the requirement for it to be factual.
From Mike Koop's FB page:
Mike Kopp is a dad, husband, former U.S. Army Ranger and Hotshot firefighter, and former Republican leader of the Colorado State Senate.
I believe Mike will get my vote, unless in doing some research over the weekend I find something really stoopid!!!
My grandfather voted republican until the day he died, now he votes democrat.
|Yew got a spider |
on yo head
The fact that Beauprez calls himself a conservative is laughable. He aint one. He is a career dem masquerading as a republican, just like many, many others in congress.
Well, I took a couple hours to read the linked statement, its supporting links as well as the RLC website, and type up a fairly lengthy response... only to inadvertently hit some damn button on my computer that closed out my response...
... so, here goes again!
Charles_L, until you posted this link I had never heard of the Republican Liberty Caucus. I took some time to read their statement, go to the supporting links, and spent some time on their website.
The RLC appears to be basing their criticism of Beauprez on 5 points:
Points 1 - 3 involve the use of warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention of illegal combatants, and the allowance of hearsay evidence in their trials, AS LIMITED BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION ACT of 2006.
In the consideration of national security I support these measures on the Global War on Terror and so as far as I'm concerned Beauprez's support of these measures is a feather in his cap.
Point 4 is an allegation that Beauprez supported some sort of back-door gun registry. However, the linked reference was so poorly worded and disorganized that it is nothing more than meaningless jibberish to me. Unless and until I see a more reputable source on this issue I am categorically dismissing it.
Point 5 alleges that Beauprez supports compulsory private health care insurance, and as the article appears to be from his own blog this appears to be TRUE!
As mentioned before, I spent some time on the RLC website trying to understand who they are and what they support. They listed certain general platitudes that I agree with, but I couldn't find any information on their specific positions. Based on the candidates they supported or opposed as well as the criticisms of various candidates I think I'm being fair in inferring that they could be described as a Tea Party group.
I like the Tea Party and I support them in principle. I think their involvement in Republican politics has been important... actually, vital. I hope their positions continue to influence voters and the Republican Party as a whole.
But I believe the Tea Party, as a whole, is politically immature and naive. They are far too dogmatic, in my opinion, to have any meaningful widespread impact on Republican voters.
As far as the RLC goes, they are welcome to their dogmatic narrow positions. But the fact that they resorted to focusing their criticism of him based on one small portion of his blogged statement and the fact that they found the need to paraphrase his position outside the scope of the context rather than accurately quoting him is proof enough for me that they lack credibility.
I have great concern, and outrage, at the damage that progressivism and liberalism have done to the U.S. as well as other countries.
I'm tired of losing elections. It is time to get pragmatic about winning elections.
While we, the "Conservatives" quibble about which candidate boasts the best conservative record, our resources and votes are split and the resulting chaos leads to another Democrat won election while we bicker amongst ourselves over who was right.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and there never will be. I'd respectfully suggest that we spend less time criticizing our Conservative candidates and spending more time choosing the one that best represents Conservative values AND is electable.
Until now, I was operating under the incorrect assumption that Beauprez was good-to-go on all the major issues that I was concerned with AND that he had the best chance of defeating Hickenlooper. Even dismissing the bulk of criticisms leveled at him from the RMGO and the RLC, I am dismayed to learn of his positions on Amendment 22 and compulsory health care insurance so Beauprez has certainly lost some of his "shine" as far as my support goes.
However, based on my limited research, Kopp is not a perfect candidate either.
I spent some time on both candidates websites and what I concluded was that Mike Copp's website provides more specific & detailed information on his positions while Beauprez's website presents his positions using more platitudes. Beauprez's positions appear to be largely taken from books or blogs he has previously written.
In all fairness to Beauprez, if you delve a little deeper the two candidates have essentially the same beliefs and positions, although I still find myself lacking the information I'd like to know regarding Beauprez's position on illegal aliens.
The question I'm left with at this point is which of these two flawed candidates is best positioned to defeat Hickenlooper.
multiple edits to add content, correct grammar and spelling, and generally clean up this lengthy postThis message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,
|Yew got a spider |
on yo head
Tuesday is the primary, if you haven't voted, please do so.
Make the commies stop, vote for Kopp!!
We could continue this discussion, but at this point, if you consider Bob Beauprez to be a fascist then it is probably best to leave it here and just agree to disagree.
My objection has nothing to do with "sensibilities" and everything to do with such a sweeping inaccurate statement using inflammatory language.
I have no problem with someone disagreeing with Beauprez, or any politician, for that matter. As stated, I disagree with his stances on two of the issues I mentioned earlier... but to describe a Colorado Buffalo rancher and banker as a fascist and effectively compare him to the likes of true Fascists like Hitler and Mussolini is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt at using the word as a pejorative.
I started this thread to accomplish three things:
1) Inform forum members (both in-state & out-of-state) about the status of anti-2A laws in Colorado
2) Inform forum members about the status of our resistance to the anti-2A laws, specifically the elections and law suits.
3) To hopefully inspire other state residents to join our fight and contribute some time and/or money to fighting the recent anti-2A laws and liberal encroachment we've seen in Colorado. I was hoping that perhaps, with some victories here, we might even inspire other states to take up the fight in their respective states.
I bear some responsibility in drifting from the premise of my own thread. In general, I don't mind a little "latitude" in threads, and, after reading the tone of some of the recent posts, I thought I would try to interject the concept of practicality when it comes to politics and electing politicians. Had I known you were going to take this thread into the topic of fascism I would never have drifted this thread.
So, for my part in this thread-drift, I apologize to you.
However, as the O.P., I am not going to allow this thread to devolve into ridiculous assertions.
Charles_L, you've made some valuable contributions to this thread and I hope you will continue to do so.
However, if you feel the need to discuss Beauprez's and the G.O.P.'s propensity towards fascism please start another thread.
Earl Bandy is the main force behind the Colorado RLC. He is not affiliated with the TEA Party as it is now and I cant speak for him directly but from the times I've met and talked to him I doubt he sees eye-to-eye on some of their key points.
Beauprez already was a candidate for governor in 2006 and lost handily to a Democrat (Ritter) who didn't have as much support from the Democrat machine as Hickenlooper nor the name recognition. In that election he lost 56%-to-41%, it was not a close race. What's changed since 2006 that makes us think he'll do any better state-wide? Additional slipping left here and there and no obvious definition of his conservative principles?
Something else that occurred to me was that Tancredo ran against Hickenlooper in 2010 but was on the Constitution Party ticket. He was the runner up, Hick got 51%, Tancredo 36% and Dan Maes 11%. I think his weak spot is immigration, he's quite outspoken on the subject and that's going to make it tough in Denver/Boulder for him.
|Yew got a spider |
on yo head
Welp, time to get behind Bob.
I sure as hell hope he's being genuine when he says he learned his lesson after the last governor election flop.
Hopefully a healthy amount of letters and some RMGO pressure will keep him on track. These friggin' intrusive and ridiculous magazine and transfer restrictions have GOT to go.
You may well be right. However, keep in mind that not only was Beauprez hamstrung by the false allegations and legal challenge levied at him by the Democrats... he was also "torpedoed" by a faction of his own party.
Also, I believe it is possible that, like most of us, politicians can learn from adversity and failure.
Lastly, there are plenty of examples of political candidates who lose in election only to win in another. Abraham Lincoln is just one example.
Yes, that election was a G.O.P. disaster. Once burned and twice shy... I believe (and hope) that the G.O.P. learned some lessons from that failure.
Agree on getting behind him. Admittedly, I haven't caught up on much of the post-primary dog and pony show. I did catch a couple quick radio interviews with Beauprez in which he stated his gratitude to his supporters and the typical victory sound bites along with the same basic platitudes.
Did Beauprez actually say that he has learned his lesson from the last election?
EXACTLY! While some voters choose to support third party candidates or simply not vote at all, this is the strategy I recommend. Support the candidate that best represents your views AND is electable... and should they win, hold their feet to the FIRE (in a political sense) and "remind" them that your support can be withheld as easily as it was given.
Should Beauprez win it is imperative that his supporters "hound" him to honor his Liberty Promise and to respect the wishes of those who helped get him into office.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 21|