Holtzman v Beauprez

The Rocky Mountain News has a fine editorial this morning about the intra-party mess that Beauprez is making of the primary:

Colorado law says no person may "knowingly" make a false statement "designed to affect the vote" for anyone running for public office.

We have a somewhat different take on this matter.

If Holtzman wants to employ someone who lies to the press in such brazen fashion, that's his business. Journalists will adjust their reports depending on whether they feel they can trust anything he now says. For some, the answer will be no.

But as for there being an obligation to fire Leggitt, that's nonsense. The Colorado law is - or at least should be - unconstitutional. You can't outlaw false campaign rhetoric, intentional or not. Indeed, we can hardly think of anything more destructive to free speech than inviting courts to rule on political truthfulness and honesty.

Then this, on the "substantive" complaint:

Holtzman appeared in a TV ad attacking Ref C, a 2005 issue campaign in which there were no contribution limits. But those ads did not mention he was running for governor. Why shouldn't a candidate enjoy the same free-speech rights to support or oppose a statewide referendum as any other citizen - whether or not it elevates his public profile?

It's bad enough these laws are on the books. It's worse when a Republican betrays party principle and uses them for their intended purpose - to squelch political opposition.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 10:29 AM | Permalink

Bob Beauprez is going to be discussing immigration reform with Lou Dobbs this afternoon at 4PM MST.

While Beauprez's current focus needs to be on the national picture, it'll be interesting to see if Dobbs brings up the Governor's race, and what powers the states actually have to affect this issue.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 07:37 AM | Permalink

In some ways, this ought to be a fairly easy call for Rep. Beauprez. He's leaving the House, so he won't have to worry about repercussions when the plum assignments are handed out. He's not pulling in much national money at this point, and his big local donors - who might night like Shadegg's untidiness - are already committed. After all, nobody's gonna get Pete Coors to do this again.

After having kept his head down during C&D, it's a chance for Beauprez to make a clear statement about the kind of party he really wants to inhabit.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that the National Journal is reporting Beauprez as committed to Blunt. The date of the posting is 1/14, which suggests that it was working off a slightly older list than that. This was before, or close to, the time Shadegg actually announced, at a time when Blunt was trying to sell the fiction that he had it all locked up.

Even public committments are next-to-impossible to enforce. Beauprez could argue that he committed too early & he's sorry about that, but that Shadegg hadn't yet entered the race and, after all, it's better to say something publicly rather than do the traditional private-ballot back-stabbing thing and wait until the vote.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As a Congressman, Bob Beauprez usually isn't dealing directly with the same issues he would as governor. Immigration is one counterexample, where he's helped sponsor a tough border control bill. So are taxes, where in 2003, he supported a bill to reduce capital gains, dividend, and income taxes.

Another is the House leadership race. Rep. Beauprez hasn't yet announced a candidate to support, but he's a member of the fiscally conservative Republican Study Committee, led by Rep. John Shadegg. Shadegg is a reliable conservative, fiscally sound, and squeaky-clean ethically. At issue is both what Rep. Beauprez does and what the RSC as a whole does.

Rich Lowry has pointed out that waiting too long to endorse might doom Shadegg's candidacy. It might also provide cover to people who don't really want him elected.

While, as Michael Barone notes, there's little point in handicapping such a race, and the that doesn't mean we can't ask the representatives who they're backing. The vote may be private, but public statements are on the record. If Beauprez were to make a strong public statement in favor of Shadegg, or to argue that the RSC should declare now rather than later, it would make a strong impression on conservatives who want the party to clean up its act for real.

Beauprez does operate at something of a disadvantage, since he needs to deal with practical issues as an elected official, in a way that Holtzman does not. The House leadership race can provide one barometer of where he wants the party to go when it's under pressure.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 07:12 AM | Permalink

One of the many, I suppose, is the ease with which you can portray yourself as getting things done, of legislative accomplishments. This is particularly useful when you are running against someone who is not holding office currently.

I bring this up because it occurs to me that in the last four weeks I've probably gotten 4 or 5 emails from Rep. Bob Beauprez, touting his votes in Congress or legislation he's sponsored. This does, at the very least, help him stand out from his GOP gubernatorial primary opponent, Marc Holtzman. The various pressers from Beauprez cover things like Mexican extradition rulings, the deficit reduction act, tax cuts, and his own bill "encouraging" extradition of cop-killers.

It's not real high-profile campaigning, but it is, in my opinion, an effective way to tell your base that you're actually in the field getting stuff done. A pretty important point to make, I would say, as you are trying to make in impression early in an election cycle.

(cross-posted at Best Destiny)

Posted by Michael at 12:56 AM | Permalink