Posted on 05/15/2004 5:28:10 PM PDT by neverdem
U.S. Senate hopeful Bob Schaffer charged opponent Pete Coors, the brewery titan who has contributed to hundreds of campaigns during the years, with supporting congressional candidates who opposed gun rights.
Schaffer, a former congressman from Larimer County, and Coors are vying for the GOP nod to replace Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, who is stepping down after two terms for health reasons.
The attack on Coors came Thursday at a candidates forum hosted by the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4051 on Pikes Peak Avenue.
The forum mostly focused on gun issues, an area on which the two candidates have few differences. The men claim to be ardent supporters of the Second Amendment, opponents of gun control efforts and firearms enthusiasts.
Schaffer, however, accused Coors of supporting 16 members of Congress, through the Coors Brewery Corp. Political Action Committee, that received F grades from the National Rifle Association for their votes on gun issues.
“I ask: How did these people get elected and who backs them?” Schaffer said. “They all received campaign finance funding from the Coors PAC. This is a record. I’ve not contributed to people that want to go to Washington to destroy the Second Amendment.”
Coors defended the contributions by noting that the PAC distributed funds mostly based on issues surrounding beer sales, not gun control.
“The PAC is an employee PAC, managed by employees, that I don’t have anything to do with,” he said. “I don’t even see the list they contributed to.”
Although the forum did not touch on the war in Iraq or how to jump start the nation’s stuttering economy — the two hot-button issues of the campaign — the candidates devoted time to their histories of support for gun rights.
Coors is a past president of Ducks Unlimited, a pro-hunting organization, and appeared in an NRA advertising campaign during the 1980s.
“For some reason, I felt that guns would be an important part of my life, and they have been,” Coors said. “I just hate like heck when somebody talks about taking those rights away from me.”
Schaffer said as a state senator, he sponsored legislation that would expand the ability of people to carry concealed weapons. He said he co-sponsored the “Make My Day” law, which allows people to use deadly force against someone on their property when their lives are threatened.
“There is no public official in Colorado who has a stronger record of defending the Second Amendment than I do,” Schaffer said. “Being proven in the battlefield and defending our rights . . . ought to carry some weight.”
Although they claim to support gun rights, each candidate sidestepped some questions from the audience of about 100 firearms enthusiasts.
Schaffer refused to answer questions about repealing or changing the Brady Act, which requires background checks for handgun purchases, and other gun control measures. Coors said he would vote to repeal the Brady Act, but Schaffer said he would not answer for fear the media would use it against him.
“In these campaigns, as a candidate, I want to be in control of my message,” Schaffer told the audience. “This is a real danger. You need to understand the media’s interest. You have to know I will never vote in a way that harms our Second Amendment rights.”
Coors steered clear of a question about banning different types of ammunition, including bullets capable of penetrating police officers’ bulletproof vests.
“It seems clear to me that in changing federal law . . . you risk ending up with a mess,” Coors said. “I’m learning you have to be very careful when you say you’ll support such and such an amendment or such and such a bill."
Schaffer said he would not support efforts to ban different kinds of ammunition.
CONTACT THE WRITER: 1-303-837-0613 or khenley@gazette.com
BANG
Sounds like he would vote to repeal Brady also. From what I know of Schaffer, he would. I wonder if he would answer a direct question from me.
How about bullets that are capable of penetrating kidnappers,murderers. rapists and armed thieves bullet proof vests?
This stupid bill would ban practically all rifle ammunition.
Coors defended the contributions by noting that the PAC distributed funds mostly based on issues surrounding beer sales, not gun control.
CO:
Salazar 52% - Coors 41%
Salazar 53% - Shaffer 36%
Tarrance Group(R)
MoE+/-4.5% (Likely Voters) 04/28
Coors 50% - Shaffer 32%
Is Salazar a rat?
It seems to m that Coors would be a far better candidate precisely because he's a new face on the scene who DOES tell things like it is.
Also, perhaps Schaffer can explain why his website is hispandering to people who are too lazy to learn English. Coors' website doesn't containly any eager updates "en espanol"
Yes he is a rat , and coors is a rino, schaffer is a man of his word. He signed a term limit pledge and kept his word. When the rinos and rat attack schaffer it is because on the last poll I saw schaffer is the only one close to salazar .
Salazar as colorado AG has paid off whistle blowers to keep quite .
Actually, I talked to him today. I asked that question. He would repeal Brady. He's got a great second amendment record.
He pointed out that Coors is showing his inexperience by going on record in writing to this gun survey that was being passed around. One of the boxes Coors checked has him in favor of repealing a law that, among other things, takes guns away from wife beaters. The Denver Post will crucify him with this come the General Election. Coors doesn't even realize what he did.
Schaffer is going to be a great Senator. If you want to help on his campaign, contact me by FREEPMAIL. I'm helping organize Jeffco for him.
Schaffer IS Mr. Conservative. There's a reason that Tom Tancredo and Mike Coffman introduced Schaffer at his campaign kickoff. There's a reason Bill Armstrong endorses Schaffer, not Coors. Take a look at Bob's record.
Coors will get clobbered by Salazar. He won't be able to duck debates against Salazar the way he is ducking them against Schaffer. And unless I see Coors in public, on his feet, making good decisions and presenting them persuasively before the State convention, I'm voting Schaffer. A media campaign will only get Coors so far.
One more point. Coors has no voting record for us to look to. I have no idea whether or not he will 'grow' once he hits Washington.
Bob is an experienced campaigner, a good speaker, and a very attractive personality.
Don't get me wrong, if Coors wins the nomination, I will be walking precincts for him. But I think Schaffer is far and away the better candidate.
It's a traveshamockery, that's what it is..
Obviously the guy is stongly pro-life, pro-family, pro-2A, etc., no one is disputing that. It's pretty much a prerequisite to win the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate in most states. Even in states like Illinois and Oregon. He'll be totally acceptable to conservatives in the general. That doesn't mean he's better than Coors on every issue.
And since he's the ONLY elected official on the GOP side, it's not surprising a bunch of his "former" colleagues all showed up to tote the guy at his kickoff campaign. Again, this happens in every state when some sitting politician in running against an outsider. Santorum toted Specter in the PA senate primary, Chris Lauzen backed State Senator Raushenberger in the IL Senate primary (even though Jack Ryan and others were far better on Lauzen's signature immigration issue). It doesn't mean much.
You did not address the central points of my post. Look at how the candidates actions match their rhetoric:
1) Schaffer refused to answer questions about repealing or changing the Brady Act, gave a generic "Everyone knows I'm 100% pro-gun" to THIS pro-gun audience because it's what they WANTED to hear. Coors had spine and went ON RECORD to say he would vote to repeal the Brady Act.
2) Schaffer is hispandering on his website with an flashy "en espanol" section eagerly inviting non-English speakers to be updated about his campaign. Keep in mind this is a PRIMARY election where the focus is on the party's base, not on trying to convince non traditional voters to "cross over" and vote GOP in the general. I guess we already know Schaffer's stance on English-first from his "bilingual" website. Coors doesn't pander to any ethnic groups on his website.
3) Schaffer's campaign only lists and highlights his agenda on education, taxes, second amendment and family issues (again, vague stuff that covers the BASICS of what Republicans WANT to hear) Coors literature and campaign site lists extensive stuff on eight or nine issues, including the conservative stuff that Schaffer's campaign covers.
>> Coors will get clobbered by Salazar. He won't be able to duck debates against Salazar the way he is ducking them against Schaffer. And unless I see Coors in public, on his feet, making good decisions and presenting them persuasively before the State convention, I'm voting Schaffer. A media campaign will only get Coors so far. <<
What do you base this on? Your own personal opinion? The Rasmussen polls have Schaffer at 36% in a race against Salazar, Coors is at 41% in the same matchup. Schaffer is behind by double-digits, Coors is behind by only 6 points. Coors is a household name and much easier for people to remember. The current Senator is named Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Seeing an flashy Indian on the ballot was much more endearing to voters than seeing another generic politician on the ballot.
>> One more point. Coors has no voting record for us to look to. <<
This is a bad thing? Seems like the voters in CO are growing restless of seeing the same GOP candidates over and over again. And the Dems would really LOVE to have someone with thousands of voters to look over because they will undoubtedly find something in there that they can smear him with in campaign ads. I'm personally much happier that we Republicans have Kerry and his "20 year voting record" to dissent instead of the Clintonesque John Edwards. I imagine the CO Dems feel the same way, which is why they're already "accidentally" putting Coors pic under a Klan story and other things since they have NO record to attack him on.
>> Don't get me wrong, if Coors wins the nomination, I will be walking precincts for him. But I think Schaffer is far and away the better candidate. <<
Don't get me wrong, either candidate would easy to rally around in November. But Schaffer is just another typical Washington politician. Coors is a businessman and a saavy celeb that can get people excited about his open seat.
Tastes great, less filling.
People, including Mr. Coors, need to state widely enough that the media can't ignore it, that the Lautenberg Abomonation disarms people who have not been convicted, nor in some cases even accused, of any crime. That is so throughly wrong on so many levels it's ridiculous. Too bad the Spineless Supremes refused to even consider that.
BTW, of the people currently in the House and Senate, how many voted for the Lautenberg Abomination? I would guess the majority of currently-sitting Senators did, but I don't know about the House.
Schaefer is the one beer to have when you're having more than one.
http://www.beerhistory.com/library/holdings/schaefer_anderson.shtml
Schaefer was smooth, sort of like Coors. The last brewery in New York City to close. (In 1900 there were almost 100 breweries in NYC.)
You cannot get Schaeffer anymore in Massachusetts? They were once as strong as Bud and Miller but they destroyed their business over a labor dispute as I recall
I haven't seen Schaeffer in a while. Growing up in Queens (Legal drinking age at the time was, oh say 15. Actually be 15, say you're 18, not that anyone ever asked.) beer meant Schaeffer or Rheingold, both local brews. Rheingold was apparently pushed over the edge by labor problems. In fact, the Rheingold fiasco was the impetus behind the Javits Act that requires that pension plans be funded on a sound actuarial basis and be separate from company funds.
Schaeffer was smooth, easy going down, a lot like Coors. Rheingold had a real bite, something I have never experienced in any other beer. (I spend 16 months in Shermany and sampled the local brew most every night.) The Schaeffer brewery closed in 1980, the label was sold to Stroh's, I don't know what the current status of the brand is.
I agree. The point is that it also disarms folks who have been. By not distinguishing, Coors opened himself to unprincipled ads by Salazar that mischaracterize his position (what other kind do rats run?).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.