Skip to comments.Is Ken Salazar Colorado's Charlie Rangel?
Posted on 02/06/2006 9:53:21 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Well, it's become quite apparent that U.S. Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) is quickly making a name for himself among the ranks of the slandering, sensationalizing far left. Since I live in Colorado, covered the primaries and election that put Salazar into office, and know some of the principals personally, I thought my take might shed some light onto the underpinnings of this bizarre phenomenon.
First, on April 25, 2005, Senator Ken Salazar (affectionately known as "Gollum" by Colorado conservatives) commented that Focus on the Family (FOTF), the organization founded by Dr. James Dobson, has relentlessly and unfairly attacked him. In an interview with KKTV in Colorado Springs he said, "from my point of view, they are the Antichrist of the world". The Colorado Springs based group has been very up front with their criticism of Salazar, a pro-choice Catholic.
Seems consistent enough for him to feel criticized, but hardly meriting the "Antichrist" label. The next day, Salazar retracted the use of the phrase "antichrist," downplaying it to "un-Christian". I guess he had a problem with the fine distinction.
Second, on January 25 2006, the Rocky Mountain News reported that while discussing the Senate debate over Judge Samuel A. Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court with reporters, Senator Salazar said, "I think [Justice Clarence] Thomas is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall."
Of these comments, Project 21 member Mychal Massie commented: "Clarence Thomas rose up from poverty and racism in the rural Jim Crow South to sit on our highest court. It is a height only one other black man has reached in our nation's history. To dismiss Justice Thomas as an abomination is disrespectful to him as a man and to blacks everywhere" (Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice in the black community since 1992).
Now, all we really have to do is look at the former Colorado Attorney General's current record to see where he stands, and that he's now delivering to his freak base in Denver (far-Left environmentalists, gay activist and pro-abortion groups, and well-entrenched unions) that backed him in his senatorial bid.
From Vote Smart:
Doth a pattern seem to emerge?
Now, Colorado conservatives such as myself were disappointed at Salazar's winning of his Senate seat -- but not nearly as disappointed as we were in the reason for his win. For truly, there was but one man who had earned the seat and would have made a superb senator, as opposed to the consummate political sellout and stealth far-lefter we obviously have in Salazar.
The reason Salazar won? The Colorado Republican leadership.
The man who should be holding that seat? Beer baron Pete Coors, who ran against him?
Nope. Bob Schaffer, the two-term former Congressman from Colorado's District 4, who was succeeded by Marilyn Musgrave.
Schaffer ran against Coors in the Republican primarily. In fact, early on he really didn't have any competition -- and then Coors suddenly announced his intention to run. Coors: who had never held an office of any kind, but who had lots of money and some name recognition.
Schaffer had an incredible reputation statewide, a stellar congressional record, and was literally loved by conservatives in Colorado for being -- well, a conservative; a man who'd fought his way up the state political ladder with integrity, who made positive changes while in office, and who did what he said he'd do -- including holding to his promise to only serve two terms in Congress (he served from 1997 until early 2003).
Schaffer was, by the way, the only one of the three who had held national office and knew how to get things done in Washington without actually selling his soul.
But the leadership in Colorado thought that perhaps Coors' millions and his name recognition would make him a shoo-in over Salazar. Perhaps some of them owed him favors. Big mistake. So they, along with Colorado Governor Bill Owens (a Republican but hardly a conservative) shivved Bob in the back and threw their support behind Coors, whom many Coloradoans saw as a bored rich boy who wanted to have the name "Senator" before his name -- and perhaps cut some sweet deals for brewing industry.
As you may know, I was raised in New York. If anyone is thinking Lew Lehrman versus Mario Cuomo in 1982, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I think Cuomo wound up serving through several cycles of cosmic incarnation as New York's Governor.
The conservative Republican base in Colorado was enraged, so much so that many literally did not vote out of spite. Independents at least wanted someone who was somewhat familiar with politics, so they went with Salazar, who wound up trouncing Coors soundly. Now we have yet another opportunistic Democrat senator who represented himself as "the people's man" (he came from a family of farmers, ya know), but whose political capital is all big city.
And now he's openly slandering his enemies and those of the far left along the lines of rhetorical terrorists like Charlie Rangel and Julian Bond. Heck of a way to make a name for yourself, but for Coloradoans to suddenly have a senator who makes insanely ridiculous and abusive remarks on a regular basis -- with no-holds barred, even against Christians and minorities... well, they've never seen the like!
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
The mailings he sent out in the primary portraying Coors as a homosexual advocate cost the Repubs the Senate seat, in my opinion. They were very graphic, and lost Coors a lot of conservative votes.
I didn't know much about Schaffer, living over on the other side of the state, but he came across as selfish and attacking, out only for himself.
I agree with the author about how great a candidate and person Bob Schaffer is. But this comment is unfair to Pete Coors. Gov. Owens had to arm-lock Coors before Coors would run. Pete Coors is a good man and a loyal Repblican. He just wasn't our best candidate. Pete thought he was doing it for the party and, unlike the State Party, acted honorably in his race against Schaffer.
Another tidbit, birdies tell me that Gov. Owens did his flip-flop on endorsing Schaffer (and, as the author puts it 'shivved' Schaffer) after the White House called and told Owens they didn't want Bob Schaffer in the Senate. The reason? Schaffer was a principled conservative who, as a congressman, had bucked the president on No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Entitlement Program.
Actually, there is NO evidence for this statement at all. I know who was out walking precincts for Coors. It was overwhelmingly the conservative base.
Beg pardon, but they have seen the like. If I recall, Pat Schroeder had a vicious mouth on her, and was a lying low-life every chance she got too. Colorado is such a beautiful state, but like my own state of Washington, both elect such unsavory people to high office.
And don't forget Dick Lamm...in fact, it's almost a recurring pattern.
Schaffer would have been lucky to get within 10 points of Salazar. The only Republican in Colorado who could have defeated Salazar would have been Owens and that only would have happened if he and Frances hadn't separated.
Why exactly do you think Schaefer would have run behind Bush who won the state?
how could Saladbar there be unbeatable
come on Colorado did go for Bush why the ticket split
For the same reason that Coors ran behind Bush in Colorado. Even without Owens endorsement, Schaffer wouldn't have defeated Coors. Coors defeated Schaffer 61-39 in the primary but lost the general election to Salazar 51-47. Bush won Colorado 52-47. Some voters here either don't realize or don't subscribe to the philosophy that in politics, party trumps person, particularly when it comes to Federal office.
Colorado voters are not a monolith for their respective parties. People don't vote straight party tickets. Quite a few Republicans/conservatives don't realize, or don't care, that party trumps person, especially in DC.
He sounds as looney as Ward Churchill. What's in the water in Colorado?
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.