THE NATION’S STRANGEST RACE: DOES TANCREDO LOVE HICK?

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:00:33 -0600

by Aaron Harber

And is he in it to stay?

It was hard to believe former Congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo could speak with a straight face when he would argue his entry in the Governor’s race as a third-party candidate under the banner of the American Constitution Party was not meant to hurt Republican nominee Dan Maes. Rather, Tancredo said he was “in it to win it.”

The numbers were revealingly definitive. With Tancredo in the race, polls showed Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper picked up over 40% of voters’ support, Maes came in at over 30%, and Tancredo lagged at under 20%, with only a tenth of the voters undecided.

With Tancredo out of the race, however, three-quarters of his supporters flocked to Maes and the balance went to Hickenlooper. The result was a 45% to 45% tie between Hickenlooper and Maes with 10% undecided. The numbers from a variety of polls clearly and consistently show Maes is competitive with Hickenlooper and, if he were able to run a competitive campaign, Maes could win the race.

Hickenlooper is viewed as Denver-centric and is seen as the heir apparent to incumbent Governor Bill Ritter. In an anti-incumbent, anti-Democratic year, even Dan Maes looks good to many voters --- and maybe an majority of them if he were in a two-way race. But he isn’t.

The most surprising number was that 25% of Tancredo supporters would rather vote for Hickenlooper than Maes. It is hard to believe that number would be more than 1% given Tancredo’s constant, multi-year battering of Hickenlooper on the issue of Illegal Immigration. The 25% figure may be more a statement about Maes than Hickenlooper.

Many people assumed Tancredo would extract some concessions from Maes and drop out so the Republican nominee would have a chance of winning. That is exactly what happened when Tancredo threatened to run a year ago and ended up not running after he forged a platform with the anointed Republican candidates, Scott McInnis, in November, 2009, which included positions near and dear to Tancredo. This time is different. There will be no joint position papers.

It will surprise many when they learn to not expect Tancredo to drop out even if the head-to-head polling numbers show Maes leading Hickenlooper. Tancredo is in the race to stay. The only way he will leave the race is if Maes leaves with him. That is not going to happen unless some traumatic event occurs.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, Maes has a number of problems. First, he can’t compete financially with Hickenlooper. He is out of the Mayor’s league and, because Republican funding sources know this, they won’t do anything which they believe is a waste of their resources. It’s a vicious cycle and probably a death spiral for Maes. Maes can’t come close to matching Hickenlooper’s $1½ million television advertising buy which, today, likely would require $2½ million for Maes to match due to increased rates and lower availability of key spot times.

Second, Maes doesn’t have the organization behind him which Hickenlooper has. Although Tea Party and Republican groups support Maes, they don’t yet match the muscle of the Democratic Party in Colorado when combined with President Obama’s 2008 campaign apparatus --- now named Organizing for America. OFA showed its muscle in the Michael Bennet versus Andrew Romanoff Primary Election contest. This means the Get-Out-The-Vote and similar efforts on behalf of Hickenlooper likely will dwarf anything Maes is able to do on his own.

Third, Maes has been determined by The Denver Post to be unfit to serve or even run. With The Post on the attack, Maes is unlikely to get fundraising or electoral traction. A neutral Post would help him but that already is a lost cause. The Post is Colorado’s top source of substantive political news and having made its declaration, Maes has nowhere to go.

Fourth, between The Post, the revelations about Maes paying the largest campaign violation fine in the State’s history, his nominal business success (after portraying himself as a turnaround expert), and other challenges, Maes is unlikely to be able to generate a quarter of the funds Hickenlooper will raise. This will put him at a terrible disadvantage.

Fifth --- and most importantly --- Maes has an in-house nemesis who is determined to take enough votes away from him to guarantee his loss to Hickenlooper. This is his biggest problem and its name is Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo knows he will not win as a third party candidate on the American Constitution Party ticket. Unless he has a secret set of benefactors willing to spend $10 million to smear Hickenlooper and another $10 million to promote Tancredo, Tancredo knows he will not place first in the race --- and probably won’t even place second. Tancredo raised +^ million in his presidential campaign so it seems highly unlikely he will raise more than a fraction of that in a 75-day state campaign. He will be fortunate to raise $500,000 by the end of the campaign.

But, contrary to his public statements, Tancredo isn’t running to win. He has come to an even more severe conclusion than The Post. Tancredo sees Maes as a “crook” and believes everything possible should be done to prevent Maes from becoming Governor --- even if it means Hickenlooper gets elected. In essence, Tancredo is campaigning for the election of the man Tancredo repeatedly has accused of establishing Denver as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants.

Tancredo knows two facts: (1) he is not going to win the race for Governor and (2) he always will have enough support to keep Maes from winning.

Republican Party leaders, such as Chairman Dick Wadhams, can’t be excited about Maes being the nominee (does Scott McInnis look good to Republican leaders now?) but nevertheless would prefer a Maes victory because so much more is at stake. Control of the Capitol, the ability to shape or veto legislation, determining Redistricting, and participating in the Reapportionment process all loom large over the next decade. Whichever party wins the Governor’s mansion this November will exercise tremendous influence and power. These leaders look beyond Maes’ faults and, instead, appreciate the importance of winning the race, even if they were to believe Republican nominee is deeply flawed.

Tancredo, however, loathes Maes so much that, despite the support Tancredo received for decades from the Republican faithful, he is going to do all he can to make certain Maes fails in his quest. All the big issues no longer matter to Tancredo. He is a man on a mission and that mission is simple --- make sure Dan Maes loses the gubernatorial contest.

There is not much Maes can do. The possibility millions of dollars will flow into the race in an effort to attack Hickenlooper and boost Maes simply does not exist. Those dollars already are being dedicated elsewhere. The Republican Governors Association and various 527 committees, although well-funded, are not going to spend a dime helping Maes. He is on his own.

And while there is tremendous sentiment against incumbents which could hurt Hickenlooper, it won’t be enough to cost him the election. In fact, there may be so few ads run attacking Hickenlooper, that even the voters who watch television will be surprised at what a “clean” race the gubernatorial contest will be. With no one attacking Hickenlooper and with Hickenlooper having an insurmountable lead, he, in turn, won’t even bother attacking Maes.

In fact, Hickenlooper’s strategy will be to endear himself to voters by focusing on his self-deprecating sense of humor while ignoring Maes as much as possible. It’s a strategy with a very high probability of success. What a luxury in an era of campaigns dominated by personal attacks and incessant fabrications. In other terms, Hickenlooper has no one to run against.

With the defeat of Maes guaranteed by Tancredo, Hickenlooper will be able to use his campaign resources to help Democrats win statewide and local elections. Attorney General candidate Stan Garnett, Secretary of State candidate Bernie Buescher, and Treasurer candidate Cary Kennedy all will benefit from GOTV efforts funded by the Hickenlooper campaign. Voters likely will see one or more of these nominees on television ads with Hickenlooper as well. And even key State Senate and State House of Representative candidates will get support from Hickenlooper --- all thanks to the fact the gubernatorial race will be seen as being over.

And don’t expect Maes to drop out. He won the Republican State Assembly nomination as well as the Party’s statewide primary fair and square. He is the official nominee of the Party and dismisses the claims against him as either unfounded or frivolous (and many of them may be).

Because a new candidate, at this late date, is unlikely to be much more competitive than Maes, he will see no reason for dropping out of the contest. In fact, except for his “Tancredo Problem,” he probably would poll competitively, if not better, than most last-minute replacement possibilities.

But there will be no replacement. Dan Maes is the Republican Party’s nominee. Tom Tancredo’s place on the ballot as a third party candidate --- and ballots will be printed soon --- is etched in stone. Now all that is left to be done is count the votes and see how big a margin John Hickenlooper racks up in a year which seemed slated to see a Republican take over the Governor’s Mansion.

At the end of the day on November 2nd, John Hickenlooper will have been elected Colorado’s 42nd Governor, Dan Maes will be his defeated opponent, the Republican Party will have blown an opportunity to reclaim the Governor’s Mansion, and Tom Tancredo will walk off into the sunset a happy man who accomplished his mission.

======================================================================================================================

Aaron Harber hosts "The Aaron Harber Show" seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and at www.HarberTV.com. He also hosts "Colorado Election 2010 TM" seen Sundays at 8:30 pm on Channel 3 and on Mondays at 8:00 pm on COMCAST Entertainment Television and is viewable 24/7 at www.Colorado2010.com. Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com. (C) Copyright 2010 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber All rights reserved.

======================================================================================================================

THE YEAR OF TESTING

Sun, 1 Aug 2010 13:03:10 -0600

by Aaron Harber

2010 Presents The Opportunity To Test Many Theories

There is no question that 2010 already is one of the craziest political years Coloradans have seen and presents some unique opportunities to test a number of political theories and claims. The challenge will be in seeing if any of them can be sorted out from the others. Here is a sampling.

THE BIG TRENDS

ARE ALL POLITICS NATIONAL? Can the national trend against anyone with a “D” after his or her name overwhelm local events? If there is a tidal wave in favor of Republicans on November 2nd, will it be massive enough to carry Maes or McInnis over the top despite the hefty anchors securely strapped to their bodies? Will the U.S. Senate race in Colorado be tipped to Republicans by the anti-Democratic wave or will Democrats somehow have convinced voters they have done a good job in Washington? And, even if they did such a good job, will voters worried about the poor state of the Economy believe them?

THE DEMOCRATIC U.S. SENATE PRIMARY

CAN SERVICE BEAT MONEY? Former Colorado Speaker of the Hose Andrew Romanoff’s Primary Election challenge of incumbent but never-elected U.S. Senator Michael Bennet offers a number of tests. The first is whether or not Democrats will turn out a sitting Senator of their own party with whom they agree on almost all issues. The second is a chance to assess the political value of being Speaker. Historically, legislative leadership positions haven’t translated impressively in statewide races. The third is whether Democrats remain upset with Governor Bill Ritter’s selection of Bennet over Romanoff, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, and a host of others who were known and liked better than Bennet. (Coincidentally, by not selecting Hickenlooper, Ritter did Democrats a favor because the Mayor would not have been a candidate for Governor if he were a U.S. Senator.) The fourth is whether or not Bennet’s huge financial advantage, anchored by his prodigious fundraising, can overwhelm the initially better-known Romanoff.

WILL “DON’T CHANGE HORSES IN MID-STREAM” PREVAIL? Michael Bennet’s key argument is there are no major policy differences between himself and Andrew Romanoff. Therefore, if he is the incumbent Senator, why should Democrats make a switch? On the surface, this is a convincing argument and puts Romanoff in a defensive position to argue why fellow Democrats should dump Bennet. The strategy could backfire as Democrats fill out their ballots. Voting “with their minds”, many know it makes sense to support Bennet. Voting “with their hearts, some Democrats are likely to select Romanoff.

POWER OF THE PRESIDENC? President Barack Obama elected to intervene in the U.S. Senate race as soon as Bennet had a competitor. Will Obama be a positive or negative influence? With a slew of campaign-ending television advertisements featuring Obama touting Bennet as his candidate (which won’t help Bennet in the General Election), both Obama and the Bennet campaign have made it clear they want Democrats to demonstrate their support of the President by casting their ballots for Bennet. Romanoff has been careful to avoid all criticism of the President and to call for unity no matter who the victor is but Obama’s involvement --- seen by some as “Washington telling Coloradans what to do” --- may have reinforced the displeasure many Democrats had when Governor Bill Ritter originally selected Bennet over such Democratic stalwarts as Romanoff and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.

THE REPUBLICAN U.S. SENATE PRIMARY

IS THE TEA PARTY A REAL FORCE? Ken Buck’s U.S. Senate campaign and Dan Maes’ gubernatorial campaign initially were seen as good tests of the power of those disenchanted electors who consider themselves aligned with the principles of the various Tea Party groups. They offered a measure of the strength of these generally well-educated, above average income citizens concerned primarily about out-of-control federal spending. Buck’s recent description of some Tea Party members promoting the controversy about President Obama’s citizenship status as “dumbasses” and Maes’ egregious campaign finance violations, however, may have alienated some of those aligned with the Tea Party movement. It still will be interesting to see what their influence is, especially at the Primary Election level.

HOW MUCH WILL MISTAKES HURT? Will Ken Buck’s now infamous “high heels” comment cost him enough votes to lost the Primary to Jane Norton or will Republican voters discount the accusations of sexism against him (especially if they watch his entire speech and take him only as seriously as he was taking himself)? Will Norton’s campaign have recovered from its initial doldrums in time to win the contest? And which one of these actually cut the budgets of his or her own departments while in office? Republican voters have two good candidates from which to choose so will the budget-related facts alone make it close?

THE REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARY

IS TANCREDO AN AFTERTHOUGHT? Tom Tancredo should not be underestimated by anyone but the real question is “Will he stay in the race?” It is obvious he is highly unlikely to win election as Governor but he could draw nine votes away from the Republican nominee for every one vote he captures from the Democratic nominee. While some Democrats are concerned about illegal immigration and will support a Tancredo bid, they will be dwarfed by his Republican and unaffiliated voter support. When Tancredo realizes he is destroying his relationship with the Republican Party and concludes victory will never be within reach, will he exit the stage he loves so much?

IS THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE TV AD? What effect will the impact be of The Denver Post stories and editorials about gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis? How powerful is The Post? While its article content was highly accurate, there is no question The Post went after McInnis with an all-out effort. The volume of its coverage dwarfed that of every other newspaper in the State. Its headlines often were brutal (e.g., “McInnis Lying” --- without the quotation marks was, perhaps, the most excessive). Its front-page placements were exceptional. It was accused of burying partially exculpatory evidence. And its editorial calling for McInnis to resign from the race was extraordinary. There is no argument The Post was not justified in the decisions it made. What was impressive was the sheer force of its effort. The question now is “What effect will this journalistic fusillade have?”

HOW MUCH DOES THE ELECTORATE CARE? While many Coloradans understandably are upset with McInnis’s uncontested plagiarism violations, how many know about them? How many who do know, don’t care? And how many citizens are not even paying attention to the Republican primary anyway? If citizens are well-informed about the events to date, are they are likely to slaughter McInnis at the polls? Polling to date shows the charges already have cost McInnis fully half of his support but not enough to count him out of the Primary Election. And, if he wins the Primary, could he make a comeback? Will voters in November forget what happened this summer?

MORTALLY WALLET-WOUNDED? Did the revelations of plagiarism fatally wound McInnis, especially as far as his fundraising is concerned? That is, if financial supporters see McInnis as “damaged goods,” they are likely to (a) not donate to his campaign or severely reduce their contributions (i.e., a $1,000 donation becomes $100) or not give money to the 501, 504 and 527 organizations supporting his candidacy. With Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper already proving to be a prodigious fundraiser, McInnis could find himself in a huge hole even if he wins the Primary Election. Will the Republicans hunger for the Governor’s Mansion be so extraordinary it will overcome their disappointment in their nominee?

DEMOTIVATING? If McInnis wins the Primary Election, will he be able to rally the Republican faithful? Will Republican activists give 100% or is 25% more likely to be the average if the troops are demotivated? How will that affect other Republican candidates further down the ticket? Will a demotivated Republican Party mean less money for other candidates? Will it allow Hickenlooper to allocate precious resources to help Democratic candidates in key legislative races so as to help Democrats maintain control of the State House and Senate?

DO TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT? With Republican gubernatorial and top-line candidate Dan Maes paying a historically high campaign reporting fine of $17,500, will his mistakes cancel out those made by McInnis as far as Republican Primary Election voters are concerned? Faced with the choice of two flawed candidates, how will Republicans sort out their choices? To date, it appears Maes lost far less support than McInnis did but their race remains close.

HOW MUCH DOES EXPERIENCE COUNT? Revelations that Dan Maes is an Average Joe financially were used to discredit his claims of business expertise but few Republicans seem to have deserted him despite the fact he did not have any stunning business successes to back up the impression he gave many that he was a successful businessperson. Will voters in either the Primary or General Election care when his limited business experience and success are contrasted with the business, civic, charitable, and government successes of John Hickenlooper? The fact Maes has survived at all in this terrible Economy may be all he needs to make his case.

WILL MCINNIS BE THE ULTIMATE “COMEBACK KID?’ There is no question that, if McInnis wins the Primary and General Elections, he will have overcome incredible odds and mounted the greatest comeback and total point swing in contemporary Colorado political history. No one in the pundit class is predicting his election so a McInnis victory on November 2nd would be seen as a tremendous upset.

These questions and more may be answered in the August 10th and November 2nd elections but it is likely there are even more complications in store.

======================================================================================================================

Aaron Harber hosts "The Aaron Harber Show" seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and at www.HarberTV.com. He also hosts "Colorado Election 2010 TM" seen Sundays at 8:30 pm on Channel 3 and on Mondays at 8:00 pm on COMCAST Entertainment Television and is viewable 24/7 at www.Colorado2010.com. Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com. (C) Copyright 2010 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber All rights reserved.

======================================================================================================================

SCOTT MCINNIS --- 2006 REDUX?

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:51:31 -0600

by Aaron Harber

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

This political season certainly is different than any in recent memory, although some similarities come to mind. One comparison can be made between (1) the severe wounding of the Scott McInnis campaign and (2) the fatal implosion of the Bob Beauprez campaign when the candidate made a series of bad decisions which ultimate culminated in the election of then relatively unknown Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter as Governor.

Congressman Beauprez began a series of misjudgments a year prior to the 2006 General Election. None of them was fatal but the cumulative effect portrayed him very negatively.

Whether it was his continued opposition to Referendum C even after it passed (he should have argued he was the businessman to lead its implementation) or his selection of an unknown running mate when he had experienced, campaign-hardened choices he overlooked (his selection was cast in an untenable role) or his tactics against his potential Primary Election opponent Marc Holtzman (poor positioning and a waste of resources) or his embracement of the missteps of ICE Agent Cory Voorhis (making Ritter look tough on crime), the cumulative effect was devastating.

Ritter benefitted tremendously from Beauprez’s mistakes and ended up with an almost unheard of margin of victory for a first-time gubernatorial candidate. The damage suffered by McInnis may have a similar benefit for his well-known opponent, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. The difference could have been minimized if McInnis acted quickly, apologized profusely, repaid (before being asked) the $300,000 he had received for the papers about water he had submitted, and asked everyone to give him a second chance.

Colorado voters will forgive most offenses --- even plagiarism --- and McInnis still may benefit from their largesse. The good news for McInnis is a sizable percentage of citizens are not even paying attention yet to the gubernatorial campaign so the impact of his transgressions may be minimal (unless advertisements surface later in the campaign focusing attention on the current situation but even these may not be effective).

McInnis also is fortunate, in a certain sense, because his Primary Election opponent, Evergreen businessman Dan Maes, just finalized a settlement involving campaign finance violations which resulted in a $17,500 fine --- the largest ever assessed by the State against a statewide major party candidate. Hence, both Republican candidates were hobbled at the same time.

While there has been talk of finding a way to replace both candidates because they are seen by some as “damaged goods,” this will not happen. One of them will win the August 10th Republican Primary. That man, despite the machinations of unhappy party insiders, will be the party’s nominee. He will head up the Republican ticket for the November 2nd General Election.

The toughest challenge faced by McInnis is to see if his funding sources remain supportive. If he can raise the money he needs to be competitive in the Fall, he still will have a chance to win. The same applies to Dan Maes, if he were to become the nominee.

One problem is Hickenlooper already bought $1 million worth of television advertising time. To duplicate this in the Fall --- in terms of identical spots (given the likely decrease in inventory and an increase in rates) --- the Republican nominee will likely need to spend $2 million just to match this single decision by Hickenlooper. That challenge, alone, will be tough.

Nevertheless, given the fact the candidates from both parties today are separated by the statistical margin of error in every current poll that has been made public and given the importance of the race (especially with the Governor’s role in the Redistricting and Reapportionment processes looming on the horizon), those making a Doom and Gloom case for the eventual Republican nominee may be wrong. Some Republican insiders may be unhappy with McInnis or Maes but, in the end, they will want a Republican in the Governor’s mansion --- no matter what the cost. And while everything is coming up roses for Hickenlooper without his doing anything, there still is a plenty of time for conditions to change once again before Colorado voters cast their ballots.

While the odds are heavily stacked against any Republican nominee, anything can happen in politics --- and usually does. Stay tuned for more excitement.

=========================================================================

Aaron Harber hosts "The Aaron Harber Show" seen on Channel 3 KCDO-TV (K3 Colorado) on Sundays at 8:00 pm and at www.HarberTV.com. He also hosts "Colorado Election 2010 TM" seen Sundays at 8:30 pm on Channel 3 and on Mondays at 8:00 pm on COMCAST Entertainment Television and is viewable 24/7 at www.Colorado2010.com. Send e-mail to Aaron@HarberTV.com. (C) Copyright 2010 by USA Talk Network, Inc. and Aaron Harber All rights reserved.

=========================================================================

Attorney general candidates debate

Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:41:49 -0600

Lawsuit challenging federal health-care reform focus of friction
Durango Herald News
by Joe Hanel
Herald Denver Bureau

DENVER - Colorado's two attorney general candidates sparred Wednesday night about the federal health-care law and efforts to protect consumers.
The debate featured incumbent Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, and his Democratic challenger, Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett.
Garnett got into the race shortly after Suthers joined a lawsuit by Republican attorneys general against the health-care reform law that Congress passed this year.
"It's a waste of the prestige of the office," Garnett said. "One of the first things I will do when I'm elected Colorado Attorney General is to dismiss Colorado from this case if it hasn't already been thrown out of court."
Suthers, though, said the lawsuit is a necessary defense against federal intrusion into people's lives. If the government can tax people for not buying health insurance, it could tax them for not buying a hybrid car or a health-club membership, he said.
"This is a tax on your citizenship - sitting at home and not doing what the federal government wants you to do," Suthers said.
Garnett said that Suthers too often intervenes in out-of-state, partisan lawsuits, and he isn't active enough in consumer protection. Suthers is engaged at the Legislature on matters such as criminal law and medical marijuana, but not enough on identity theft or schemes to defraud the elderly, Garnett said.
Garnett said he would send his deputies to community events to educate people about fraud.
"There's great potential to help people lead better lives without the government spending more money to do so," Garnett said.
Suthers said Garnett suffers from "naivete" about the attorney general's role.
"Stan's been managing a public office for 18 months. I've been managing very large public offices for 18 years," Suthers said.
Suthers pointed to his record as the state's top prosecutor for the last 5Â½ years. He pushed for new laws that have helped lock up Internet predators and settled three major environmental lawsuits that had dragged on for as long as 25 years.
The two candidates agreed on a lot.
Both said Arizona's new illegal-immigration law is unconstitutional, because it steps on the federal government's responsibility to say who can enter the country.
Both said a main function of the attorney general's office is the protection of Colorado's water rights.
And both had praise for the quality of judges in Colorado. Unlike states that elect judges, Colorado has a merit system, where a review board picks out three names to send to the governor, who makes the final decision on appointments.
Colorado judges get lifetime appointments, although every 10 years they have to be reapproved by popular vote.
"I'm opposed to term limits for judges. The hallmark of the American justice system is judicial independence," Suthers said.
Suthers said he made a mistake earlier this year at a Republican event by answering a question about whether four state Supreme Court judges should be retained. Conservatives are running a campaign to kick them out of office.
Bloggers made Suthers' response seem like he supported the conservative campaign, Suthers said. He distanced himself from the effort Wednesday night.
Public television host Aaron Harber served as moderator of the debate at the University of Denver law school. The debate will be broadcast in three parts on Harber's public television show and will be online later at www.Colorado2010.com.

Suthers, Garnett debate for attorney general

Thu, 3 Jun 2010 12:34:37 -0600

In Denver Times
By Maria Schmitt

Colorado Attorney General and Republican John Suthers and his challenger, 20th Judicial District Defense Attorney Stan Garnett, a Democrat, discussed everything from immigration reform to the public’s perception of lawyers at a debate at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law Wednesday night.
The debate, hosted by TV journalist Aaron Harber is the first in what will be up to 40 televised programs focusing on highly competitive races in the Colorado 2010 elections. Due to the scale of the series, dubbed Colorado Election 2010, Harber’s is the first of its kind in the history of television.
More polite than pyrotechnic, the debate touched on few topics, but went fairly in-depth with each of them. Beginning with what Harber, who moderated the debate, called “fun topics” and ending with illegal immigration, the candidates (and the audience) grew more passionate as the discussion went on.
The two agreed on some points, and both made clear the other’s career inadequacies. Suthers criticized Garnett’s short amount of time as a public lawyer; Garnett said Suthers’ career was too political.
“That’s not how I operate,” Suthers said. “No jobs [I’ve had] have been stepping stones. I have carved out a career as a lawyer and public servant.”
He emphasized his progress in consumer protection law and environmental (mainly water source) cases during his time as Colorado’s attorney general.
Garnett, who served as both treasurer and president of the Boulder Valley School District’s board of education, pointed out his ability to manage a budget and large staff, a result of his time in the private sector.
“With me, [Colorado] will have an attorney general with leadership not just in the community, but also in the legislature.”
Garnett criticized Suthers’ involvement in both a 2006 energy case and his participation in the suing of the federal government over heath care reform.
Suthers defended his actions by explaining the issue in both cases was a breach of federalism.
Discussing the heath care bill, Suthers said: “The federal government has forced people to buy [government health care] or be fined. There is no limit to federal control over your economic decision making if it is not opposed.”
As the debate progressed, supporters from both sides grew louder after the candidate’s answers.
Suthers and Garnett agreed more on details about illegal immigration and Arizona’s new laws than they did on other subjects. Both thought Colorado should not pass legislation similar to Arizona’s stating that immigration laws should be written at the federal level.
“I understand full well the frustration of the American people,” Suthers said of illegal immigration. “It’s ridiculous how the federal government has handled it. What we cannot do is usurp the federal government.”
Suthers said immigration has been an issue in America for many years, and agreed that the Arizona law is not a good one.
“Clearly the Arizona law is bad for a bunch of reasons,” he said. “I support comprehensive, fair-minded federal immigration reform.”
Suthers, who worked for the Colorado Department of Corrections, said that 10 percent of criminals in state prisons are Mexican nationals who the state deemed too dangerous to transport back to Mexico, due to the nature of their crime. He said too much taxpayer money – $60 million per year – is spent on these prisoners.
Harber concluded the first of his many Colorado Election 2010 debates by asking each candidate why Coloradans should vote for them.
“I ran for DA because I wanted to be DA,” Suthers said. “I ran for attorney general because I wanted to be the attorney general. I like being a lawyer and public servant. It’s been an honor and a pleasure to serve as attorney general and it would be an honor and a pleasure if I am reelected to that position in November.”
Garnett said that if he is elected, he will apply his years in a private law practice to the job.
“The public can hold me accountable,” he said. “We can energize the office and be proactive. You can know that in the attorney general’s office, the buck stops with me.”
Harber pointed out the length those running for office in Colorado go to, covering “tens of thousands of miles” during their campaigns. Information about his discussion-based informational election series can be found at www.colorado2010.com.