« Tuesday Open Thread | Main | Q&A Reminders »



Perlmutter is savvier than I thought.

If these two keep this up, O'Donnell will be the only mainstream candidate in the race for this very mainstream district.

Progressive Dem

Perlmutter is simply trying to distract a not very (as of yet) tuned in electorate from his voting record. He knows that his record is susceptible to attack from progressives, and as a result he is trying to distract attention from that record by knowlingly promoting false accusations about Lamm. EP's days in this race are numbered.

Jeffco Dem

I agree Ed P. has reaffirmed what many of us thought when he first entered the race. He is all about himself first and the principals of the party last.
When will the 17th Street crowd get a clue and realize the people who walk the precincts, post the yard signs, do the phone calls, are the ones who shape the party not a bunch of elitists who are only worried about lining their own pockets.
When Democrats begin to examine old Eddie's voting record they will be hard pressed to find the Democrat platform anywhere in there.


So I'm wondering about this 1997 vote about gay rights. Does anyone know the details about this bill?

Ter Ducken

What Perlmutter is doing is very smart. Politics is a game where winning matters, and he's playing the game better than Lamm right now. You can argue about whether it's nice of him to do this, but that's irrelevant because it's a good campaign move.


I believe the article referred to this bill, which was crafted by Dems as a "mild" response to a very anti-gay bill by Musgrave. The thought was to pass a bill that gave ALL unmarried couples certain rights -- not sure, but it looks like Perlmutter was the only Democrat to side with the GOP in opposing it.

Legal Rights Bill Dies in Colorado
By Michelle Dally Johnston

Denver, CO Feb. 6, 1997, Denver Post Capitol Bureau --- A bill to give gays, lesbians, and unmarried heterosexual couples legal rights in situations of illness, death, and dissolution of the relationship died in the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

Proponents testified that the measure was vital to forestall situations in which lifelong committed partners are unable to see each other when hospitalized or evicted by family members after the death of a loved one. But some committee members said it "went too far." No opponents testified, and SB 161 was killed on a 5-3 vote.

The bill by Sen. Pat Pascoe, D-Denver, would have given rights and responsibilities to individuals who entered into "Legal Domestic Partnerships." Such partners could help make medical decisions for each other, inherit intestate, and sue for wrongful death. They also would be subject to procedures for dividing property if the partnership dissolved.

"Last year, when the Musgrave bill was up, many of you said you wished you had an alternative," said Kathy Glass, a Jefferson County resident who had lived with her partner for 40 years. "This is that alternative."

She was referring to last year's bill by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, RFort Morgan, which sought to ban same-sex marriages in Colorado, even those recognized in other states. Many legislators said they objected to homosexual relations being given the "sanctity" of marriage, but said they recognized the need for some legal structure for them. Gov. Roy Romer vetoed the bill.

But judiciary committee members remained unconvinced yesterday.

"After hearing the testimony, I am convinced there are other legal remedies," said Sen. Ken Arnold, R-Westminster, although two witnesses had testified that living wills, wills, and power-of-attorneys are often expensive, cumbersome and open to legal challenge.

"Call me a prude, but I'm just afraid that this will encourage heterosexual couples to remain unmarried," said Sen. Sally Hopper, R-Golden.

Sen. Ed Perlmutter, D-Wheat Ridge, was quiet for a long time before voting no. "Politically this is a difficult vote, morally this is a difficult vote," he said.

Michelle Dally Johnston can be reached at [email protected]

Call Me Simple

From my view, it looks like Mr. Perlmutter is hoping to avoid a real campaign that needs to be based upon current issues for the voters in CD-7.

Look, Governor Owens is a non-issue...he won't be running for Governor again. You didn't see Perlmutter involved in trying to resolve the CU scandal. So what if Lamm said something positive about the Governor...they were both working on education issues.

The issues raised by Lamm in the Denver Post are real, active, and ongoing issues that will be of interest to the voters. I just don't see the average CD-7 voter giving Mr. Perlmutter a free pass because of one remark made by his opponent.

My suspicion is that Mr. Perlmutter is simply trying to get out in front of what he knows will be significant hurdles for him to overcome. I give him credit for recognizing how formidable an opponent he has in Ms. Lamm.

The bottom line still remains who can give the voters in CD-7 the representation they want...will it be an establishment insider (Perlmutter) who has rarely had to get in the trenches and make things happen or will it be a scrapper (Lamm) who knows you have to roll up your sleeves and get in the middle of the fray?

When all is said and done, this race is still going to be decided by who best matches the demographics of the CD-7 voter...it's Lamm by a country mile.


What amazes me is that Peggy Lamm has had the sage advice of Joltin Jim Merlino -- Rick -- If he stuck with me Howard Dean would be Prez - Reiter and what is she getting for her cash? Nothin! You think that they could come up with a little handout -- some political wisdom to get her out of the Owens mess? Nah, these high paid twits have long since decided Peggy is a loser and moved on to greener pastures -- at least they should have the good grace to not bad mouth her

cotopaxi jo

Seriously, you need to take some happy pills, get a life, or both. You may be the grumpiest person on this website.

Let's review some of the many, many, many errors you have made. First Jim Merlino is a full time staffer of the "Bridges for Colorado" campaign. He has not received a single dollar from Peggy Lamm. Next, Rick RIDDER is Peggy's one campaign consultant. (That's Ridder NOT Reiter who is busy running the "vote yes on C&D" campaign.)

What else from your past grouchy posts...oh yeah, Peggy has worked all her life and is not a "limo liberal" by an extremely long shot. Also, Peggy has worked her ass off on: 1) trying to get rid of the dysfunctional rape/alcohol/old boys system in the CU football system and beyond 2) as chair of CCHE and recently as the chair of the board of trustees at Adams State, on initiatives to reduce college tuition, increase higher ed. revenue, help minority students go to college 3) on all efforts to pass some sort of TABOR reform 4) election reform--she actually believes everyone should be able to vote 5) for the Colorado No Call list to curb telemarketers 6) to help stop the practice of commercial "charitable" solicitors from pocketing 90% or more of donations 7) to require disclosure of donors to what used to be called "education committees".

And that's only what comes immediately to mind of the things she has done in the past couple of years. In the same time period Ed has....earned lots of money. Nothing at all related to public policy.

What's your major disfunction? And, who is Terry?


Lamm's behavior completely mystifies me. Perlmutter may have to explain some "bad" votes, or admit mistakes, but at least he doesn't come off as a liar. She forgets what hurt Bill Clinton most. It wasn't sex with an intern so much as it was his lying about it. Unless someone can convince me that Jody Stroganoff is on Perlmutter's payroll, it looks to me like Peggy Lamm is a victim, not of Ed Perlmutter's attacks, but rather of her own inability to tell the truth.

alan smitheee

The same strain of rabid vitriol that ran (and still does at the CDP state party I guess) through the Mike Miles campaign appears to have infiltrated the Lamm camp.
Whatever her political accomplishments have been, there is no chance the Ds in 7 put up a candidate that lies, obfuscates, blames others - or as bfx points out - exhibits all the cliches of a bad politician. Ed may have some votes that he should answer for, but at least he will be honest.
I don't know, maybe Stroghoff misreported his votes too.

Phoenix Rising

Gotta get those Miles digs in...

Neither of these two candidates is clean; they both have history, and it isn't free of attack issues. Starting this early, at least the Dems will clean out anyone who can't stand the spotlight.

BTW, while there was more than a bit of anger at party politics in the Senate race last year, Miles and Salazar never lobbed heavy artilliary across the lines at each other - it was more of a paintball contest. This is looking like a real fire-fight, and that isn't good if it continues.


I agree that Ed has some votes to explain, like every legislator, as the bills they vote on may have been amended with bad language in it or have a great bill title (The Clear Air Act) but really changes the environmental policy. Ed did a terrific job in the state legislature and did a great job in shaping the democratic agenda when the democrats first gained control of the senate in 2000. He will make a terrific Congressman.

cotopaxi jo

What's worse, endorsing Owens--conceding for the sake of argument that she did (which she didn't)--or voting like him?


It would seem to me that if you really cared about education, the environment and equal rights for gays, you wouldn't endorse Bill Owens over Rollie Heath.

cotopaxi jo

Nor would you endorse Ed Perlmutter since he and Owens vote the same way on those issues.

The comments to this entry are closed.