« Wednesday Open Thread | Main | Bill Ritter Q&A »

Comments

Alva Adams

Rebel Dem hits on exactly the same themes we had talked about a day or two ago, and this new issue of the Statesman only strengthens that point: In cases like this, don't fight the media. You won't win. You can't win.

The Statesman did another story on this probably in response to Lamm's continual denial (see The Denver Post's recent story). If she would just shut up and account for it, like Rebel Dem suggests, this might go away. But you can't keep saying the same denial when it's in print, clear as day, for all to see. It's like teaching a child not to touch a hot burner -- how many times are you going to burn your hand before you learn to stop touching it?

Coloradem

Rebel Dem, I agree, loyalty does matter.

But as a gay man, I must look at it slightly differently. I question Ed Perlmutter's loyalty to me and my family based on his vote against equal rights for my family in 1997 that Peggy Lamm spoke about yesterday.

Until I hear some type of assurance from Perlmutter that being a voice for my family does not pose "a difficult moral issue" (I believe that is how he phrased it at the time) for him, then I guess I'll have to support Lamm on this one. She has shown through her votes while in the legislature that speaking up for gays and lesbians does not pose any "difficult moral" choices for her.

And, incidentally, I live in the CD 7 so my opinion and vote will matter in this race.

7th district d

I can't believe the fuss that posters AND Coloradopols continue to make over an issue that Peggy Lamm has vehemently denied. She is on record as saying that she NEVER endorsed Owens.

Of much more concern to me is the fact that Perlmutter's record on Democratic core issues continues to be neglected. This is a man, who has been heavily influenced by the religous right/Promise Keeprs crowd (this is why Coloradem, Lil' Eddy can't vote for basic rights and responsibilites to be granted to you and your family); he is more than in bed w/ the developers - during his tenure in the State Senate he actively worked to undermine an effort in Eagle County to preserve open space (for this effort, the Denver Post said Lil' Ed should be "ashamed"). His enviro record is abysmal!

Let's get this discussion back where it should be, about the abilities and beliefs of the candidates, and who could better represent the interest of the 7th CD.

Progressive Dem

I agree w/ 7th district d; Perlmutter is flinging around accusations because he knows that his voting record can't stand up to the scrutiny that it will be under during a Primary, especially with a candidate as talented as Lamm. Furthermore, I too am a gay man, and the last thing that Colorado (or any other state for that matter) needs to do is send another homophobe member to Congress!

An anti-gay anti-enviro democrat? No thanks, I think that the 7th CD deserves better!

marla

You are right 7th District d. Let's get to the issues of interest.

Eddie P. was the major force behind a land swap between NREL, Jefferson county and the Coors family to save alot of land on South Table Mountain. Alot of people in Golden, Applewood and Lakewood will remember that.

Regarding Lamm's support of Owens...in 1998 he wanted to give all the money back and not reinvest in the state of Colorado... and guess what...for the last six HE DID and the state is almost bankrupt.

How can Lamm "support his position on higher ed" when it means that the state may have to close several community colleges in the near future?

Supporting Owens, a guy who vetos a rape victim compassion bill for those poor women who to young to know their contraceptive options.

Owens, a guy who is so politically stupid that he cost the state millions of tourism $$$ by declaring his state a nuclear winter after the fires a few years ago.

Obviously Lamm attempted to sweet talk Jody into cutting her a break...very naive move because she only threw grease on the fire.

cotopaxi jo

Let me get this straight, if your name is on a press release, then that is proof positive that you did authorize it to be used? Notice that the lead in to the original Statesman article was all about several dems who found out their name had been improperly listed on that same release. So, we know the process through which those "endorsements" were gathered was entirely suspect. Peggy never demanded that her name be removed because she didn't know it was on to begin with. She was under the impression--obviously incorrectly--that her conversation with Jody Strogoff was in regard to her support of the Gov.'s recent (at the time) higher ed initiatives.

That's simply the truth. Are you actualy implying she should fabricate a different story? She can't fess up because it never happened.

Why isn't anyone saying that Ed make a very bad blunder in concocting that inane lawyer letter and trying to milk another article out of the whole stupidness. He got greedy and overreached. What happened was not a story about Peggy and Bill Owens but rather a story in which some of Ed's own very questionable problems came out. Talk about a strategic oops.

His responses to the votes were absolutely unbelievable--one he didn't remember, one, you have to understand, he got a bad grade from the league of conservation voters because he was pandering to developers and one he completely miscategorized (it's absoutely untrue that the tuition tax credit bill would have given anything to public schools).

Let's get real.

Jody Strogoff

Hi,

Just a clarification if I may regarding the post from cotopaxi jo... Peggy indeed knew that her name was on the press release because I told her that when I interviewed her for the story, just as I told all the others who I interviewed. If she had a problem with that, she could have simply told me it was a mistake (she never denied it then) or she could have called the Owens campaign and asked that her name be removed. When I called Peggy for a comment I told her I was doing a story on the Democrats who were listed as supporters of Owens on their press release.

Jody Hope Strogoff
The Colroado Statesman

Henry

...and if you sincerely cared about equal rights for gays...or the environment...or education, why on earth would you endorse Bill Owens over Rollie Heath?

BFX

I agree with Henry. Trying to paint Ed Perlmutter as anti gay rights over one bad vote, and wrong on the environment for one bad annual score is a stretch, and in any event he will have to answer for his record. Peggy Lamm, on the other hand, basically looks like a liar. The gay community, women and environmentalists need a champion for sure, but it can't be a liar --and it sure as hell isn'T someone who was comfortable telling a newspaper that she was happy to re-elect Bill Owens!!!!

pollyblog

I agree with 7th district D that we need to get back to a discussion about the candidate's abilities and beliefs. But what the hell does Lamm stand for --what does she believe and how competent are her abilities to lead when she can't be truthful?

cotopaxi jo

Jody,

I did not mean to imply, at any level, that you misled Peggy--only that Peggy herself misunderstood. Neither Peggy, nor anyone else has said or implied that you in any way misrepresented anything. The fact of the matter is that she did misunderstand and her statements of support were only inteded in the higher ed. context regardless of how well, or apparently not well, she communicated that to you.

Look, I get that many people, Rebel Dem leading the way, find Peggy's account hard to follow. But, again, would you have her invent an untrue version that you all find more probable?

To BFX, how is endorsing Owens (for the sake of argument) worse than actually voting exactly like Owens? Why is Ed's voting record--policies he actually tried to put in place as an elected official--less noteworthy than this endless endorsement story?

Call Me Simple

Ms. Strogoff,

Perhaps I'm late to the discussion, but what exactly did Ms. Lamm say...I haven't seen you actually state that she told you she was endorsing Bill Owens candidacy for reelection. I've seen you state that she didn't take the opportunity to deny the endorsement...does that mean you never actually asked her if she confirmed or denied it?

I may be simple and slow but is it possible that what's not being said is what's most important? Is it possible you inferred she was endorsing the Governor from some positive comments she made about higher ed issues or that she misunderstood what you were asking?

As I see this, most Dems posting here rush to conclusions, love to make accusations, and thrive on sour grapes. I have a question for all the self-appointed, all knowing experts...with all your wisdom, knowledge, and arm chair experience, why don't you come out from behind your computers and run for office? From what I see here, there must be dozens of perfect candidates just waiting to show the rest of us how it's done.

As an old country boy, I'm reminded of the principle that few animals "eat their own". When it comes to Dems, they must be the exception.

Maybe this will help...all you know it alls...I promise to support you as candidates despite your fragile and needy egos if you promise to do something productive besides constantly carping.

Call Me Simple

Ms. Strogoff,

Before someone reacts, my remarks from "As I see this...(to)...constantly carping." were NOT directed to you. As I reread my posting, it struck me someone might inadvertently reach that conclusion. I guess I've proved my point to myself...words can be misleading and misunderstood quite easily. My apologies if they were. I meant them for many others who regularly post here at Colorado Pols.

Coloradem

Look, neither of the candidates is perfect, I'll grant that. (Hell, the only perfect candidate I would probably agree with 100% of the time is me and sometimes I waffle.) Do I like that Lamm apparently endorsed Owens? No.

But let's be realistic here. Owens won in '02 by an almost 2-1 margin (63%-34%), so apparently several Democrats around the state must have also voted for him (incidentally, I was not one of them). Given the statewide margin and the makeup of the 7th district, I am also fairly certain that Owens carried the 7th, so the fact that Lamm may have endorsed him could actually help her in the general.

Endorsements of this variety are more often than not tied to perceived electability. Everyone knew that there was no way in hell that Rollie Heath was going to knock off Owens in '02--no one was going to--if he had been perceived as vulnerable, then Salazar or Udall would have ran. So can I forgive her for her faulty judgement in the '02 election? Yes.

Then we have Ed Perlmutter who has faces a "moral crisis" when it comes time to take a stand on the issue of my and my family's equality with my heterosexual bretheren. This poses an even bigger, and intensely personal, issue for me. Unless he makes some pretty pointed statements that he has "repented" (for lack of a better word) I simply will not be able to support him in the primary. I would not want Mr. Perlmutter to be forced into a "moral crisis" everytime the Republicans cough up another discriminatory bill--they have been doing alot of that lately and he may end up needing counseling like Tancredo did years ago.

I am confident that either of these two folks can whip either O'Donnell or Paschall, and will support the eventual nominee (I'd vote to leave the office vacant for two years before I'd vote for either of the Republicans in this race). Having said that though, at this point Lamm can count on my vote at the caucuses and in the primary.

Rick James

I understand the desire by Lamm supporters to distory Perlmutter's record and beg anyone and everyone to move on from the topic of her face plant in response to her whichever-way-the-political-wind endorsement of Owens. Every Democrat in the state new Heath was going to get pummeled, but only a handful of opportunists chose to cozy up to Billy Owens.

The fact is Peggy Lamm has been caught in a lie and she is going to get NOWHERE until she completely and honestly addresses the issue. By continuing to deny her endorsement of Owens, Lamm is implicitly calling Stroghoff a liar.

As has been pointed out many, many times on this site, don't pick a fight (or call a liar) anyone who buys ink by the barrel. This thing is never going to go away for her throughout her candidacy.

Call Me Simple

Rick,

Just to be clear, being called a liar works both ways. And by the way, Ms. Lamm has NOT called Ms. Strogoff a liar. You're entitled to your own conclusion but it ought to be based upon accurate information.

Stan Davis

I confess that I'm ignorant about the issues discussed here, but I do have a general philosophy that may be applicable.

Legislators have a particular problem when they campaign for a future office: their voting record.

I don't consider a vote from years ago to be predictive of what they'll do in the future. Effective legislators have to base their votes on the specific language of a piece of legislation, under the circumstances that existed at the time. A new piece of legislation under new circumstances years later might lead to a different position.

I know Ed Perlmutter and I'm proud to support him. I have every faith in the world that his values are congruent with those of mainstream Democrats.

Might he vote "aye" on a less than perfect piece of legislation? Probably, if it helped the cause, a little bit.

Ideological Democrats have a particular sickness: they'd rather go hungry over getting half a loaf.

Progressive change is incremental, one step at a time.

Whatever Ed Perlmutter is, he's a pragmatist who wants to get things done. And he wants to get the right things done.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO

Ter Ducken

Whether or not Lamm's implicit or explicit endorsement of Owens will make a difference is not the point here. The point is that Lamm has got to stop denying it when it is in print all over the place. You can't keep saying I didn't do it when it's right there in front of everyone. It's just making this worse.

too_much_green_tea

Ideological Democrats have a particular sickness: they'd rather go hungry over getting half a loaf.

Excellent metaphor Stan.

Once again the Dems don't have to worry about the R's taking them out. They are circling their wagons, then turning around and blasting each other.

A one vote elector is even worse than a one issue voter!

Until I see that every vote, every time over the course of 4 years was antithetical to every CD 7 dem, I need more!

Call Me Simple

Ter,

It seems to me the relevant issue is the actual facts...even if they may contradict what has been written. Call it an implicit endorsement if you want but it doesn't necessarily mean Ms. Lamm endorsed or voted for Governor Owens.

It wouldn't be the first or last time a miscommunication or misunderstanding has been or will be printed. Isn't it time to give it a rest?

Don't support Ms. Lamm if you don't accept her explanation but if that's the Dems litmus test, they need a reality check. This is nothing more than a smoke screen for those trying to paint the opponent with a broad brush. How about we find out what the candidates plan to support for the voters of CD-7?

Ter Ducken

There ARE facts. Lamm endorsed Owens. It's been repeatedly shown in the Statesman and by the Denver Post. There is an actual written record of it. According to Strogoff, she had a chance to retract that endorsement and didn't.

This is politics, and it's a game, and she's losing this round. Save me your ideological speeches. She's making a dumb political move right now by repeatedly denying something that is visible to everyone. If she would stop denying it, the story would go away.

Rick James

TD is absolutely right. Lamm's endorsement of Owens was not implied or a mistake. The fact is and will continue to be, until Lamm stops lying about her endorsement of Owens -who incidentally, has done more damage to the state and thwarted nearly every attempt by the Dems to right the ship - she will go nowhere. Nobody (regardless of political affiliation) cares about policy when there is controversy to discuss. Her advisors are doing her a grave disservice by not recommending honesty.
And as I said earlier, this is a she said/she said issue of Lamm's account against Stroghoff's account. While Lamm has not said "Jody Strghoff is a liar," by continuing to deny the Stroghoff account, Lamm is perpetuating the story and implying that Stroghoff is lying.

cotopaxi jo

The Peggy/Statesman story is irrelevant. Peggy endorsed Owens if and only if she authorized Bill Owens himself or a member of his campaign to use her name as an official endorsement for his candidacy, typically this is done in writing. Peggy never did this.

Once again the fact that her name appears on a press release proves nothing--and as I said earlier, many of the other names on that same release were improperly listed.

Where's Jody?

"Call Me Simple" asked a very good question. It would seem to me from Jody's comments that Peggy never actually said, "I am endorsing Bill Owens," which to me is the only way that Peggy could be endorsing Bill Owens. Press releases from his campaign contained all sorts of lies, and this was likely one of them. As Jody has not yet answered, I will repeat "Call Me Simple's" question here, and hope that we can get a clarification of this. Again, the only way that Peggy could have endorsed Owens is if she said "I endorse Owens." Call me simple's question:

"Perhaps I'm late to the discussion, but what exactly did Ms. Lamm say...I haven't seen you actually state that she told you she was endorsing Bill Owens candidacy for reelection. I've seen you state that she didn't take the opportunity to deny the endorsement...does that mean you never actually asked her if she confirmed or denied it?

"I may be simple and slow but is it possible that what's not being said is what's most important? Is it possible you inferred she was endorsing the Governor from some positive comments she made about higher ed issues or that she misunderstood what you were asking?"

Call Me Simple

Ter,

Here's some ideology for you...Dems constantly complain that R's routinely make false assertions over and over again becuase eventually the public starts believing the rhetoric.

Unless you happened to be there for all the conversations that surround this issue, your repeated assertions of certainty are no different. You don't know the real facts any more than I do...you're just willing to assert you're unsubstantiated poli-speak.

By law, we allow courts and jurys to decide issues...when did you receive your appointment as judge and jury? Your welcome to your opinion, but a couple of press releases and an article in a newspaper do not equate with your comment "Lamm endorsed Owens".

Support and vote for who you want but spare me your righteous absolutism. Maybe you're in the wrong party?

The comments to this entry are closed.