PeakNation™, Friday was a day that really make us wonder are Colorado Lefties playing checkers, while we here at the Peak play Mario Kart chess. Rep. Cory Gardner gets The Denver Post’s endorsement which reverberates across the country, and completely destroys Sen. Mark Udall’s attacks on him. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee just realized CD-06 is not actually where Andrew Romanoff even lives, and end up pulling its $1.4 million ad buy for him (they actually want to use the money on someone that even has a remote chance of winning). And the Ralph Wiggins to our Stephen Hawking, Coloradopols, fills itself with faux-outrage over a matter that’s already been settled.
Sure, good ol’ Pols didn’t have much going for it on Friday, but there was no reason for it to go and embarrass itself. Pols wrote a post on an article by The Colorado Independent that centered on how dishonest an attack ad is against state Sen. Evie Hudak Rachel Zenzinger. Both The Colorado Independent and Pols worked themselves into quite a lather about there being a Colorado law against running dishonest campaign ads, going as far to suggest Comcast could get sued if they don’t pull the ad. While Pols and The Independent tell their readers that Zenzinger has sent a cease and desist letter, what they both fail to mention is that Comcast has already decided to keep the ad up. A tip from one of our readers passed along the legal response to Zenzinger’s cease and desist letter.
A letter dated October 9th (a full day before Tessa Cheek embarrasses herself with her “article”) states quite clearly why Comcast is justified in not pulling the ad:
…it is clear that Mayor Williams believed the vote would have been to use city funds to pay for elected officials. Specifically, Mayor Williams would be “perfectly comfortable with the highest elected official of the City going based on what has happened in the past and he understands that outside money has been raised [in the past] or they have paid their own way.”
… the fact that Mayor Williams voted against the motion demonstrates that raising outside money was not what was up for consideration – otherwise he would have been “perfectly comfortable” voting for the motion
That city funds were being considered to pay for Zenzinger is further driven home later in the same paragraph. Again, Mayor Williams expressed that “if the motion is to accept Mayor Pro Tem Zenzinger going as a representative with her way being paid outside of city dollars, then he is a thousand percent for that … [but] he struggles … spending any city dollars.” it demonstrates that if the funds used were not city funds, Mayor Williams would have supported the motion. But immediately after this statement, he voted against the motion on the floor.
Zenzinger voted for the motion for the motion to use city funds. [the Peak’s emphasis]
If it didn’t already look bad enough for Zenzinger to vote herself an all-expenses-paid vacation a trip to China with taxpayers’ dollars, she did so at a time when Arvada was laying off city workers.
Go home Pols, you’re drunk.