< PREVIOUS ] [ 2004 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
While I was at the Colorado Water Workshop in Gunnison three weeks ago, the lunchtime talk at our table turned to politics. That's not surprising, since this is an election year and in Colorado, it is impossible to separate water from politics.
A tablemate asked me about the race in the 3rd
Congressional District. I explained that I hadn't paid a
lot of attention to it, since Chaffee County was now in the
5th District after the re-apportionment occasioned by the
2000 Census. We were somewhat important in the 3rd,
I added, but in the 5th, we're just a tiny wart on a big
Republican dog named Colorado Springs.
He laughed and said we had his sympathies. Then he asked
me if I thought Greg Walcher could win the congressional
seat being vacated by Rep. Scott McInnis. I said that I've
known Walcher for years, and he'd always played straight
with me, but If I were running against Walcher, I'd hang
Referendum A around his neck every chance I got and make
him sorry he ever heard of it, let alone supported
it.
That's pretty close to the campaign strategy followed in the primary by state Rep. Matt Smith, and as of yesterday, there's still no official winner. Walcher, with 15,381 votes, has claimed victory. Smith, with 15,106, isn't ready to concede until the provisional ballots are counted.
Referendum A, in case you've forgotten, was on the ballot last year. It would have allowed the state to guarantee up to $2 billion of revenue bonds for big water projects selected by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and approved by the governor. It was defeated by a 2-1 margin statewide, and it did not pass in a single one of Colorado's 64 counties. In other words, it was a political turkey of the highest magnitude.
So exactly where did Walcher stand on Referendum An it? At the time, he ran the Colorado Department of Natural Resources; before Gov. Bill Owens appointed him to that post in 1999, he was executive director of Club 20, the group that lobbies for the Western Slope.
Owens spoke in favor of Referendum A at the 2003 water conference. Walcher followed him, and also spoke for it. Indeed, he said it was such a worthy measure that he'd favor it even if he wasn't in the governor's cabinet.
This year, candidates (or their substitutes) spoke at the water conference. Matt Smith was there, and he reamed Walcher about Referendum A. Speaking on Walcher's behalf, Gunnison attorney Rikki Santarelli cautioned that Walcher was compelled to support Referendum A because he was part of Owens's cabinet, and the governor was all for it. Santarelli implied that at heart, Walcher was not a supporter of Referendum A.
So where did he stand? And where does he stand now?
From what the Grand Junction Sentinel has been
reporting, Walcher's campaign has been trying to ignore the
matter. One of his supporters, Duke Wortmann, complained
that Smith showed a real lack of class
to raise
Referendum A as a campaign issue and it was a form of
mudslinging.
I understand how misbehavior in college years ago, or actions during the Vietnam War 35 years ago, or romantic encounters, or a host of similar matters might not be relevant to a political campaign. But candidates aren't supposed to talk about a public stand on a public issue on the ballot last year?
Walcher's official campaign website contains no mention of Referendum A, which is another indication that his campaign would like to pretend that it shouldn't be an issue in the congressional election.
But it will be if he's still ahead after all the votes are counted. The Democratic nominee is State Rep. John Salazar, brother of Attorney General Ken Salazar and Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate.
Salazar energetically opposed Referendum A last year, and he will make sure voters know how how he stood in a congressional district where four out of five voters also opposed Referendum A.
Walcher will certainly try to change the subject to something like abortion or guns or homeland security. But he couldn't avoid it in the primary, and he won't be able to avoid it in the general election.
At some point, he will have to explain whether he was for it both publicly and privately, or privately opposed but publicly in favor. And in that case, he should also explain how much credence voters should place in his public statements.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2004 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >