Water muddy after Bruce kick

Committee will investigate new GOP legislator

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 16, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Text size

Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. / The Rocky

Republican state Rep. Douglas Bruce enters a press conference Tuesday to discuss upcoming legislation and inform the press that he won't talk about Monday's kicking incident.

More Colorado Government

Map my news

Rep. Doug Bruce is sending his fellow lawmakers into uncharted waters that could possibly lead to his ouster.

The day after Bruce kicked a Rocky photographer, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, and House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, announced Tuesday the creation of a special committee to investigate what Romanoff called "a very troubling development."

"I've been here for seven years and I don't recall having formed this kind of committee for this kind of purpose before," said Romanoff.

Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, remained unapologetic, insisting that photographer Javier Manzano provoked him by using a flash to take his picture during the morning prayer in the House.

No restrictions

"If there's anyone who should be charged with violating the order and decorum of the House, it is he," Bruce said.

But Bruce added that the House leaders are "entitled to have any committee about any incident that they want."

House rules allow the media full access to the floor where the incident happened.

No restrictions are placed on photographers during prayers or other activities.

May emphasized the committee will be investigating Bruce's behavior exclusively. "We're not here to examine the press," he said.

Romanoff said the special committee will have powers similar to an ethics committee, which can recommend discipline ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.

House leaders said they were still looking into the specific authority they could give the panel, including subpoena power.

The committee's first challenge will be to decide what authority the House has to punish a lawmaker for something he did before being sworn in.

House rules are clear that representatives can be reprimanded or censured on a majority vote of the members and can be expelled on a two-thirds vote.

But while Bruce had been signed in by the Secretary of State as a representative-elect, he was still hours from becoming a sworn House member when the kicking episode happened.

On the other hand, House rules give the speaker broad authority to preserve order and decorum.

Bruce's abrasive arrival at the Capitol came after weeks of wrangling over the time and setting for his swearing-in.

Appointed to seat

Romanoff and May had urged him to show up for the beginning of the legislative session last week, but Bruce refused, saying he wanted to delay his start so that he would be eligible to serve up to six additional years after his current term is over.

Bruce was appointed to fill the seat vacated by Rep. Bill Cadman, who was appointed to fill a Senate vacancy. Bruce has said the delay in his swearing-in was recommended by a judge during a previous court challenge to term limits.

Romanoff said he reviewed a tape of the incident, spoke with Bruce, and conveyed his apology on behalf of the House to Rocky Editor, Publisher and President John Temple.

The committee's co-chairs will be Reps. Paul Weissmann, D-Louisville, and Steve King, R-Grand Junction. The other members are Reps. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, Claire Levy, D-Boulder, Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, and Ray Rose, R-Montrose.

Romanoff said the committee, which will meet at noon Friday, has until Jan. 25 to make its recommendations.

bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059 Staff Writer Alan Gathright and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A kick by any other name . . . What Rep. Doug Bruce said about kicking a Rocky photographer, Monday and then on Tuesday

* MONDAY

Reporter: "We saw that you kicked him."

Bruce: "That's right . . . I was trying to stop him from doing something that was tasteless and disruptful, blocking the aisle, making noises. I mean that's just - his conduct was deplorable."

* TUESDAY

"I don't consider nudging to be kicking. It's not like I hauled off and punched him in the face."

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

January 16, 2008

2:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Chadley25 writes:

You know, kudos to Romanoff and everything, but I'm perplexed why he's apologizing to the president of the Rocky Mountain News on behalf of the House instead of to the man who was kicked. And Bruce? Wow, he really comes off looking like a jackass in this video, doesn't he? Who kicks someone (and scolds them as if they're a petulant child) when they're basically on their knees like that?

Did the Speaker say "irregardless"? I couldn't tell, but I sure hope not.
January 16, 2008

5:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

Maybe the House could get on to important business instead of this wasting any more time on this sideshow. Where's the "tolerance"for Bruce? This is more about his past than this incident.
January 16, 2008

7:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

Doug Bruce kicks like a girl.
January 16, 2008

7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

DougH writes:

Message to "Oh_Wise_One", if you want to keep your title, you should read actually the news reports before commenting. This whole story is about Doug Bruce in the here and now. Most normal people do not act the way he did and most normal people do not tolerate this kind of behavior. Bruce is the guy wasting everyone’s time with his sideshow.
January 16, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Bob299 writes:

If Bruce is unable to act like a decent human being, he should be removed from office.
January 16, 2008

8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Diff writes:

Bruce: "That's right . . . I was trying to stop him from doing something that was tasteless and disruptful, blocking the aisle, making noises. I mean that's just - his conduct was deplorable."

By doing something that was tasteless and disrutpful, and assault per Colorado law... Mmmmmm
Civility. That all it would have taken, and Bruce has clearly demonstrated he has none and maybe dose not even know what civility would be.
Had he simply told the photographers that he was troubled at having his picture taken during a prayer and maybe just asked that they not publish the picture and avoid in the future taking such pictures of him (BTW, this is Civility Bruce.) A civil and respectful response could have been expected and I would bet, would have been honored.
Douglas Bruce has no place as member of Colorado's legislature, and I hope they remove him. Quickly. I also believe he should ( and will be) charged with a crime.
Brucie - Go back to what ever slum you live in and stay there!
January 16, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

RJS07 writes:

I guess as long as the legislators are messing around with this baloney, they aren't thinking up new ways to waste our tax dollars. Obviously there was no actual news happening yesterday.
January 16, 2008

9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Will the Rocky publish a picture of the photographers knee? I would really like to see the injury. A doctors report would be great as well.
January 16, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

maryb writes:

To Chadley25, regarding the Speaker...

I assure you he did not.
January 16, 2008

9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

plainfolk writes:

While I agree that Bruce should apologize for using any force on the photographer (even though what I saw from the video, the force was not any more than a light slap on the shoulder), the photographer should apologize to Bruce for setting off his flash at close range, right in Bruce's face, during the prayer.

The photographer was, maybe, 4 feet from Bruce, directly in front of Bruce, and kneeling down so that the flash from his camera was directly into Bruce's face during the prayer. That behavior is extremely rude and should not be acceptable for photographers of any decent news organization. Would the Rocky Mountain News condone a photographer setting off the flash of a camera at close range, right into the face of a person praying in public? I would hope not.
January 16, 2008

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

NotYours writes:

Bruce DID ask photographers NOT to photograph him during prayer. It was a request for basic respect to hold off photography for 1-2 minutes.

Not only that, the photographer was close enough to Bruce when he took the flash photo that Bruce was able to kick him.

That's in-your-face papparazzi, not journalism.

Tons of unprofessionalism here -- on all sides -- but it started with Javier Manzano's complete lack of respect for someone's prayer.

Remember -- the RMN is a biased, involved party in this mess. Keep that in mind when you read their articles.
January 16, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

A doctors report would be great. A picture of the injury would be helpful.
January 16, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

joeblow writes:

To anyone defending Doug Bruce:

Would you allow ANYONE to use their foot to 'get your attention' or KICK you? In an absolutely disspassionate vein, could you advise anyone---ANYONE---to do what Doug Bruce did on the House floor?
Folks, this isn't just a violation of decorum in the House, it's a violation of fundamental and universal etiquette. And this alleged Mensa member (you can look it up) did it ON HIS FIRST DAY AT WORK!!!!
Doug Bruce knows he rubs (figuratively) a lot of people the wrong way. In this case, he's succeeded in alienating even his own teammmates. It's not the government that's out to get Doug Bruce. It's DOUG BRUCE who's out to get Doug Bruce!
January 16, 2008

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Lowtaxequalsfreedom - the severity of the injury is not important, it's the action itself that is.

Notyours- I don't necessarily agree that taking a picture of someone praying is disrespectful, and don't believe it's unprofessional for a photographer to do their job in a public arena. What IS unprofessional is Bruce's lack of decorum and self-control in physically assaulting someone else. Not to mention the attention grabbing maneuvers in refusing FOUR attempts to accomodate his schedule so that he could be publicly sworn in.
January 16, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

Freedom of the press is NOT about decorum, nor should it EVER be. This instance is not a photographer chasing someone down. It's a professional doing his job and his CONSTITUTIONAL right by photographing a politician in a public setting. It's unbelievable that ANYONE could possibly try and say that Bruce should be allowed to ask the suspension of this right while he's standing in the CHAMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE - A POLITICAL FORUM!! If press should have FULL, UNFETTERED ACESS ANYWHERE, IT'S HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Poor Brucey didn't like the flash? Then he should resign.

The legislature should encourage assualt charges and censor him for his un-apologetic disregard for the U.S. Constitution.
January 16, 2008

10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Kslayer writes:

Maybe it was rude for the picture to be taken at that moment during prayer. Bad judgement, poor taste. but when your in the publics eye thats to be expected. When one becomes famouse he is that way because of the public. So, I don't feel sorry for anyone who is famouse and have papparazzi chasing them around. We the public make them famouse. The same goes for the Government. We have a right to know whats going on in the Capitol. Bruce, if you can't except that, then you need to crawl back into the hole from which you came. Your Lucky the photographer was professional and didn't get up and put his foot in you a--!
January 16, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

steve00 writes:

I was going to say that he's an elected official, the people have spoken, and he should be there. But the article says he was appointed? How did he get appointed? Can he get un-appointed? There is something very wrong and disturbing with the political that a guy like that can end up in the house of representatives without getting elected. Hopefully they'll throw him out, whether he was sworn in or not.
January 16, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

holtonfb writes:

first of all .. the rule of the chamber do not forbid photography, with or without flash .. today's focused strobes are not obtrusive at four feet ... and if Bruce has legs that long .. he should quit politics and become a place kicker for the Broncos ..
but most importantly .. a true gentleman dosn't go around kicking people .. back here in the east .. a true gentlyman .. would politiely ask the photog not to use that photo and not to take his picture again while praying ... if the photographer persisted .. the offended party could ask the chamber sargent at arms to remove the person ..but then there are no restrictions on access and rules on what can and what cannot be photographed ..
Oh .. and by the way ..most people I know ... CLOSE THEIR EYES WHEN THEY PRAY !!
January 16, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

Oh come on,if you saw the tape he nudged the guy after they had their picture of him praying and during the rest of the prayer he asked them to refrain from pictures for a few minutes.If he had kicked the guy you would have seen the photographer move or at least tilt off balance the way he was kneeling down on the floor so he could keep interrupting the prayer with bright flashes.Did you see the photographer even move after this "supposed kick" ?

Much ado about nothing.Now our legislature wants to use their time to investigate a non incident? How about another Blue Ribbon Commision? Colorado loves them.
January 16, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

In not responding to Bruce, the photographer showed more respect for the chamber and public decorum than Bruce.
January 16, 2008

11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Diff writes:

Any one who "nudges" me with their foot, (or anyone who would be willing to try it - bring it on ... ) Would be met with much the same, however I assure the person doing it would thing twice before again doing it to me!
If you look up Jackass in a dictionary, there is a picture of ... Doug Bruce!
The guy is an idiot and anyone who defends him or thinks he is a hero is in the same family.
Kick his sorry butt out of the State Legislature and lets get on with the business and much more important issues that require attention!
OUT!
January 16, 2008

11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

dirkle writes:

Dump this jerk (Bruce). He is and has been a disgrace and an embarassment for years.

Who keeps reelecting this clown?
January 16, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

MereMortal writes:

Bruce has always been a jerk, that is not news. The good news is his sacrifice for the people of Colorado. Anything that distracts the legislative machinery of this pack of losers is good, and Bruce has done that. If Bruce is dethroned, so much the better. He can accomplish more from the outside than he ever will from the inside. I get a kick out of Bruce!
January 16, 2008

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

jmfslots writes:

Any law maker who will resort to physical assault, on the House floor, in order to make his point does not deserve to be a member of the House.
If this were reversed and a regular citizen kicked Douglas Bruce- he would have gone straight to jail. It should be no different for Bruce.
There has been disruption of the House since Bruce was appointed and it is sure to continue as long as he is there. Remove him now and save the State some of the embarrassment he causes us.
January 16, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

reddog writes:

BFD!
January 16, 2008

12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

joeblow writes:

PajamaPulitzer....Whatever you do, don't get behind the wheel of a car in your condition and state of mind. Uh, think of it as in the public good.
January 16, 2008

12:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

The "Big Deal" is that loser Bruce seems to think he can flog his nose at the U.S. Constitution. The fact that he made a stupid move AND isn't willing to acknowledge it by apologizing is what the "Big Deal" is about. If Bruce were really a man, he would own up to the fact that he made a mistake and there is this thing called the U.S. Constitution that allows for freedom of the press - ESPECIALLY IN THE LEGISLATURE, A POLITICAL BODY.

Censor him and charge him with assault since he seems to think he can do whatever the Eff he wants.
January 16, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

GH writes:

It has been Doug Bruce's life long desire to be noticed by people and find his name in the paper. The Tabor Amendment brought us cahos now Doug is sitting in the Capitol with the press just waiting for his next move. Doug, has to go. He's taken to much time already of serious Lawmakers and will only continue to be a major distraction. Republicans need to bite the bullet and kick him out. The State deserves better.
January 16, 2008

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Beverley writes:

It never ceases to amaze me how isulated the members of the General Assembly are from the citizens. Hey, we are paying for thoughtful representation, not for acting out by an individual member. Certainly the Republican party can find a representative of this jusidiction who can behave appropriately and get down to the serious business of the legislature. I'm sure Mr. Bruce can get into another line of work.
January 16, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

U.S. Constitution? Try reading it.

“Secret,” or “closed,” sessions of the House and Senate exclude the press and the public. These sessions are used for Senate deliberations during impeachment trials, as well as to discuss issues of national security, confidential information, and sensitive communications received from the President. During a secret session, the doors of the chamber are closed, and the chamber and its galleries are cleared of all individuals except
Members and those officers and employees specified in the rules or essential to the session. Secret sessions occur infrequently and have been held more often in the Senatethan the House. Any Member of Congress may request a secret session.
January 16, 2008

1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

This was not a closed session, but don't think there's no such thing as not allowing the press in.

Both of these two have their own motives and agendas that explain their behavior. Both of them are wrong and both of them need to apologize to each other and to the tax payers for wasting our time and money.
January 16, 2008

1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Does anybody care that TABOR is being violated by various politicians and bureaucrats throughout Colorado at both the State and Local level? These are violations of the Colorado Constitution as well. Where is the uproar?
January 16, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

LoFat writes:

I hadn't realized how much hatred the far lefties and secular progressives had for Doug Bruce until now. Why, how dare he interfere with the socio-communistic redistribution of wealth (entitlements) being perpetrated on the American public by said liberals. I know very little of Mr. Bruce except that he was the author of the Bruce Amendment. I have yet to see any reference to the man by the media that wasn't filled with hate and slander. Maybe it is deserved, but I sincerely doubt it.
January 16, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

The opening prayer session of the Colorado State legislature is hardly filled with top secret terrorist briefings. In addition, as you note, the request for a secret session has to be made and is not inherently (nor automatically) granted. We're talking about the basic right of freedom of the press. I think you should re-read that Constitution; you obviously haven't figured out what it really means.
January 16, 2008

1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Dude

It's OUR state capitol.
January 16, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Try reading the rest of what I said junglegymco.
January 16, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

Dude -

The U.S. Constitution takes PRECEDENT.
January 16, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

junglegymco writes:

I did read it Devil - and nah, they aren't both wrong. Only Bruce. If he doesn't want to accept the fact that in the open session of the state legislature the press gets to take pictures, then he needs to resign.

What's more amazing to me is that he doesn't even GET it and refuses to apologize for acting like a whiny 3 year old.
January 16, 2008

2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Devil_Dog writes:

Their both wrong, while the press is allowed to take photographs there is a right way and a wrong way to do so. Getting on your knees so you can point a flash-bulb directly at your targets face from four feet away (praying or not) is the wrong way. We live in a society that dictates good behavior if you want to be treated with respect, you must also be willing to give respect. Neither of these two are at this point deserving of my respect because they are acting like little children and costing us (the tax payers) money and time. I doubt you would think anyone has the right to poke a camera directly in your face (in the name of freedom of the press).
January 16, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

mem7_7 writes:

Losing one’s temper as a result of an intended provocation related to the disrespect of one’s religious practices, and then lashing out at the provocateur is ALWAYS JUSTIFIED due to the fact that the loss of self-restraint is the direct result of the outrageous conduct. In other words, the photographer got the result he intended by his actions, and such provocation is not protected under law and should not be protected here. YOU NEED TO SEE THE VIDEO!

What is alarming to me, is that the House leadership must not feel the conduct is outrageous enough to have caused Mr. Bruce to lash out in what I consider to have been a restrained manner. Simply put, the leadership's immediate castigation of Mr. Bruce’s predicament reveals our representatives do not understand nor share conservative beliefs in the sanctity and privacy privileges expected during prayer.

Lastly, it sounds as if the leadership already convicted Mr. Bruce when they state that his conduct is “NEVER an appropriate response.” Of course it’s not, but it is justified when provoked. What if I spit on your face? What if I knock a baby from a mother’s arms? What if I burn a US flag in front of a military veteran or a gold star mother? What if I knock your bible from your hands? What if I interrupt your communion with God because I do not respect your request because I do not respect your religion, your religious beliefs, your religious practices, nor your constitutionally protected freedom to practice your religion?

THE REPORTERS INTENTIONALLY DISRESPECTED THE ACT OF PRAYING AND DID SO WITH APPARENT COLLUSION WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH THE VIDEO CAMERAMAN.

WATCH THE REPORTERS IN THE VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TO REP. MIKE MAY:

The American religious traditions and heritage is under attack, and your conduct is assisting that effort. I would disapprove of your response even if it came from a democrat, but coming the leader of the Republican minority simply confounds me.

Do you, sir, stand with those who mock the religious? Why do you condemn Mr. Bruce, and not the conduct of the reporter? Why do you condemn immediately and without the full facts and with absolutes that don’t exist?

Why do I need to bring this to your attention?
January 16, 2008

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

Dougie kicks like a girl, the photographer grinned in reaction.

I do hope to see fighting and slinging in the statehouse, just not against observers and recorders.

Civility in the statehouse is overrated, everybody is supposed to be nice while they enter a political figurative knifefight.

Bruce can keep his quirks and do his job as a legislature, but this gesture is not going to help his cause any.

In Asia, politicians lose control and physically attack other lawmakers during spirited debate. Here we have bought and paid for legislatures in the pocket of lobbyists, and special interests, I will be happy to see Doug Bruce give a lobbyist this treatment and let the photogs shoot him in action. That would make me proud.
January 16, 2008

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

There was a Democrat not to long ago who lashed out. Her name was Cynthi Mcinney? What ever happened to her? How much coverage did her incident receive?

Since we are all so concerned about the Constitution and the rule of law then why no public outcry over TABOR violations? They are happening as we speak all over the State. TABOR is part of our Constitution and every bit as important as the rest of it. Where is the outcry? Why no public uproar? This seems like a double standard to me?
January 16, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

If Douglas Bruce is allowed to keep his seat, legislators can expect similar behavior throughout his term. It can be seen that prayer causes diversity. Jesus Christ knew this and mandated that prayer be uttered in your closet as only hypocrites pray in public, says Jesus. Deicide Richard Grimes: http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think....
January 16, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

George509 writes:

Get rid of the bum. And those comment writers that minimize his antics represent a very sick element in Colorado. Oh and how do you spell assault??
January 16, 2008

5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Grim_Reefer writes:

Mem7_7:

I'd say that your rationale is fairly inline with so called radical Islamists.

And your 'what if' scenarios do not compare to a photographer doing his job, his duty, of informing the rest of us citizens.

There is no such thing as an expectation of privacy during prayer in a Public Place.

The facts, as witnessed by several people and caught on video, are thus...Bruce kicked a man who was on the floor before him. There is no justification. Which you state you agree with, then rationalize that it's really OK in the next two words.

By your argument, it's ok to violently lash out if you perceive someone to insult your religion. If more thought as you do, civil war at home would be just around the corner. And again, by your own argument, you would agree that Al Qeada types are justified for their terrorism for their perceived injustices to their religion.

Is that what you really think and believe?

And you have the gall to wrap yourself in the cloak of American Heritage and religious traditions...well, religious traditions like 'the inquisition' i could agree.

I am serious, a rant like yours is most akin to those radicals we claim to be fighting 'over there'.

Radical is radical, doesn't matter so much the Brand: Christianity or Islam.
January 16, 2008

5:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jim writes:

Following are copies of the Denver assault ordinance and the state statute. You can take it to the bank the Rocky photographer has seen a doc and had an MRI. The link is to an appropriate Jimmy Buffett song.

Sec. 38-93. Assault.
It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or recklessly assault, beat, strike, fight or inflict violence on any other person.
(Code 1950, § 842.3)

A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if the person knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person or with criminal negligence the person causes bodily injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon. Assault in the third degree is a class 1 misdemeanor and is an extraordinary risk crime that is subject to the modified sentencing range specified in section 18-1.3-501 (3).
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3i6OrOZwtm...
January 16, 2008

5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

joeblow writes:

PulitizerPajama/PajamaPulitzer,

You're on to something. But no. I don't want you arrested for being conservative. I want you indicted, arrested and convicted for FELONY STUPID!!!!! It won't be hard seating a jury, that's for sure.
January 16, 2008

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

shrubsrock writes:

I wasn’t going to say anything about this; in fact I’m trying to look away. I do feel the need to point out two things. The first, and easiest, is that the guy speaking in the video does say “irregardless”, but it is not Speaker Romanoff, it is Pastor Mark Phillips.

The second thing is to point out that this has nothing to do with TABOR, praying, or which party you support. Rep. Bruce made his fight to take his oath a media circus, nobody else cared. He was testy because he’d just lost the pissing match over the time of day he would be sworn in, and then he took it out on the photographer. Romanoff must have been standing too far away.
January 16, 2008

7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Francesca writes:

No class. And, two wrongs don't make a right. Javier might or might not have overstepped, but Bruce shoving someone with the sole of his shoe and then chastizing AFTER the fact, and in front of a news camera to boot, only made him look like an immature buffoon lacking in etiquette and self-control. Bad enough that he wanted to hold off his swear-in in hopes of a full term later on should he actually be elected, rather than appointed. All of his actions point to an impulsive individual that will will be a liability for all of us as a representative.

What I saw in the video was what appeared to be the photographer from the Post goading and urging Javier to make the shot. I am a professional photographer and worked as a photojournalist years ago. Though the press has access to the floor, in my opinion, it was disrespectful to photograph the man using his Speedlight at that particular moment. However, Manzano's actions were not like those of common paparazzi as some here have suggested. No way, no how and not even close. Those guys truly get right into people's faces, looking for strong emotion to show in their subjects. That was not the case here.

That being said, there was no prior warning made to Javier that I could pick up on during the play of the video. Only thing I witnessed was a kick or shove with the shoe or whatever people want to call it, followed (not preceded) by the request not to do that again. To the thinking of reasonable and polite people, there is never an excuse to contact another person, unless in self defense of physical harm or threat. Again, not the case here.

Those of you that justify that action are gonna get your butts kicked by someone far bigger or meaner eventually. Hope you aren't teaching your kids to hit and kick when someone does something to them they don't like.
January 16, 2008

8:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Theoldguy writes:

Much to do about nothing. Perhaps the august members of the legislature have nothing important to do and this is merely something to occupy their time and waste more taxpayer money. Why do you folks keep voting these clowns back into office?
January 17, 2008

5:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Bruce did cross the line. Bruce should apologize to the photographer and to the citizens of Colorado. Bruce should face any civil or criminal charges placed by the photographer. Bruce should be placed on probation by the review panel. We then need to let Bruce prove that he is an effective politician and a true champion of Liberty. We need people like Bruce involved. He provides essential balance. Bruce reminds us all that America was founded on the concept of independence from Government. Bruce reminds us that low tax equals freedom.
January 18, 2008

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

sril writes:

I think that the funniest thing is the whole issue of his delaying his swearing in. Doug Bruce rails against "professional politicians" and is a strong proponent of term limits, and then he delays his swearing in by a few days so that, on a technicality, he will be eligible for another two years in office. So much for living by the principles that you espouse. The funniest thing about it is that he actually thinks he has a chance of winning an election, when he can't even make it through his first day in office without making fool of himself and embarrasing his party.

Home › Politics › Colorado Government

Water muddy after Bruce kick

Committee will investigate new GOP legislator

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 16, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Related Links

Related Stories

More Colorado Government

Map my news

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs