Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

15 backers named on Douglas Bruce's Web site were for '04 race

By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

Published July 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Elections

More stories »

Douglas Bruce's Web site featured an impressive list of endorsements for his legislative primary race, including U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, Secretary of State Mike Coffman and Republican National Committeeman Mark Hillman.

There was just one problem: None of them actually had given the Colorado Springs Republican representative their backing for the contest.

So, about 10 minutes after being asked about the inconsistency by the Rocky Mountain News on Monday, Bruce had his Web master remove a notation that they were supporting him in the House District 15 tussle.

But the move did not come before his opponent, as well as a spokesman for one of the listed endorsers, questioned Bruce's integrity.

"If you're willing to not be honest about who's endorsing you in a race, then maybe that shows your character for future action," said Mark Waller, Bruce's primary challenger.

Added Rich Coolidge, spokesman for Coffman: "It's not right for Douglas Bruce to hold out that this endorsement reflects his candidacy for the House when it doesn't . . . That's clearly deceptive."

All 24 individuals listed as backing Bruce at douglasbruce.com have done so, but 15 gave their backing when he ran for El Paso County commissioner in 2004, according to links to the endorsements on the site. Still, the site had them all listed under the bullet point: "Elected officials and other leaders supporting Douglas Bruce for State Representative in House District 15."

When asked about the wording, Bruce said it had been changed by an overzealous Web master and that he had no intention to deceive. Within 10 minutes, the heading over the list of endorsers read: "Elected officials and others who have supported or praised Douglas Bruce during his years of his public service."

Most of those listed incorrectly reacted without concern. An Allard spokesman characterized it as "not a big deal," and Hillman said he figured it was just a miscommunication.

Former state Rep. Mark Cloer, who is now a lobbyist, said that while he has no plans to issue any primary endorsements this year, he still backs Bruce's character overall.

"Most people that endorse (will) endorse based on the person and the credibility of the person," Cloer said. "He's forthright. He's definitely opinionated. And he keeps things hopping, whether legislatively or at the commissioner level."

SealoverE@RockyMountain News.com or 303-954-5438

Comments

  • July 22, 2008

    4:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LuvAmerica writes:

    You people keep picking on Bruce, a patriotic American filled with integrity who just happens to exhibit a lot of churlish bad behavior. BUT WHAT HE SAYS AND WHAT HE DOES ARE UNRELATED.

    Go Doug!

  • July 22, 2008

    5:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    LuvAmerica

    Sorry but what a person says and does are definetly related. Actions and words come from the same mind. Bruce is an egotistical jerk. Always has been always will be.

    If he is so in tune with and so caring of the state and it's people, why didn't he clean up and repair his rental properties, even after being ordered too? If he is so honorable he should have made certain the people renting from him were living in decent housing.
    Again he is an opinionated jerk and hopefully the people of CS will not let him come back to represent them.

  • July 22, 2008

    8:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    temurlan writes:

    LuvAmerica writes:

    "You people keep picking on Bruce, a patriotic American filled with integrity who just happens to exhibit a lot of churlish bad behavior. BUT WHAT HE SAYS AND WHAT HE DOES ARE UNRELATED."

    Acta, non verba. It's the actions that matter. But in Bruce's case, both stink.

  • July 22, 2008

    9:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    zivo24 writes:

    Luvamerica states, "BUT WHAT HE SAYS AND WHAT HE DOES ARE UNRELATED."

    I think this statement would only be true if it were coming from the mouths of someone who has the misfortune to have had him as a slumlord. And yes, that term fits him.

    As an elected official he has talked about responsibility. As a landlord, he has repeatedly and grievously avoided taking responsibility. There is a reason why he's been sued and fined more times and to much greater extents than other landlords.

    Bruce is not a man of integrity or ethics and anyone who would lend him their names in support is seriously devoid of good judgment.

  • July 22, 2008

    11:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LuvAmerica writes:

    I'm being sarcastic here people.

    I just enjoy DB defenders who seem to have this schizo disconnect going on between what DB ostensibly stands for verses his actions.

  • July 22, 2008

    5:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    Apparently Bruce stretches the truth just like the rest of them. He ought to make a fine politician!

    Today’s technology would make direct democracy a snap. Anybody up for it?

  • July 22, 2008

    5:10 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

    How about direct democracy with a 66% majority requirement? Maybe higher like 75%?

    I would never ever support a Direct Democracy of 51%.

  • July 23, 2008

    4:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    EdwardGRobinson writes:

    Right on, LowTax=Robespierre(reincarnated)! But like the French Revolution, who's gonna be left count the votes after we guillotine the minority? Your myopic idea can't account for the fact that pure democracy fails because all men are corrupt. Knowing the basic human condition, Jefferson, Adams & Madison avoided the 'enlightened' french excesses; which system survived, humanistic democracy or the constitutional republic?

  • July 23, 2008

    5:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    EdwardGRobinson writes:

    I'm acquainted with his website provider. It's very improbable that he was available on-the-spot to isolate and edit the wording, then re-publish the site in the short span of 10 minutes ("he's a good" at linux; "but not that good, -Cincinati Kid).

    The so-called endorsements still carry the 2003-2004 dates: this is really a fraud straight from Ward Churchill school of research/plaigiarism. Go to his website and open the letters - some are email snippets, others handwritten and cut/pasted onto dubious letterheads, most without letterheads, and none in proper word processed or laser-print business style - one gets the impression lame Doug or another overzealous sycophant fudged them all.

    Which goes to character: more than self-agrandizing, the resume on that website appears suspiciously padded - sufficient cause for termination if he tried to get an honest job. This also invites suspicion about the many petitions he circulates: if he disrespects his fellow party bosses and doesn't ask for permission or updates, isn't he even more liable to reuse previous signatures from past voter initiatives?