Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

CARROLL: Sleazier and sleaziest

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  
Kevin Priola

Kevin Priola

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

You're a sap if you pay attention to negative campaign fliers that show up on your doorstep or in your mailbox. At their best they're breathless and lurid. At their worst they're a pack of lies.

In high-profile, well-funded races such as those for Congress, the falsehoods tend to cancel each other out. But that's not true at lower-level contests, where the political target might begin to wonder what mad impulse propelled him into the race.

The sleaziest flier this season? Probably the one targeting Republican Kevin Priola, who's running for the District 30 state House seat in Adams County. It claims a judge "issued a restraining order against Priola out of fears that he posed a threat and imminent danger to the victim."

Come to think of it, a second anti-Priola flier may be worse. It says that the "judge found [my emphasis] that Priola posed a threat and imminent danger to the victim."

In fact, requests for temporary restraining orders are routinely granted just to be on the safe side until a hearing can be held. In this case, the person requesting the order against Priola (as well as his father and their firm) was a delinquent tenant trying to thwart an eviction. And the stunt didn't work - the order was soon dismissed by the court.

There was no "victim" and no one in "danger." A judge "found" nothing of the kind.

Notice that these fliers never mention the gender of the person requesting the order - a male - no doubt in order to leave the impression that a woman had been harassed or stalked. For that matter, both fliers suggest that Priola would be interested as a lawmaker in making it harder for judges to issue restraining orders - a flat-out invention.

So who's responsible for these travesties? A group called Accountability for Colorado, which is partly funded by wealthy activists Tim Gill and Pat Stryker. These two fat cats, respected members of the state's establishment, apparently have no qualms joining with those who trash the reputations of the innocent.

Other side of the coin

But wait, I can hear the critics protest: What about the treatment of Democratic state Senate hopeful Joe Whitcomb by Republicans for temporary restraining orders issued against him? Hasn't it been equally outrageous?

The answer is no, although a picture on one anti-Whitcomb flier depicting a hooded man in an ominous pose is totally out of line, and a picture on another of a woman with her head in her hands is a punch in the gut. But the actual texts of the four fliers - one paid for by the Colorado Republican Committee and three by the Senate Majority Fund - mostly recast the contents of a Rocky Mountain News article in the worst possible light.

The one by the Colorado Republican Committee, for example, says "Joe Whitcomb's ex-girlfriend felt so threatened she was forced to file three restraining orders against him. She said he would not stop calling and following her around. Clearly Joe's selfish needs come first, even above the safety of others. We need responsible grownup leadership in Denver, not selfishness and threatening behavior."

Breathless and lurid? Absolutely. Unfair? Perhaps, depending on whom you believe. But the description of Whitcomb's behavior was not made up by political operatives. It was plucked out of what his ex-girlfriend recently told a Rocky reporter. "He would not stop calling me," she said. "He would not stop following me. . . . He was told repeatedly to leave me alone and that didn't work."

What the flier obviously doesn't present is Whitcomb's side. He was a jilted lover, he says - much younger (this was 1995) and inept, but also not threatening in any way. "I was a lovestruck kid at 25 years old trying to win back a girl he cared about," he said.

Both Whitcomb and the woman could be telling the truth as they see it. In a perfect world, voters would be told that. In the real world, of course, no campaign is obliged to recount its opponent's side.

Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • October 29, 2008

    4:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    I have received many of these lies in the mail, I may go down just before next election and take my name off the voting list if it stops them. had enough of the BS they put out. Musgrave is another culprit, never seen such vile spew out in this race. One amendment I would like to see, a third box on the ballot that says none of the above. I've voted in other states that have it, maybe a reality check of these politicians is what's needed. And I can assure you I wonder about the firefighters who get up and twist the truth on the tv ads. Wait until Obama, Reid, and Pelosi start, we may be in for one helluva ride in the next four years.

  • October 29, 2008

    6:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    blacksho89 writes:

    I was so disgusted by the firefighter ads that I voted against a Lafayette referendum to increase the fire department budget.
    Smooth move, guys-shoot yourself in the foot.

  • October 29, 2008

    6:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Lies in politics? Gasp, I say. Next you'll shock me by telling me that the tough campaign finance laws aren't working? What ever is this world coming to when we can't trust what we see on TV and what we read?

  • October 29, 2008

    7:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Just like the lies of the Denver Chamber, Colorado Corruption and Big Unions.

    Why do they oppose the freedom to chose, ethics in government and clean government?

    YES on 47, 49 and 54 to expose their corruption!

  • October 29, 2008

    8:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    http://www.boogiemanfilm.com/
    We can thank the GOP for the Godfather of dirty politics

  • October 29, 2008

    9:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    chaka419 writes:

    Spencer writes:

    "We can thank the GOP for the Godfather of dirty politics"

    I think it was the Clintons who began politics of personal destruction.

    Either way when we the voters egage this way should our politians act any different? Maybe change begins with the grass roots not Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • October 29, 2008

    11:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    amaikovich writes:

    Extreme dirty tricks probably started with George Bush, Sr.'s presidential campaign (anyone remember Lee Atwater and his remorseful apology on his deathbed).

    Regardless of who started it, everyone from both parties has an obligation to help make it stop. In most cases, there is nothing you can do since the slime that spreads it does so anonymously.

    Last but not least, is there anything more painful than the robocalls that slander politicians? I take a hard look at any politician who uses robocalls under any circumstance.

  • October 29, 2008

    noon

    Suggest removal

    CDee writes:

    I wish just once a candidate would spend their time convincing me why I should vote for them and not why I shouldn't vote for the other guy.

  • October 29, 2008

    12:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    yaakovwatkins writes:

    Amaikovich
    Extreme dirty tricks started before you were born. In some places in the forties and fifties, people registered to vote with graveyards as addresses. They voted also. Sometimes in alphabetical order.

    In the south before 1960, they administered literacy tests to voters. Blacks had to read an article in Latin, Whites had to read the alphabet.

    The 1960 presidential election results in Illinois were held up while Nixon and Kennedy talked with Chicago Mayor Daley about which candidate would promise more pork for Chicago. Kennedy apparently outbid Nixon.

  • October 29, 2008

    2:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cel writes:

    So the restraining orders issued (?) and then dismissed for Priola, what exactly did they say? What was the language in the order? When they were issued, if they were, what did the minutes of the hearing say? And the restraining order against Whitcomb, what was the language issued in those orders?

  • October 29, 2008

    2:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    TC writes:

    CDee writes:

    I wish just once a candidate would spend their time convincing me why I should vote for them and not why I shouldn't vote for the other guy.

    Ditto.

  • October 29, 2008

    5 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    California PASSED a law stating that the PEOPLE WANTED NONE OF THE ABOVE on their ballots. A JUDGE struck it down saying it would pervert democracy. We the people are just starting to find out who the real PERVERTS are....

    and it aint the common people....

  • October 29, 2008

    6:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    enginerd writes:

    We need to amend the election rules to make it easier for third party candidates to get on the ballot and to require a majority to win. If no one gets a majority, there would be a runoff between the top candidates. This can be done as an instant run-off by restructuring the ballot to include first, second, third choices, etc.

    Under these circumstances, we wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. We could vote against both major candidates, knowing it wouldn't help the worst one win. This should provide an incentive for candidates to run a positive campaign.

    I hope we can get an initiative passed to require instant run-off voting before the next election.

  • October 29, 2008

    8:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    incognitoboy writes:

    sorry if you don't agree, but the majority of the attack ads on t.v. that i've seen are perpetrated by republican candidates/senatorial commitee/party, and they've come to their zenith with the mccain campaign ad that ends with biden saying ' i guarantee it will happen' and the announcer saying 'it doesn't HAVE to.... vote mccain'.

    followed by mccain saying 'i approved this message'

    so, john..... what will you be doing after the fear campaign backfires?

  • October 29, 2008

    9:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    taoistblockhead writes:

    The shell game AKA Vincent Carroll rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and fiddling while America burns...

    Paulson's Swindle Revealed

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110...

    Excerpts of 10/28/08 letter from United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard to Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson.

    http://assets.usw.org/News/GeneralNew...

    USW Raises Questions about Treasury's $125 Billion Investment in Financial Firms

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story...

  • October 30, 2008

    8:53 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    law1 writes:

    527 groups on both sides do this and it is despicable. I'm a Democrat. My mother is Kathy Green, a republican candidate for House District 36. "Accountability" for Colorado has hit her with this tripe, too. "Accountability" said my mother wants to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for cancer screenings. My grandmother is dying from lung cancer. In an effort to keep her campaign clean, my mother asked party officials to see to it no third party groups attack her opponent. At least part of the blame should go to the candidates who don't denounce these lies and the groups that manufacture them.