Pubdate: Mon, 13 Oct 2014
Source: Rocky Mountain Collegian, The (Colorado State U, CO Edu)
Copyright: 2014 Rocky Mountain Collegian
Contact:  http://www.collegian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1370
Author: Jesse Carey
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)

DEBATE RECAP: HICKENLOOPER SHOWS INTEGRITY

Thursday night, I had the privilege to observe the debate between Gov.
John Hickenlooper and his opponent, former Congressman Bob Beauprez.
There were three questions in particular that struck me as important
for understanding the differences between the candidates.

The first of these came over a question about recreational marijuana.
Asked if it was time to consider a repeal of the law passed two years
ago, Hickenlooper stated that it was too early to say, and stressed
that tighter regulation and more research into the effects of
marijuana on developing minds would be a more prudent way forward.
Beauprez, when given the chance to answer the same question, stated
that it was high time that repeal be put to a vote. This was
extraordinary for a few reasons. First, because the issue of
legalization had already been put to a vote two years ago, with
obvious results. Second, Beauprez, supposedly representing the party
of small government, would like to bring back prohibition, which has a
nasty habit of increasing the size of government, in both enforcement
and bureaucracy. Lastly, marijuana is a rapidly growing industry, the
repeal of which would hurt the economy and drive all of the projected
$40 million in tax revenue back underground. In ! short, no question
better illustrated the lack of integrity between the rhetoric and the
reality of the Beauprez campaign.

The second question in the debate that caught my attention was a
question about fracking. Hickenlooper, a geologist in his previous
life, had championed a compromise between oil and natural gas
interests and concerned citizens that removed proposed fracking bans
from the ballots. Instead of celebrating the compromise, his opponent
decried the agreement on the basis of two claims. First, that by
removing the fracking bans from the ballot, Hickenlooper was somehow
holding the oil and natural gas interests hostage, and that second,
the concerned citizens in Colorado whose homes and local environments
might be affected by fracking should not be heard on this matter. The
removal of fracking bans does not hurt the industry, and if any thing,
it relieves some of the pressure on them. Secondly, the representative
of the people should be attuned to the concerns and needs of the
community, and not simply dismiss them.

The last question came closer to the end of the debate. Hickenlooper,
who had been hammered by Beauprez all night about his supposed lack of
leadership, was asked about hard choices he was forced to make
following the disastrous floods of 2013. Hickenlooper responded that
he had significantly moved up time tables and reestablished a status
quo much earlier than anyone had thought possible. Later, he turned to
Beauprez and asked him about Beauprez's record in Congress, and found,
instead of rock hard, lantern-jawed examples of leadership, a soft
dodge and defensiveness from his opponent.

Hickenlooper has had missteps, sure. But he is hardly a career
politician, unlike his opponent, who is largely running on a
"common-man" platform, as if he were some populist crusader. For all
of his missteps, Hickenlooper has done a very good job of managing
crisis, of which there have been many, and of managing the many
transitions that Colorado has been subject to. His is a vision for the
future, unlike his opponent, who would have us all return to an era
long since passed.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard