No Special Prosecutor

Secretary of State Donetta Davidson will not seek a special prosecutor to look into the voter registration fraud here in Colorado.

State GOP attorney Mike Norton claimed Democratic Attorney General Ken Salazar has a conflict of interest in the investigation because he is running for U.S. Senate.

Davidson said there was no evidence of a conflict of interest and that Salazar is actively looked into claims that multiple voter registration forms have been filed under a single voter's name.

She said she saw no reason for Gov. Bill Owens to ask Salazar to step aside.

I'm sure that the Secretary didn't want to open a new front in this battle, one where the Democrats would scream that she was trying to prejudice the Senate race. That's no reason not to do her job, or to let the AG off the hook from doing his. And trying to buy off the baying wolves this way doesn't encourage faith in the system.

Salazar has refused comment on the issue, and the press hasn't been pushing too hard, either. At least a couple of reporters at the press conference the other day were overheard complaining that the Secretary was already trying to shift blame to the AG for the problem of felons registering to vote.

As a candidate for office, he has just about as clear a conflict of interest as an Attorney General can possibly have. He failed to provide so much as an amicus brief in defense of the Secretary in the Common Cause case. The prosecutions of hundreds of illegal registrations have been better-investigated by 9News than by his office.

Salazar has been on the partisan side now of three successive issues - redistricting, ballot rules, and now registration fraud. Let's hope the voters notice this.

Let the Ground Game Begin

Colorado's US Senate candidates Pete Coors and Ken Salazar held their final debate forum of the 2004 campaign last night in Pueblo, each trying to sway the tiniest segment of voters, as undecideds slowly disappear and take sides. Sounding the recent themes of the campaign, Coors tried to hang the Kerry anchor around Salazar's neck - telling the failed Dairy Queen franchise operator that he was trying to act Republican - while Salazar made the contorted accusation that Coors has proposed big liberal spending.

While debating is not a strong suit for the beer executive, the good news in all this is that the debate is taking place on the right turf. Bush's edge in popularity in the state is something both candidates are trying to take hold of, Coors explicitly and Salazar more subtly. The message of national security and fiscal conservatism are the resounding themes, and the Democrat is trying desperately to make himself look like anything but the liberal he is.

Meanwhile, the Post reports that Salazar is getting a lot more help (by a margin of 4-to-1) from the national party committee than Coors to run TV ads down the stretch. The speculation is rampant in the story as to what this means. Perhaps the most astute:

"I'd be surprised if Republicans were throwing in the towel three weeks out," said Eric Sondermann, a Denver political analyst. "But both candidates are moving towards a ground game. They realize there are very few persuadable voters they can turn around with a 30-second commercial." [emphasis added]

From Coors spokeswoman Cinnamon Watson:

"Salazar has been outspending us from the get-go," she said. "It's still a close race."

The point here is that the ground game is underway. Republicans are switching into a new phase of this campaign, which has been polled at a dead heat in recent weeks. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is deciding every day how and where to distribute scarce resources, when there are a number of races in play nationwide. Right or wrong, they've decided the race in Colorado is going to be won or lost in the trenches.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus.

Survey USA on Colorado

Survey USA (courtesy RealClearPolitics)published the results of polling done last week in Colorado.

The keys:

1. Bush 52, Kerry 44. Wonder how long it will be before the Dems pull their money out of this state?

2. Coors 48, Salazar 48. Related to the above question, how long are the President's coattails, and how important will they be to this race? The Prez will be in town tomorrow to fundraise for Coors and stump for himself, so this could be pivotal.

3. Amendment 36 (the REALLY STUPID IDEA!) Yes 45, No 44, Undecided 12. Even Survey USA mentioned that the emerging Democratic strategy is one of Yes is Bush, No if Kerry. Gotta get to work on those undecideds.

Now, before anybody gets too excited, the poll contained 37% GOP, 29% Dem, and 34% Unaffiliateds. Sure, Colorado's voter registration numbers run GOP and Unaffiliateds ahead of Dems, but I don't think it's by that margin. Also, inside the numbers shows Kerry ahead with Unaffiliateds 51-43, and Salazar ahead with Unaffiliateds 56-38.

In other words, this poll shows nothing more than the imperative to keep working, keep working, keep working. Only three weeks to go.

cross-posted at Best Destiny

Live Blog of Senate Debate

8:54 - Iraq. Salazar thought he was a threat. Blames the President's presentation, calling it a "mistake," and focusing on "massive" intelligence failures. Russert asks about voting for the resolution now, but Salazar doesn't appear to understand the question. Notes Lugar and McCain.

Coors broadens the question to the war on terror, not just Iraq. Sticks to that when Russert pushes the point. Calls North Korea "North Dakota," but corrects himself.

8:58 - Complains that Washington hasn't acted with urgency. Tries to contrast with Coors.

Are you running away from Kerry?

Good question. Salazar tries to say no, but not very credibly. He doesn't repeat his comment that Bush is trying to prop up Coors.

To Coors: Is Salazar an appeaser? Coors doesn't let Salazar's attack go. Good. Then goes after Salazar for not really having a plan. The info on France and Germany is now coming home to roost. Doesn't repeat "appeaser" comment. Coors has good answers, but doesn't look comfortable.

Salazar steals some time, with some good words, but their indistinctness seems to confirm Coors's comments.

9:02 - Shows Salazar clip accusing Coors of opposing OBL death penalty. Is this fair? Salazar dodges the question, and accuses Coors again of being a rubber stamp. Mentions Lugar and McCain for the 3rd time. Salazar now equates "cop-killers" with OBL?

Coors complains that Salazar is running a dirty campaign. Weak. Coors is opposing death penalty because the Church opposes it, but he can't say that.

9:05 - Shows Coors ad about law enforcement tools. "What tools do they need?" Coors says it - Patriot Act. Good. Russert wants specific tools that would be denied, and Coors refers to Patriot Act as a whole.

Salazar comes out opposed to "roving wiretaps?" And then complains about "clean campaign" and personal attacks.

9:08 - Salazar is trying to link Coors to the environmental smear that Coors was never associated with, and that was quickly discredited. Salazar actually says "they started it." Coors disassociates from ad, and says to move on. Comes across as much more statesmanlike.

9:10 - To Coors: what would you cut? Coors fumbles. Goes back to generalities rather than specific programs and tax cuts.

Salazar calls himself a "deficit hawk," tries to use that interchangeably with "fiscal conservative." Throws in privatizing Social Security. Coors calls him on the actual numbers.

9:14 - Russert to Salazar. Need to do something with SS, Medicare, Defense. Salazar turns it to reimporting drugs. Russert: would you not cut taxes for anyone? Salazar fumbles now, naming penny-ante programs. When pressed, he goes back to

9:15 - Same-sex adoption. Salazar tries to bring up Cheney. And now Salazar now has to backpedal on the issue. Coors is very clear about needing "mother and father." Doesn't waver when confronted on this. Good.

9:17 - Conflict between Coors Beer, and Coors the candidate. Money time, Pete. Coors still doesn't have a great answer on this.

9:19 - Drinking age question. Coors calls it a state issue, and separates the state's right from federal government dictating highway money. Coors's answer is better, and Salazar purses his lips when talking about what Coors would do.

9:21 - Salazar says he'd oppose it, but Coors points out that the Democrats are neutral, and that Salazar's opposition is new. Gets the last word.

Overall impressions: Coors still doesn't have some answers to basic, although niggling questions. Salazar comes across as more polished, but Coors had some very good answers to some very tough questions, and confronted Salazar.

I'd say, slight advantage to Salazar.