In the Denver Post story this morning highlighting Marc Holtzman’s submission of 21,000 petitions (he needs 1,500 from each of Colorado’s 7 Congressional districts to be verified by the Secretary of State’s office) to get on the gubernatorial primary ballot:
The former University of Denver president was assisted by Denver lawyer Mark Grueskin, a Democrat who has a history of representing Democratic candidates and causes.
“I don’t like it when party bosses tell people not to run,” Grueskin said. “It rubs me the wrong way.”
Grueskin, eh? Strangely not the first time this character has been mentioned on my site. Perhaps you remember the case of the teachers union caught in cahoots with a state Senate Democrat’s 2004 campaign? In the Fort Collins Coloradoan on April 29, 2005, we heard from the union lawyer:
Attorney Mark Grueskin, who represents both the PEA and CEA, said the allegations against both unions are unsupported and therefore should be thrown out.
“The lawyer for Mr. Rutt and Mr. Marrick said that PEA violated the law. He didn’t provide any fact that would suggest that a violation of law really did occur,” Grueskin said. “We believe there’s ample reason to dismiss any if not all of the claims that they’ve raised.”
Helping unions get away with shady campaign activities that aid Democrats, and now fighting to make sure Holtzman petitions on the ballot? Republicans ought to be wary, because this attorney certainly does not appear to have their best interests at heart.
We don’t know Grueskin’s motives for taking this case – perhaps it just pays really well – but we can construct a picture from facts in evidence, and helping Republicans have a fair & honest primary election debate so they can choose the best and strongest candidate seems a far-fetched motive, at best. It ought to raise Republican hackles to think that after he litigates any cases on Holtzman’s behalf, the attorney still will have to mingle in his liberal social circles.
Maybe the response from the defenders of Holtzman’s petitioning efforts is that the self-proclaimed anti-establishment candidate is cleverly manipulating Grueskin for the greater good of the Republican cause in Colorado. Such an assertion, however, carries with it a very lofty burden of proof.
If anyone else has any evidence either to support or to challenge my line of thinking, please feel free to comment. But this lawyering up with a well-known Democrat supporter does not leave me feeling good.
Update: Joshua has more on Grueskin’s previous involvement in Republican intra-party debates. Anyone who doesn’t see the ugliness looming over the horizon is wearing blinders.
A debate about immigration? Both candidates have taken strong stances against illegal immigration. John Andrews and Tom Tancredo support Beauprez.
A debate about taxes? Both candidates have supported a refund of the Ref C excess. The difference is Beauprez supports a refund over the $3.7 billion figure advertised in the Blue Book – Holtzman is trying to make the case that the refund should be over $3.1 billion. He ran to the right of Beauprez (endorsed by Jon Caldara) and still couldn’t get 30% at the Assembly.
A debate about education? Both candidates support school choice (vouchers, charters, homeschooling) and the 65 percent plan.
A debate about abortion / marriage? Both candidates can tout their social conservative credentials. Beauprez is endorsed by Wayne Allard and Marilyn Musgrave.
A debate about eminent domain? Both candidates support the amendment to prevent local governments from abusing this power.
A debate about transportation? Haven’t heard any differences there.
A debate about gun rights? Both candidates are on board with the Second Amendment.
Every time a debate about the issues has broken out in this campaign, it has turned into mud being slung from both sides. I don’t see how 10 more weeks of that can be good for the GOP.
I hope we get a chance to see Beauprez prove you’re wrong. While no governor will perfectly suit everyone in every course of action, I believe he has a much better chance to get the major things right than Owens has.
Interesting reading here from John Andrews: http://backboneamerica.net/2006/05/30/beauprezs-advantage-shown-in-graduation-speech/