BREAKING: CO State Senator Evie Hudak Resigns

 

The writing was on the wall. As the deadline approached, there seemed little doubt that the latest recall effort would gather the needed signatures to qualify for a vote. That left Centennial State Dems with two options: 1) let the vote happen and risk a third defeat along with the loss of control of the state senate or, 2) kick the social media maven to the curb, allowing Governor Hickenlooper to appoint another Democrat to the seat. Now, according to denverpost.com, they’ve chosen door number two . . .

“By resigning I am protecting these important new laws for the good of Colorado and ensuring that we can continue looking forward,” Hudak wrote in her resignation letter in regard to her gun votes, which led to the recall effort.

It’s likely she wasn’t given a choice by the state party. And while this may be the smart political move, Colorado Second Amendment supporters can claim a third successful takedown of an anti-civil rights legislator. Who will be next?

comments

  1. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Well… bye.

    Too bad the folks in CO didn’t get a chance to put a ‘pub in that seat, though.

    1. avatar Shawn says:

      ‘pubs are just as bad as ‘crats.

      1. avatar Cyrano says:

        The ‘crats shot themselves in the ass.

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        So you think that the Republicanxs would have passed this bill. Another Libertarian with a fantasy.

        1. avatar gloomhound says:

          +1

        2. avatar Jim says:

          Let’s ask mittens.. and christie what they would do. lol. It may be the case that the pubs in CO aren’t as bad as the pubs on the east coast, but the fact is that the pubs still think that .gov should be involved in such things as marriage. Still too left wing for me..

        3. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

          Romney or Christie would have gotten mag bans passed in the wake of Newtown, because Team Red wouldn’t have come out in force to challenge them.

        4. avatar Evan says:

          I think the point was that, as a whole republicans tend to be just as bad. Gun rights are very important to us all here, but they are not the only things we should be concerned about.

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          Anti-marriage Libertarians are ignorant of the history of marriage, its legal background, and the social implication of abolishing marriage.

          (1) One man/one woman marriage is not based on religion. It comes from the Greeks and Romans. It was imposed on the Jews by Alexander and his successors. The Jewish community learned that monogamy increase social stability by reducing the number of unattached males and claifying such things as the right inheritance.

          (2) The concept of marriage does not exist outside of state sanction. Marriage without the legal backing the state does not exist. Two people are simply writing a private contract. For the contract to have meaning it must be legally enforceable, i.e,, it needs state sanction. There is no such thing as getting the government out of marriage except by abolishing it and not replacing it with contract based arrangements.

          (3) Societies not based on one man/one woman marriages exhibit high levels of social instability. Under polygamy a majority of the male population cannot pass on its genetic heritage and ends up causing all sorts of social problems like you see in the Middle East. The western variant creates a single mother dependent on the state where a woman has children by multiple transient fathers. The result is the Lord of the Flies culture of the inner cities. This is hardly the utopia that Libertarians envision.

          You hear Libertarians prattle on about how marriage isn’t in the Constitution. The Constitution is political document not a social one and if you tried to explain the Libertarian view of marriage to the Founding Fathers they would look at you like you were from another planet. Libertarians care about the Constitution about as much as the Progressives do.

        6. avatar ropingdown says:

          tdinva, what a concise and accurate comment.

          Sometimes it seems as though the gay-marriage movement is prelude to polygamy. When that occurs, look out. Aristotle said a man who needs more than one wife is insane. He made an exception, though, for the period when Athenian males were killed off in large numbers in war.

        7. Thanks for the information, tdiinva. It fits with my reading of history. Greeks and Romans certainly tolerated homosexuality, but they never considered two people of the same sex to be “married”, except as a bad joke by a tyrannical Roman Emperor (litterally,it was a joke!)

        8. avatar H.R. says:

          It’s an equality issue. The Romans also owned slaves and forced some of them to battle to the death in arenas for entertainment. I think we can do a step or two better than that.
          Even with legalized gay marriage, how much is it going to really change our society? Most people are still straight so they’re going to keep right on amarryin’ people of the opposite sex and cranking out kids. I know that’s my plan. Is that your plan? If you could all the sudden marry another guy, would you rush right out to find yourself one? Not me… so it affects me not at all.
          As noted above, it is a legal contract. If it’s about law, then the law has to be applied equally.

        9. avatar Jason says:

          @tdiinva
          (1) Well said. I wish the “traditional marriage” crowd understood that.
          (2) True, but you’re avoiding the modern debate over government involvement in marriage. The modern debate isn’t over whether the government should enforce divorced decrees, inheritance, etc. The modern debate is whether government should decide what counts as married. Two men (gay or straight) could write a legal contract sharing their property, setting up inheritence, power of attorney, etc. A marriage contract is simply an unwritten version of that contract with some default values filled in…until you add religion.
          (3) The libertarian utopia doesn’t include a welfare state, so this argument is invalid. The unwed black mother is primarily a product of the welfare state. Before the ’60s blacks had a lower rate of unwed mothers than whites.
          The libertarian philosophy isn’t that we should force people to do things for the good of society, that’s the fascist philosophy. Isn’t “think about the children” the battle cry of Feinstein, Bloomberg, Obama, Watts, etc.?
          In the absence of state force, the vast majority of humans form monogamous, heterosexual relationships, because that’s what we’ve evolved to do. People who don’t follow that pattern are less likely to reproduce and have children survive (without the support of government welfare payments), and so are less likely to influence the behavior and genetics of the next generation.

          Marriage is in the Constitution. It’s in the 10th Amendment, which reserves all non-enumerated powers to the states and the people.
          Libertarians don’t generally care about the Constitution, because it failed to prevent the modern welfare/warfare/crony-capitalist/police/spy state. What we care about is respecting the rights of others, while they respect our rights.

        10. avatar tdiinva says:

          Arguments of the form “…The Romans also owned slaves and forced some of them to battle to the death in arenas for entertainment…” are strawmen, i.e., they are not valid arguments. You can argue from a standpoint of equality but then where does equality end? Polygamy? incest? group marriage? The Libertarian concept of marriage is meaningless. Why don’t just come out an argue that equality requires that marriage abolished period? It’s what the LGBT lobby really advocates. At least they are more self aware than your usual Libertarian.

        11. avatar tdiinva says:

          The Libertarian concept of utopia may not include the welfare state but it does include the right the vote. Guess how the society of single mothers is going to vote?

          The definition of marriage falls outside of the Constitution because marriage is not a political institution. It is a social one in which the rules and legal authorities are defined by the state. You say let two people of either sex marry. Someone else says let people marry in groups, others say one man, many women and there are those who say that siblings should have the right to marry. By limiting it to two people you are infringing on other people’s rights. You can’t arbitrarily draw a line and then talk about equality. You are either for a meaningful definition of marriage or you are in favor of abolishing it. You can’t have it both ways.

        12. avatar TheThingThatGoesUp says:

          Unfortunately, tdiinva doesn’t seem to have any idea what libertarians actually believe.

        13. avatar tdiinva says:

          Apparently thingying doesn’t either because you would have attempted an actual defense of the Libertarian position like Jason did.

        14. avatar Cliff H says:

          Jason, I have to make a small reply because while I consider myself libertarian I have never looked into the Libertarian political platform in any detail. When and if they become a viable third party I may do so.
          You said:

          “The libertarian utopia doesn’t include a welfare state, so this argument is invalid…”

          Please consider carefully your terminology. There is no Utopia and there can never be a Utopia; Democrat, Republican, Communist or Libertarian. By its very nature every Utopia is and MUST BE fascist in nature and socialist in structure. As such the use of the term “Libertarian Utopia” is an oxymoron.

          As an example, your very next statement:
          “The libertarian philosophy isn’t that we should force people to do things for the good of society, that’s the fascist philosophy.”
          Then you state:
          “In the absence of state force, the vast majority of humans form monogamous, heterosexual relationships, because that’s what we’ve evolved to do.”

          The vast majority of humans form monogamous, heterosexual relationships not because we have somehow evolved to that point, but because if men don’t agree to it they are unlikely to get laid and have kids. Women want some guarantee of financial support and physical security and are able and willing in most cases to demand some degree of monopoly on the male’s sexual habits in return for bearing his children. As for evolution, can you show me ANY civilization in history, including ours at present, where in the vast majority of cases this “monogamy” has not been temporary at best and an illusion/delusion at worst? What percentage of couples actually go their entire life after marriage as 100% monogamous?

          Freedom (Liberty) is a Natural Right. It can be relinquished voluntarily, but it cannot be taken away or legislated out of existence by “until death do we part” marriage laws. And as in all other contracts, you cannot create a valid contract for an illegal act. At some point one or the other or both partners may want their natural right to freedom back and no Constitution or legislation or contract will prevent them from regaining their natural state.

          /end rant

        15. avatar MadLarkin says:

          Let me ask CT how well that whole toeing the party line thing went.
          Wait…The ‘pubs sold out in record numbers? No way! That is crazy! That’s unpossible!

        16. avatar Jake says:

          When Republicans learn to stop being anti freedom they will win back the pro freedom vote. They are punishing themselves by being fascists in the main. Simple as that. They want to whine they can whine at a mirror.

        17. avatar tdiinva says:

          You mean replace political rights with drug rights, sexual rights and abortion rights don’t you?

        18. avatar Citizenx says:

          QUOTE tdiinva says:
          November 27, 2013 at 11:47

          “Anti-marriage Libertarians are ignorant of the history of marriage, its legal background, and the social implication of abolishing marriage.

          (1) One man/one woman marriage is not based on religion. It comes from the Greeks and Romans. It was imposed on the Jews by Alexander and his successors. The Jewish community learned that monogamy increase social stability by reducing the number of unattached males and claifying such things as the right inheritance.”

          that is complete and utter horse shit, you should read history before acting as if you know it. Homosexual marriage has been in existence for eons, since even before Christianity.

          While it is relatively new to modern history that same-sex couples are widely being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions and marriages around the world.[2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

          A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]

          Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]

          Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

        19. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Marriage under civil law is indistinguishable from chattel slavery..
          The father cedes ownership of the girl to the groom.
          Therefore, the government is forbidden to endorse it or facilitate it in any way.
          It’s a transfer of title deed to the girl from the girl’s dad to the groom

          And it causes institutionalized discrimination against single people.

          -OR-

          Marriage is a religious ritual where you get a note from the priest that says screwing’s not a sin.

          Either way, it’s none of the government’s business.

      3. avatar DonS says:

        ‘pubs are just as bad as ‘crats

        The new laws (primarily HB13-1224 and HB13-1229) that ended up getting two senators recalled and led to Hudak’s resignation didn’t receive a single “yes” vote from Republicans.

      4. avatar Hal J. says:

        There are certainly some issues where you can legitimately say that there’s little or no difference between D’s and R’s, but gun rights isn’t one of them. D’s vote for gun control far more consistently than R’s. Bear in mind, we are never go to see full autos available through the mail as they were in the early 20th Century no matter how many R’s are elected…but there is a difference between some gun control and a lot of it.

      5. avatar Mike123 says:

        Ask New Yorkers what a Republican controlled Senate will do. They aided and abetted passage of the SAFE act.

        1. avatar Jason says:

          But in defense of CO republicans, the north east considers people like Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and Rick Santorum “republican”. On this side of the country, they’d be democrat, democrat, nazi, and nazi.

      6. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Huh? Wha? Pubes and Cracks? What?

    2. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      If we are as committed as our adversaries, we’d give the new appointee 48 hours to announce his position on repeal of the law. If it is the same as his predecessor’s than let the recall begin.

      The problem with Hudak was her principals, if the new guy has the old principles, then the result should be the same.

      1. avatar Bob Wall says:

        Don’t forget, it’s Hick that signed the bills, and it’s Hick who will decide Hudak’s replacement, based on recommendations from the Democrat party. In short – Same shit, different day.

        As far as Colorado Republicans are concerned, most votes on contentious issues are straight party lines.

      2. avatar DJ9 says:

        Duke of Sharon, well said.

    3. avatar BDub says:

      Tell me you are quoting Curly Bill, from Tombstone!

      http://youtu.be/VoJdb1TLLJQ

  2. avatar DJ says:

    Can they initiate a recall of the governor’s appointee?

    1. avatar Jim R says:

      Probably, but it’s going to be a lot tougher as this person hasn’t actually done anything.

    2. avatar ErrantVenture11 says:

      I would certainly not support such an action. Recalls are supposed to be for when elected officials are in violation of their duty in the eyes of their constituents. An appointee, unless appointed under dubious/illegal circumstances, should not be the focus of a recall campaign simply by virtue of party affiliation.

      1. avatar rjoguillory says:

        …I think the statement of your opinion…carries the logic forward that this newly “appointed” member of The Colorado Assembly should be immediately removed from office..and if it were possible…to move into Court and prevent the appointment at all….below is your quote….

        “An appointee, unless appointed under dubious/illegal circumstances, should not be the focus of a recall campaign simply by virtue of party affiliation.”

        Is it me…? Or is it not obvious that the resignation and “appointment” is all about “political affiliation” and is simply a backdoor method for The Democrat Governor to block the will of the people? The Good Governor is telling the people he works for…we don’t like the way you played by the rules and had two of us removed…so we are going to play childish games in order to retain power..and to hold onto a set of laws that is obvious..no one except the ruling class want?

        No..while I agree that we should abide by the rules as long as they are working and all involved display some degree of ethics, integrity and honor…but, really…I’m 53 years old..and I’ve never seen that in this..or many other countries…so if they want to make it a game….let’s get it on…!

        Regards,

        RJ O’Guillory
        Author-
        Webster Groves – the Life of an Insane Family

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Then logic would dictate you recall the governor, not the new appointee.

        2. avatar rjoguillory says:

          …yes…I’d agree with that….

          …..as they should both be removed for being involved in “the string-of-corruption”…that results from the conspiracy of the governor and their appointee…to block the will of the people they serve…which I think violates their Oath-of-Office…I think that is treason…especially as it relates to our Bill of Rights…and any part of The Constitution…we all know that the resignation is part of a conspiracy on the part of the political party in power..why not go after them on RICO Charges….as they seem to use that one freely when they want to go after some pot-grower who “conspired” to hide the grow in some guys building…?

          Maybe a bad example?. But I think the Governors actions are just as absurd…it is like telling the people of the State…you don’t know what is best for you…so I’m going to go behind the scenes… conduct some political bribery or blackmail….just as bad…just as corrupt…

          Perhaps we should have some investigation regarding the deal between the Governor and the appointee..were deals agreed to in advance..? if so..that demolishes your point about the appointee being an “innocent”..until they behave in an outward fashion…I think accepting the seat is corrupt in itself…

          Regards,

          RJ O’Guillory
          Author-
          Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

      2. avatar Avid Reader says:

        The Secretary of State was just interviewed on local radio. The appointee would have to be in office six months before a recall can be attempted. At this point it would be better to keep the powder dry and get organized for the elections next fall. The new Senator will only serve until January 2015 anyway. Hudak’s term wouldn’t have been up until the 2016 elections and the swearing in of the new legislature in January of 2017.

      3. avatar DJ says:

        In this instance this is just a political manuever designed to thwart the will of the electorate. They initiated the recall to get the gun laws overturned, so the Colorado democrats pull this stunt to keep that from happening. That seems like a distinction without a difference to me.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      More likely the correct method (iff allowed under Co Consitituion) would be to petition/challenge to force an election. Would not be uncommon for such to be allowed.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Well, anybody can petition anybody else for anything they want to. Just have a thing with the text of the petition, collect names, and take it to the person in question.

        Have you seen those videos of the peasants signing the petitions to ban water? They just called it dihydrogen monoxide, and almost everybody they asked signed it. If they asked me, I’d laugh and ask where the camera is. 😉

  3. avatar General Zod says:

    There are plenty more Dems for the recall efforts to choose from. Happy hunting, Colorado!

    1. avatar beanfield says:

      I guess if they’re simply going to resign senators that face recall and appoint new anti gun legislators in their place, them they can effectively stall any repeal efforts until the next election.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        That’s the plan. And there’s nothing you can do about it.

        1. avatar Jason says:

          Recall the governor?

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        True, but how many legislators go into office planning to resign halfway through their term? I doubt many will want to face that…

  4. avatar ThayneT says:

    Snoopy dance.

  5. avatar BillF says:

    Even if she had a choice, which I doubt she did, she would have been looking forward to a clip of herself minimizing the pain of rape victims. Being played over and over and…

    1. avatar Howdy says:

      Like a certain senator who said:

      “And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

      Joe Salazar

      He’s a rep not a senator. But definitely worth of ousting. Surprised more women haven’t denounced this clown.

  6. avatar Hal J. says:

    Wheeee! It’s fun to kick gun-grabbers out of office!

    1. avatar gloomhound says:

      +1

  7. avatar JLM says:

    As our gun-grabbing adversaries would say, “It’s not everything we wanted, but it’s a good first step “.

  8. avatar Avid Reader says:

    It’s a smart move by the party that allows them to preserve their one seat majority. One can only guess that she was offered a cushy spot as a fed educrat or with one of the teacher’s unions, as until the last few days she was in it to win it.

    Good riddance.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. She held on with a death grip to her senate seat until the party finally made her an acceptable offer. This isn’t about the party forcing her out, it’s about them finally finding an unelected appointment they could give her that paid enough. Watch where she goes after this (after the appropriate cooling-off period to allow the media to forget about her). There is about a 0% chance she will end up in a private-sector job.

  9. avatar jp says:

    Recall dickinpooper

  10. avatar James says:

    Next are the following:
    Mark Pryor – Arkansas
    Kay Hagen – North Carolina
    Mary Landrieu – Louisiana
    Max Baucus open seat – Montana
    Jay Rockafeller open seat – West Virginia
    Tim Johnson open seat – South Dakota

    1. avatar Evandaire@gmail.com says:

      You missed all of the New Jersey and California. Di-fi should be our next target to recall or impeach.

      1. avatar Adam says:

        Thats just wishful thinking. The California republican party has no clue how to win big races in that state. Trust me, they are more concerned about party infighting for control and preserving the status quo for some of their leadership.

        Until the CAGOP can start cleaning it’s internal structure out it has no shot at legitimacy in the the Golden State.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Too true. In the last senate election cycle, there was a young republican woman who ran against Feinstein–without any support from the CAGOP, which decided, I guess, that she has no chance against the Empress and therefore refused to spend any money for advertising. Needless to say, the GOP’s showing in the election was “meager.”

        2. avatar Jaeger says:

          One HUGE issue is that Dems outnumber Reps by a big margin. The emigration of Reps adds to the issue. Those of us who live in solidly Rep areas can’t offset the idiots in LA, San Francisco and other points south. Add to that the influx of idiots into our areas and it won’t be long until we have no h aven here at all.

          If we don’t start seeing Reps move into the state and start voting, those of us who have stayed to fight will probably hold out until we die or throw in the towel and move out as well.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      You forgot Tom Harkin (D) – Iowa who is taking his F rating from the NRA to the Villages.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Ah yes out very own Village Idiot – As Nutty as Uncle Joe and the Charm of Upchuck Schemer. Retiring to (back) to Barbados.

        Going to be an interesting election. The Iowa GOP is as disfunctional (rectal cranial inversion) as the National GOP. Between the Rinos and the Paulistas (Ron) armwrestling and backstabbing not much energy left for electionering. Microcosim of the as National GOP.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Well my Rep., Steve King has ruled out a run for his seat. He’d be awesome in the senate, but it’d be a shame to lose him in the house, even though the 4th congressional district would be sure to elect an ultra conservative to replace him.

  11. avatar jh says:

    More time for her to Facebook her buddy’s

    1. avatar BillF says:

      Or to stay home and smoke pot with Morse and Giron.

  12. avatar Martin says:

    How does this work for elections , since this new appointed person was never elected when does he or her come up for election

    1. avatar JohnO says:

      New person completes only her existing term.

  13. avatar tdiinva says:

    The Republicans should go ahead and introduce repeal. There is a good chance that some Democrats will want to keep their seats and will vote for repeal. Will Hickenlooper sign it? Can’t hurt to find out.

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      I’m sure they will, but since they’re in the minority in both houses it will never make it to the floor for a potentially embarrassing vote. It will likely be assigned to a ‘kill’ committee and will die there.

      We can either find another senator to go after, or get better organized for the 2014 elections.

      1. avatar Adam says:

        I think the play at this point should definitely be a focus on 2014 elections now. The Dems were able to out maneuver on this one, good on them. They can’t out maneuver an election.

        Find quality candidates, fundraise, knock on doors, and then take back the state capitol. Then go after Hickenlooper.

        1. avatar Model 31 says:

          Unlike the recall vote, absentee ballots will be used in the general election and the dems will carry the felon vote as well as the dead vote come election day. The 2014 vote will be a lot closer than the recall vote and 2016 will be a tough one too. The next two elections are very winnable pro 2A Americans. It will take a huge get-out-the-vote effort in Colorado.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          I recommmend keeping the fires white hot. I’ll suggest comparison to Iowa 2010/2012.

          You might recall that the “progressives” Iowa Supreme Court discovered queer marriage as a right in the Iowa Counsitution and legislating from the bench, created this rediculous fiction for the state. In Iowa judges periodically have to undergo a periodic rubberstamp election in order to keep their seat. In 2010 ALL THREE Supreme Court Justices up for election where thrown out by voters. The organizers of this recall sat down and tried to reintergize for 2012 to recall more of this idiot judges. Issue had cooled of with voters and was not successful. (Note: Our RINO governor nominated only progressive replacments judges so the court is little changed).

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        I am not so sure. There must be a few Democrats who see the handwritng on the wall. This issue isn’t going away next year. The leadership might be hard over on this but like Obamacare the members who want to keep their jobs come next November may have other ideas. Like all purple states Democrats are concentrated in a minority of districts. Watch Terry McAulife seeth in frustration when the Republcans in the House of Delgate laugh at his agenda. Losing control of the Legislature pretty much leaves Hickenlooper a lame duck for the second half of his term. Getting gun control off the table is the only way the governor can pass an agenda.

        Both parties have their Kamikazes but I don’t perceive Hickelooper as being one of them.

        1. avatar Avid Reader says:

          Hick’s a pragmatist, but he allowed his ambitions to derail his pragmatism.

          I was in Richmond the night McAuliffe won, and even the democrats in the crowd didn’t seem all that happy with him. They had just been drinking the kool-aid on Cuccinelli. You’re lucky the house of Delegates stayed in Republican hands.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “It will likely be assigned to a ‘kill’ committee and will die there.”

        I agree that is what the dems would do. And I say let them do it. Because the dems in that committee who fail to move the bill to the floor will be recalled for failure to move the bill to the floor.

    2. avatar Hal J. says:

      The only way the gun bills passed earlier this year will be repealed is if the Republicans win the state House (possible), Senate (less likely), and Governorship (even less likely) in 2014.

      Feasible, but a long-shot.

  14. avatar Shane says:

    Adios, would-be rape enabler!

  15. avatar JohnO says:

    Yes. Pro-gun crew should push for repeal to uncover vulnerable seats.

  16. avatar CT Resident says:

    It is a shame that Connecticut doesn’t have a recall process.

  17. Good riddance, you miserable sack.

    1. avatar crndl says:

      +1 bwahahahahahaha !!

  18. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Cowards.

  19. avatar Bea says:

    Doubtful CO has seen the last of this witch. She will likely be rewarded with a cozy appointment within the state. More ‘in your face’ to the people of CO.

  20. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    “… Who will be next?”

    Chickenpooper!

  21. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    This shows that pro-2A people are motivated and organized. Bodes well for the 2014 election. If you can recall a Senator with more votes than they originally received, even with the other side pouring in money and using every dirty trick in the book, then they should be able to win some seats.

  22. avatar Avid Reader says:

    For anyone that’s interested, it’s the current topic on Denver’s talk radio AM station in the 10 AM MST hour. You can listen live at:
    http://www.koaradio.com

  23. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    I am not surprised. Undoubtedly she was called into a meeting and given two choices. Lose the recall and with it any chance of a cushy no work high pay job. Or resign and be given said job. She chose wisely.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      Perhaps. However, the Dem party in CO had a big reason for “forcing” her to resign: if she resigns, the party appoints a new Senator (a Dem); if she’s recalled, voters (on the same ballot) choose a replacement (almost certainly a Republican). If the latter had happened, the Dems would have lost their majority in the Senate.

  24. avatar Fug says:

    Et tu, Biden?

  25. avatar Steve says:

    Anyone else thing Colorado is stupid for having a rule that says “Well, if you don’t like the person in charge, you can vote to have them kicked out, but they can still keep the seat in their party”?

    Nearly defeats the purpose of a recall, which is to say “No, you’re wrong, we don’t like what you did, we’re putting in someone who we want now”.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      That’s not quite the rule…

      Had the recall vote actually occurred, the voters would’ve chosen a replacement on the same ballot. But, the vote didn’t occur – Hudak resigns and her party gets to choose a replacement.

      I guess the only way(s) to make this not so “stupid” would be either:
      a) you can’t resign while you’re the target of a recall, or
      b) in case of resignation, an open special election is held to choose a replacement.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        and (A) of course makes no sense unless someone can never resign.. after all, what does it mean to be the ‘target’ of a recall? How many people does it take? We already have rules for petition to recall someone, now we would need a petition to start the petition?

        Let’s take a win when we see it.

        1. avatar DonS says:

          Agreed – my (A) was intended as a “ridiculous” solution. Personally, I think a resignation should result in either an open election or a vacant seat until the next regular election.

          Hudak’s resignation is a partial win. We (the figurative “we”, since I wasn’t eligible to sign the petition) demonstrated that an anti-liberty vote can cost you your seat in the legislature. It’s a “partial” win because the replacement will be a Democrat – retaining the Dems’ majority in the Senate.

  26. avatar HiPlanesDrifter says:

    Positives:
    1. Ms. Hudak is no longer a State Senator;
    2. Constitution-upholding citizens are spared the trouble & expense of gathering more signatures;
    3. Colorado taxpayers save the expense of a recall election (~$200K);
    4. Hudak’s replacement should be gun-shy (pun most definitely intended) about voting for 2nd Amendment-restricting gun control measures and,
    5. Statistics weren’t on Hudak’s side.

    Negatives:
    1. Another Democrat will be appointed to replace her.

    I can live with that 5:1 ratio.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Well, it certainly puts a damper on enthusiasm for more anti-civil rights laws in the future.

      A downside you didn’t list– the jobs that were lost in Colorado due to Magpul leaving are not coming back. That’s a point the republicans should emphasize in the 2014 elections. Not only did these clowns infringe on the people’s civil liberties, refusing to listen to the people’s concerns in an arrogant and imperious manner, – they damaged the enconomy of Colorado and put lots of tax-paying folks out of work.

    2. avatar LongPurple says:

      That’s about the way I see it.
      The Democrat majority may be preserved, but the self-righteous gun-grabbing caucus of that Party just got a real strong yank on their choke-collar.

  27. avatar Excedrine says:

    It was only a matter of time. There was no getting around it whatsoever.

    Go ahead and push for a repeal. Even if it dies in committee, it still bodes well for Colorado as the vultures that voted against cloture will likely face an even harder uphill battle come election time.

    Those rats really shot themselves in the foot this time. Pun fully intended.

  28. avatar Paul says:

    Grats to Colorado. Another win and the message gets that much stronger!

  29. avatar KCK says:

    Coloradians, please explain:
    If she is recallable now, why was she electable in the first place? Did gun people not get out and vote during her regular election? Or is it now the Dems think that the hornets, having their nest poked with a stick, will be more motivated than her original constituants?
    Were her ant-gun votes a surprise.
    Gunners asleep at the wheel during the last election? What?
    Thoughtful analysis please.

    And of course, shouldn’t the Dems make themselves vulnerable to the charge of thwarting the will of the people with this resignation?

    1. avatar DonS says:

      She’s “recallable” because the recall effort only needed 18,300 valid signatures in order to force the recall vote.

      She was “electable” because, in 2012:
      Hudak (D) – 34,359
      Sias (R) – 34,017
      Sweeny (L) – 4,823

      1. avatar Red Sox says:

        She was “electable” because, in 2012:
        Hudak (D) – 34,359
        Sias (R) – 34,017
        Sweeny (L) – 4,823
        Being of the Libertarian bent I realize we ain’t going from liberal/progressive to Libertarian in any one election or election cycle. We have to get there slowly by voting Republican since it will be much easier to push toward our end then it will to take a liberal/progressive to the other side. So stop electing Democrats by voting for Independents or any other affiliation. Learn to walk before you can run.

        1. avatar DonS says:

          I didn’t mean to blame (at least, not totally) Libertarian voters for Hudak’s win in 2012. Heck, I’d vote Libertarian myself if I thought my vote would be anything more than symbolic in today’s political environment.

          Hudak only beat the Republican by 342 votes. Ignoring the 4,823 Libertarian votes, I suspect that Hudak would’ve lost in 2012 if the Dem voters had known what was coming. If only half a percent of the Hudak voters had instead voted for Sias, Hudak would’ve lost.

        2. This is why I finally stopped voting Liberterian after decades. I finally realized that all I was doing was electing leftist candidates to office. The vast majority of Liberterian votes would go to Republicans. To believe otherwise is delusional.

          Now I work within the Republican party to push smaller government.

        3. avatar rjoguillory says:

          …in expressing your opinion…you stated…

          …….”Now I work within the Republican party to push smaller government.”

          …how does that work for you when you see video of GW Bush…as he sat there reading My Pet Goat… for 15 minutes after he “became aware”…the “country was under attack…”….or how does it work for you when you see the guilty face/eyes of the drunkard as he made his way to the school-house door…the look of guilt and panic on his face…? Do you really think the ethics, honor and integrity of the traitors with an R next to their name…is any better than the traitors put forth by the party with the D ..?

          Really?

          The issue is certainly related to the size and scope of the government…. but in reality…the issue to first solve is ethics, honesty..and integrity…which we should do by finding members of both parties guilty of treason…and we should build The National Gallows for American Values at Ground Zero 911…built from thermite tainted steel from the imploded WTC..and when we begin to get convictions..start hanging anyone who violates their oaths and The Constitution. ….regardless of color, name…tribe….or political party….convict them and hang them…

          Regards,

          RJ O’Guillory
          Author-
          Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

        4. avatar Avid Reader says:

          Which explains why even though I lean libertarian, I vote Republican.

        5. avatar DonS says:

          Do you really think the ethics, honor and integrity of the traitors with an R next to their name…is any better than the traitors put forth by the party with the D ..?

          The answer to that probably depends on where you are. Anywhere near a metropolitan area in New York or New Jersey, and maybe Massachusetts or Connecticut? Probably not.

          Colorado (pretty much everything outside of the Denver metro area, Boulder, and even some parts of Colorado Springs) or northeast California? Definite yes. In my [admittedly, limited] experience, there are not a lot of RINOs in Colorado. No CO Republicans voted in favor of our state’s new gun control laws.

      2. avatar Red Sox says:

        DonS,
        “If only half a percent of the Hudak voters had instead voted for Sias, Hudak would’ve lost”.
        True dat and I’m with you if there a viable possibility of a Libertarian win I would vote that way also but it ain’t happening any time soon but gradually it may. And if only 7% of Sweeney votes for Sias this hag would never been heard from. She looks like the teacher from the movie Overboard.

    2. avatar DonS says:

      Did gun people not get out and vote during her regular election?

      I suspect that the Dem voters who are against CO’s new anti-gun laws never suspected the issue would come up in CO. Heck, we’re shall-issue, open-carry, and NFA-OK, with state preemption of local laws (offer void in Denver). We can carry on state university campuses, in bars, and any place that doesn’t have disarming security at every entrance – as long as Federal law doesn’t prohibit it. About the worst state-level “gun control laws” we had were a) background checks were required at gun shows and b) had to leave our guns locked in our cars on K-12 property.

      Then, between December 2012 and March 2013, these new laws were proposed and passed. This despite public hearings where the public was overwhelmingly opposed to the new legislation. Even among metro-Denver Dem voters, the laws are not popular. (This last is anecdotal, based on the last several months of Denver Post “letters to the editor”.)

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      As Dennis Prager repeats often…

      “Libertarians are great…….The Libertarian party is horrible.” Running as a Libertarian candidate is nothing but a vanity and ego stroking exercise.

      If you’re a Libertarian go achieve your objectives through the Republican ticket. The tent is big enough and welcoming enough.

  30. avatar FastMovingDimwit says:

    When IS Magpul moving…?

    About the same time they start selling a $1500 Masada rifle, that’s when…

  31. avatar racenutz says:

    In the words of Lemmy Killmister, “Bye Bye Bitch Bye Bye”

  32. avatar gs650g says:

    Hickenpooper needs to go next so they can’t just poop a fresh socialist yes man into a seat

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      The law lets a committee (made up of Democrats, since they held the seat) 30 days to come up with a replacement. If they don’t, the governor has five days to name one.

      Either way, it’s another Dem.

  33. avatar Anonymous says:

    They should now start another petition to recall hudak’s selected replacement. They should also start a petition for hickenlooper himself and repeal the ridiculous law that states hicklooper can “appoint” representatives.

  34. avatar eburke says:

    Looking at the results of the 2012 election, it would appear that once again the Libertarians have let the pursuit of the perfect be the enemy of the good. By voting for someone that had no chance of winning (i.e. the “L”) instead of someone they probably agreed w/80% of the time, CO now has a law that is 100% antithetical to the beliefs of libertarians.

    /waits for the sanctimonious “holier than thou/purer than thou” crowd to wax eloquent about refusing to choose between two evils anymore. Save it as you are as responsible as the Democrats for the enactment of anti-2A statutes that shred the Constitution you profess to revere.

    1. avatar Red Sox says:

      Agreed and stated much more eloquently than I could above. Folks we need to know how to get there, we can’t do it in one giant leap but step by step.

    2. avatar H.R. says:

      I didn’t vote for Mitt Romney.
      I hiked through a winter storm last year to vote and as I was standing there looking down at the ballot, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. But I obviously couldn’t vote for Obama either. And given the scandals that the administration has been plagued by, I’m very glad I don’t share any part of the guilt of putting him in office either time.
      So I voted Libertarian and it was the right choice.
      I don’t see any reason why pot shouldn’t be legal and I think gay people should have the same rights under the law as anyone else. I have no personal use for marijuana or gay marriage, but why the hell not? Isn’t enforcing unnecessary laws and sticking nonviolent people in jail for a few ounces of weed kind of nuts? Isn’t it kind of small and petty to tell a couple homosexual people that they aren’t entitled to the same rights under the law?
      I’ve voted mostly R in the past. Maybe I will again if they’re making some kind of sense, but if Republicans don’t represent me, why should I vote for them? If Republicans want to win, maybe they should realize that they need the votes of people like me and make their platform a little more inclusive.

      On getting rid of Hudak, I’m proud of CO for that one. I wish they’d gotten the chance to replace her and get to work repealing bad laws, but still, they made it clear that there are consequences.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        If you think pot is harmless goodtime fun then you voted with the right club. You are a libritarian.

        The queers are not being discriminated against under traditonal/normal marriage law. They have the same right to marry as everyother citizen. They are not entitled to any special “rights’/treatment by having their atisocial degenerate lifestyle choice endorsed by a civilized society – that includes marriage to a goat, to a German Shepard, to a prepubescent boy (or girl), or to their buttbuddy.

        1. avatar H.R. says:

          Well I don’t think otherwise decent, harmless people all the sudden become bloodthirsty monsters after a few puffs on a burning plant. It’s ridiculous to incarcerate people over something so stupid and it doesn’t stop anyone from using it. Prohibition doesn’t work. It just creates a black market that you have no control over.

          I also don’t have a problem with “queers.” Seems to me that they’re people who have rights too. Selectively apply the law to target them and you don’t have any business whining when someone finds a way to misuse it to target you.

          So yeah, if the Republican party is the gay-hating, anti-rights party and the Democratic party is the gun-hating, anti-rights party… then I made the right choice.

        2. avatar DonS says:

          [Replying to H.R.]

          The only problem with “I made the right choice” is that, in today’s political environment, voting Libertarian – when you otherwise might lean toward the Republican candidate – essentially takes a vote away from that Republican candidate; you’re a potential R vote that, essentially, stayed home that Tuesday. At present, and likely for the foreseeable future, a Libertarian candidate cannot win against D and R in a major election.

          Hudak’s 2012 victory is a pretty good example. She beat the R candidate by only 342 votes, out of roughly 73,000 votes cast. About 4,800 votes went to the L candidate. I would presume that, if forced to choose between the two, the overwhelming majority of those L voters would’ve voted R instead of D.

          I’m not “blaming” those 4,800 L voters for Hudak’s victory. I believe that, if the legislative events of early 2013 had been foreseen in Nov 2012, the R candidate would’ve won even without those 4,800 L votes.

          But the L votes didn’t help.

        3. avatar DonS says:

          Oh… and I say the above as someone who leans more libertarian than R. If I thought a Libertarian candidate had any chance of winning a given election, I’d vote for him/her. But, since I haven’t seen such an election yet, I continue to vote [primarily] R.

        4. avatar H.R. says:

          Taken from the other side, how hard would it have been for the Republicans to win 342 more votes? What would they have had to do? They lost by so little… so shouldn’t they be looking at some changes to be more relevant and win more voters over? I bet with just a few modest changes, they could gain 342 Libertarian votes without breaking a sweat and even a lot of votes from moderate Democrats.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      “guns” is not the only issue I care about. When the republican party stops enabling the NSA and massive military complex, and stops looking in on people’s bedrooms, I’ll vote R…

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        How long have you been asleep there Rip? Not keeping up with current events (or reality). You a pothead libritarian?

      2. avatar juliesa says:

        Obama removed a restriction that had been put on the NSA under Bush. The Repubs aren’t great on the issue, but the Dems are far worse. Moreover, the press does not keep a watchful eye on Dem presidents as they do Repub presidents, so even that safeguard is lost under Dem presidents.

  35. avatar gs650g says:

    Colorado is a beach head for liberals from the Left coast. Stop them here or in 10 years you will be much like California with all their woes. You already have illegal aliens, legal pot , gun control and taxes are going up. Take a queue from the formerly golden state.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      “Legal pot” is quite in line with my libertarian thinking.

      We soundly trounced the proposed income tax increase a few weeks ago. If we’re going to have a state income tax, our flat 4.63% isn’t too bad.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      THEY have legal pot; you have your psychiatric drugs.

  36. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “Profiles in Courage” Democrat-style: Do your dirty little mess for the people of Colorado, treat your constituents with arrogance and disdain, then run away when you have to face the consequences.

    1. avatar crndl says:

      well said +1

  37. avatar SteveO says:

    What….no comments or press releases from Shannon Watts yet?

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Be gentle. She has to stop weeping first!

  38. avatar Blue says:

    Unless Chickenpooper puts in a pro-2nd A person in her place, recall his replacement.

  39. avatar S_J says:

    More justice served in CO today. Hey Evie, enjoy that thanksgiving turkey knowing that the voters you thumbed your nose at were going to rightfully put you on the chopping block. I only wish we could do this to Cuomo and all the pro-SAFE Act pols in NY.

  40. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Don’t let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya.

    Even though chickenpooper will likely appoint another d,
    The message should be loud and clear in Colorado.

    Remember, they are still seriously looking at voting to split the state. Granted, they are years away from doing something like that. But again, the message is out of a super magnified bull horn.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      they are still seriously looking at voting to split the state

      Not really. That issue was up for a vote in 11 counties three weeks ago. It failed in 6. The remaining 5 only have a combined population of about 29,000… compared to the 260,000 people in Weld County – one of the counties that started the “secession” campaign (and yet the vote was “no” in Weld).

  41. avatar Dave357 says:

    Political parties have been known to be willing to sacrifice a few of their own to get what they want in the long run. Hudak’s departure is a sweet outcome, but it’s not enough – if there’s no reversal of the bad laws, CO is still a long-term loss. Perhaps an incremental approach to reversal should be considered, like raising the magazine capacity limit from 15 to 20 rounds, if one can’t repeal the limit outright. That would at least cover a number of standard handgun magazines.

  42. avatar Lance says:

    If they get a pro gun Dem in the seat can they overturn the mag ban???? One can only hope.

    1. avatar DonS says:

      The replacement is irrelevant. The mag cap bill (HB13-1224) passed the Senate 18 to 17, with all Republicans voting against it. After the Morse and Giron recalls, there are now 2 more Republicans (and 2 fewer Democrats) in the Senate. If the vote were held today, we could probably expect 19 to 16 against the bill (or 19 to 16 for its repeal).

      The problem is still the House and the Governor. A bill repealing HB13-1224 likely won’t get past the House, and, even if it did, neither chamber has the votes to override a[n expected] Governor veto.

    2. avatar DonS says:

      Another possibility… maybe there are sufficient Democrats in both the House and Senate, legislators that previously voted for HB13-1224, that have watched the successful recall campaigns and would now vote for its repeal in order to preserve their employment. Maybe there are enough to be “veto proof”.

      I doubt it. The three that were recalled and/or forced to resign maintained their positions ’til the[ir] bitter end. So far, I don’t see any reason to believe that other legislators would behave differently.

      1. avatar JuanInCO says:

        I don’t think Looper would veto the repeal of HB-1224 as he already backtracked on it saying he was “never very enthusiastic” about it. He would veto a repeal of HB-1229 though. If repeals aren’t brought up for vote, it will increase the heat on the gun grabbers here. They’re running scared now after getting decisively beat in Pueblo during the Giron recall.

  43. avatar Randall Meadows says:

    CRAP! As a resident of CO, I was very much looking forward to seeing the people once again have their say.

  44. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Who will be next?….. Whoever they replace her lying liberal butt with! Keep working on repealing these Illegal laws.2nd Amendment Foundation,NRA,GOA,Colorado Gun Owners Association.Employ them.Get on National Television and embarrass their butts as to 2nd Amendment Infringments.Get Chickenpooper Impeached. Lead the way,the rest of the Country is watching and praying these complete Ignoramuses get Steamrolled!

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      And JPFO.

  45. avatar Gregolas says:

    So, Dems CAN be embarrassed by one of their own. But only if , as is this case, the Rep insults a rape victim, thereby putting her foot in her mouth up to her knee.

  46. avatar William Burke says:

    Na na na nah
    Na na na nah
    Hey hey….

  47. avatar Aharon says:

    She looks like a fugly middle age male attempting to impersonate a female.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Don’t lower yourself.

Comments are closed.

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email