Bruce denies wrongdoing after sex harassment complaint

By Ed Sealover, The Gazette

Published May 2, 2008 at 7:30 a.m.
Updated May 2, 2008 at 7:30 a.m.

Text size

Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, works on an amendment on the floor of the House.

More Local News

Comments

May 2, 2008

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

EdwardGRobinson writes:

Gene, you're brilliant!
He must've offered to donate some of his breath to the accuser. Instead of resucitation, she may have thought it was a pass.
May 2, 2008

8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Gene,

I am pretty sure Hitler asked the same question.

"What gives this guy the right to breath."
May 2, 2008

8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

MarineGrunt writes:

Need more info... but it smells of shananagens (sp?) is in the air!
Not defending the guy, but to pinch an ass or whatever with as much media attention as you have. Need more data is all I am saying.

Just to be clear.. is this trolling? I do not wish to hurt anyones delicate sense of being.
May 2, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

What gives Dougie the idea that he has to personally know the person to say or do something inappropriate to her?

This shows the shallowness of this guy's logical thinking.
May 2, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

olsonmt writes:

All I've heard is there's been an accusation. Do any of you know something I don't? Agree with him or not, the man deserves some due process.
May 2, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Golden writes:

AC - always god to read your post, especially when you make reference to logic.

Your (AC's) Assertion - Brue has shallow logic because he says he doesn't know the person who has accused him of sexual harassment.

Your (AC's) Conclusion: People who know the people they sexually harass have a more in- depth command of logic.

One of your better pieces of logic to date!
Question: How would know? By your own flawed argument, you show shallowness of logical thinking….
Question: How is your argument relevant to his guilt or innocence?
The flaw in your argument is that you used a false assertion. We can’t blame you; this is something every journalist and Liberal learns at a young age….

Bruce did not say that one must know someone in order to do something inappropriate. He said he didn’t know the woman who has accused him. You can’t get your oh so powerfully logically thinking brain to make a sound, relevant argument out of false assertion.

Now – try this one. Bruce is a shallow person if he believes a person must know the person who they harass.
Let me know if I can help again. But the story is about the allegation, not the definition of Sexual Harassment.
May 2, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

LoFat writes:

You are right olsonmt. All we have is an accusation. That is the credo of the uber-libs. Accuse and smear without any facts to back it up. And when they find there was no sexual assault, the accuser will be found to just mis-spoke after the damage has been done.
May 2, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

Golden: I see you haven't taken any reading comprehension courses since I showed you up last time! <chuckle>

Try reading what I wrote again, and get it right.
May 2, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

buzzman writes:

He is presumed innoncent until proven guilty and as for the illiterate peasant dialog---maybe not PC but very true. I have more imortant things to worry about -- like the debacle of I-70 that truly impacts everyone
May 2, 2008

10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

If anybody is "setting up" Dougie, it isn't the Dems. He's the best thing they have in that seat. If it's a scam, look to the GOP leadership. They're the only ones who want to get rid of him!
May 2, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

artstarzz,

What just said at 10:22 did not make any sense to me at all. No one was talking about any specific immigrants.
May 2, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

He's behaving like an illiterate peasant
May 2, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Squatch writes:

I dont like the guy but get the feeling he's being setup.
May 2, 2008

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Big_D writes:

I think they should review the security system at the capital and publicly disclose the findings and see if Bruce or his accuser is lying. If Bruce doesn’t know who this woman is he should be able to clear himself with the video evidence too. Either way the video evidence should be very publicly displayed. I personally bet Bruce is just lying but let everyone see the evidence.
May 2, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

DenverDan writes:

Last of the "Good Old Boys club". Why are they all on the right?
May 2, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Big_D writes:

This caught my attention even more:
“A month later, GOP leadership removed him from the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee after he refused to vote for or co-sponsor an annual resolution honoring veterans.”
What this jerk Bruce is too good to honor our veterans? He is a scumbag. So I guess you Bruce supporters don’t think we should honor our veterans. Bruce seems to wrong for his district in a lot of ways and his thumbing of his nose at our veterans is over the top.
May 2, 2008

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

so pajama

Since the complaint is confidential, we know that you have no actual knowledge about what went on. However, while Bruce is entitled to a presumption of innocence, the person who made the accusation is by definition a liar because she said something against someone you like. That apparently is what passes for fairness in conservative circles.
May 2, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Big D,

Bruce honors the vets every single day and did not think it is the governments’ job to single out one particular day; he didn’t support the turtle either. I personally do not want my tax money going to either of these causes and feel that Bruce represented me well.
He is not a scum bag. He just thinks that the gov should be focusing on a few things. Limited government. It used to be the norm until the socialist took over. I am glad there is hard core limited gov guy roaming the halls of the capitol. We need about 100 more. Well without the antics.

Big D no point in name calling there are just different points of view as to the role scope and size of gov.

I agree with you that if Bruce is proven guilty he should be dropped.
May 2, 2008

1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Lowtaxes,
"I am glad there is hard core limited gov guy roaming the halls of the capitol. We need about 100 more. Well without the antics."

I agree with you!!!
May 2, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

...Bruce Speaks! He says "Who knows if I said hello to her in the hallway as I passed? I don't know her. I don't know her name. Her name doesn't mean anything to me." (wonder if he was shaking his finger as he said it).

We should note that everything so far is just speculation. Entertaining, but we really do need to wait for some verifiable facts to come out. Just guessing, but I'd say it's probable Bruce firmly believes that, whatever he may have done, it wasn't sexual harassment.

On the other hand, if there's anything we can all agree on it's that Douglas Bruce has to be, in terms of relating to inhabitants of planet Earth, one of the least perceptive beings to ever walk the halls of the Capitol (it usually takes at least some skills in human relations to get elected in the first place...oh, wait, he wasn't elected, was he).
May 2, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

Lt=f, my problem with Mr. Bruce is that, all else being equal, I'd rather have representation than not, and Bruce has stripped me and everybody else in District 15 of representation in the Colorado House.

After he's voted out in the Primary by the actual conservatives in his District, please beg him to move to yours and then elect him to serve you. Do then enjoy the complete lack of representation he's inflicted on us.

The issue is not around any position he may take--it's that he's completely irrelevant to the process of governance. His positions, his statements, his ideas, mean nothing because of his voluntary abdication of any role in serious debate.

I agree with some of his ideas, disagree with others. The same will be true of his successor, but it will be nice to have those views back in the legislature (instead of just in the newspaper).

Everyone, if you happen to live in District 15, us regain representation in the Colorado House by voting in the Republican Primary August 12th. Thank You.
May 2, 2008

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

freethought writes:

If it walks like a Bruce and talks like a Bruce...
May 2, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

Douglas Bruce is a REAL conservative. Isn't it marvelous to watch his fellow conservatives trying so hard to disown him?

The only difference between Douglas Bruce and most other conservatives is that Bruce lets it all hang out.
May 2, 2008

3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Buffsblg,

Fairness? Supposedly complaints are private but yet there has been a huge leak? No investigation yet. You could destroy a person’s career with a job like this.

I think we should be talking about the results of the investigation and not speculating about a complaint.
May 2, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Malis,

Please clarify how 15 have been stripped? Are there no people in 15 that support what Bruce advocates on the hill? Minus the antics of course. I doubt very few people in 15 appreciate the nudge and the swearing in snafu. What about the other stuff? How many representatives have walked around inside the capitol with a petition for tax reductions? How many Representatives have criticized the abuse of the emergency clauses? Hell Bruce was the only Representative defending Romanoff’s plan to gut Tabor, that effects all of us who claim to be Republicans. None of the Republicans in 15 stands behind any of the issues Bruce has addressed?
May 2, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Here is the real story!

http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?a...
May 2, 2008

4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ike writes:

PajamaPulitzer manages to turn most of the posts into the tired old saw of Conservative versus Liberal in terms of corruption and convictions. Depending on which source one chooses to use in researching on the internet the count of the number of convictions during the Reagan Administration of his staffers was at least 8 while he was in office and as high as 22 counting convictions after he stepped down.

Your point about Clinton again was what?

As far as Douglas Bruce the voters in El Paso County can deal with how they feel about him next election. To me it is this is just entertainment, who needs sitcoms in Colorado? We have Douglas Bruce!
May 2, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

come on lowtax, an editorial from the independence institute is the "real story"? Just more opinions from a group that at least never pretends to be unbiased. By the way, that author hardly seems to be a Bruce fan.

I agree we should not be speculating. It is speculating to spend time attacking the woman who made the report, it is speculating to imply that the Democrats leaked the complaint, it is speculating that this is a set up. However, I note that the right wing posters on here only care about speculation against Bruce. Did not see you or pajama on here yesterday criticizing those who "guaranteed this was a set up and accused Romanoff by name.
May 2, 2008

4:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

Lt=f,

From the first day of his appointed half-term, Douglas Bruce decided he'd rather make noise than make law. Anyone supporting his positions should be eager for him to leave the legislature.

Mr. Bruce seems to view the government as his private version of the WWF. He could paint himself blue, don a mask and cape, and challenge Romanoff and Ritter to a Tag-Team match at the top of the Capital steps, and that would have the same impact on the State of Colorado as anything he does inside the building.

Yes, Mr. Bruce's intentional, self-inflicted irrelevancy has effectively stripped his district of representation in the House.

That's why I encourage all residents of District 15, please help us regain representation in the Colorado House by registering and voting in the Republican Primary August 12th (btw, Bruce's primary opponent is Iraq Vet Mark Waller. The latte-drinking Volvo drivers who make up the base of the Republican Party hereabouts, apparently selected Waller over Bruce by a substantial majority at the recent nominating convention).
May 2, 2008

4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Diff writes:

Still one question that no one seems to answer - maybe I missed it -
but how was DB appointed and by who?
Will they still have their positions with in the party once these year is over -
I hope the Republicans of Co. Springs Dist 15 punish those party leaders who put this IDIOT in office as well....
They have to be just as big a bone heads as Dougie!
May 2, 2008

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

Diff

The rumor in the springs is that they moved him up because he was such a pain in their b*tt down there. One of Bruce's consistent personality traits is his ability to irritate people of all political parties. I agree that he has high amusement value, but then he is not my representative.
May 2, 2008

4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

Diff, we had a term-limited State Senator resign, accepting a job from a tech company that had been lobbying him. Process to replace was to form a nominating committee, made up mostly of officials of the El Paso County Republican Committee. They selected the (also term-limited) Rep. Bill Cadman for the Senate slot, opening his Rep position.

They then selected serving County Commissioner Douglas Bruce (the only election he's ever won) to the vacant House position (to the everlasting gratitude of the other County Commissioners...as you may be able to guess, Bruce was on the losing end of more 4-1 County Commission votes than should be humanly possible).

Yes, the members of the Nominating Committee are begging for forgiveness...they may eventually receive it, but only if Bruce loses in the Primary.
May 2, 2008

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

...of course, Diff, that doesn't exactly contradict buffbig's position either!
May 2, 2008

4:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Diff writes:

I was not sure what the procedure was on that -

they should be on the receiving end of a Big Group Dope Slap - and a
"what the hell were you thinking?"

Maybe it was an "up and out" thing to try and get rid of him - I would bet this is the last you will see of DB elected to anything remotely connected to politics in this state
(hopefully)
Have good weekend -ALL! (Libs, Dems and Cons, Repubs alike .. )
It's been FUN!
May 2, 2008

5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Golden writes:

AC - I read it again. Your argument still makes no sense.
I copied it here for you so you wouldn't have to go looking for it and get lost...

AC Wrote: What gives Dougie the idea that he has to personally know the person to say or do something inappropriate to her? This shows the shallowness of this guy's logical thinking.

It still has nothing what so ever to do with his quilt or innocence in the matter and is based on a false assertion. Bruce never said one must know someone before offending them. You said that in order to paint a picture of Bruce as a shallow logical thinking.

Your assertion is not accurate because he never said this. He said “I don’t even know her”. If your assertion is wrong your conclusion can not be right. This is one of the defining characteristics of logic.
This is just like all you arguments, you avoid the facts in favor of your own assumptions in order to support a conclusion you like and make ad hominum attacks.
The only difference is that this time is that you think you are "showing me up"??? Seriously...you are in seventh grade right?
May 2, 2008

5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

Golden, you're pushing your logic some. Bruce actually said "Who knows if I said hello to her in the hallway as I passed? I don't know her. I don't know her name. Her name doesn't mean anything to me."

...which is pretty much a non-sequitur if he was trying to imply innocence. I think AC was perceptive enough to pick that up...the fact of whether or not he knows the name of the woman is irrelevant to the topic, in fact, it avoids the topic.

Are you sure you've studied logic? Your statement "If your assertion is wrong your conclusion can not be right. This is one of the defining characteristics of logic." is, ummm, not exactly in accordance with the principles of logic (conclusion may of course be right regardless of accuracy of assertion...not supported by the assertion and perhaps only accidentally right but still, not necessarily wrong). Say instead, "your conclusion is not supported by your assertion." And, may I note, this is a primary characteristic of the oratory of one Douglas Bruce (wow--how's that for getting back to the topic at hand)?

Just wondering if you noticed the use of "non-sequitur," defined as "a statement having little or no relation to what preceded it [Latin: it does not follow]" ... which is actually what you were accusing AC of.

Overall, accusing others of being in the 7th grade may not be your best line of argument.
May 2, 2008

5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

Golden - You apparently are not a good reader then. This accounts for a lot of the previous misunderstandings.

Nothing I said is based on any "false assertion" unless you believe Dougie's statement that he doesn't even know the woman involved to be a false assertion on his part. Hmm. Perhaps that's true, since he's lied before; maybe he DOES know her.

I also didn't say it had anything to do with his "quilt" or innocence or even his "guilt." In fact, I'm agreeing with you, apparently, God help me. That was my point; indeed it has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. Dougie was pretending that it did; he offered the partial defense that he "didn't even know" the woman. My observation was precisely what you are agreeing with: it's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence. He's acting as though he couldn't have harrassed the woman becasue he doesn't know her. That's utter nonsense.

You can stop now!
May 2, 2008

6:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

malis writes:

AC, I'm not much on LOL, but I do allow a quiet grin occasionally <grin>
May 2, 2008

7:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

Just the fact that Dougie can get away with a statement like "That name means nothing to me" should tell us allot. Apparently this complainant was not his personal staffer and there not an obvious connection otherwise somebody would have called him on his statement.

So know we are talking about somebody that Bruce does not communicate with very often and most likely does not know on a first name basis.

Of course this is all pure speculation. Maybe we should wait until the results of the investigation are back?
May 3, 2008

8:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp95.pdf

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Join the discussion | John Temple

Join the discussion | RockyTalk Live

Join the discussion | Drew Litton

Join the discussion | RockyTalk Live

Join the discussion | Bruce Cameron

Join the discussion | RockyTalk Live

Join the discussion | Penny Parker

Join the discussion | RockyTalk Live

Join the discussion | Gary Massaro

Join the discussion | Lisa Bornstein

Home › News › Local News

Bruce denies wrongdoing after sex harassment complaint

By Ed Sealover, The Gazette

Published May 2, 2008 at 7:30 a.m.Updated May 2, 2008 at 7:30 a.m.

Related Stories

More Local News

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links

Published May 2, 2008 at 7:30 a.m.
Updated May 2, 2008 at 7:30 a.m.