WASHINGTON — As Congress convenes during a winter storm President-elect election, hangs over the proceedings with an extraordinary fact: The candidate who tried to overturn the previous election won this time and is legitimately returning to power.

Lawmakers will gather noontime Monday under the tightest national security level possible. Layers of tall black fencing flank the U.S. Capitol complex in a stark reminder of , when a defeated Trump sent his mob to in what became on the seat of American democracy in 200 years.

in Congress are expected this time. Republicans from the highest levels of power who challenged when Trump lost to Democrat have this year after Vice President .

And Democrats frustrated by Trump’s nevertheless accept the choice of the American voters. Even barreling down on the region wasn’t expected to interfere with Jan. 6, the day set by law to certify the vote.

“Whether we’re in a blizzard or not, we are going to be in that chamber making sure this is done,” House Speaker , a Republican who to overturn the 2020 election, said Sunday on Fox News Channel.

The day’s return to a U.S. tradition that launches the peaceful transfer of presidential power comes with an asterisk as Trump prepares to take office in two weeks with a revived sense of authority. He denies that he lost four years ago, muses about staying beyond the Constitution’s two-term White House limit and some of the who have pleaded guilty or were convicted of crimes for the Capitol siege.

What����ap unclear is if Jan. 6, 2021, was the anomaly, the year Americans violently attacked their own government, or if this year’s expected calm becomes the outlier. The U.S. is struggling to cope with its political and cultural differences at a time when . Trump calls Jan. 6, 2021, a “day of love.”

“We should not be lulled into complacency,” said Ian Bassin, executive director of the cross-ideological nonprofit Protect Democracy.

He and others have warned that it is historically unprecedented for U.S. voters to do what they did in November, reelecting Trump after he publicly refused to step aside last time. Returning to power an emboldened leader who has demonstrated his unwillingness to give it up “is an unprecedentedly dangerous move for a free country to voluntarily take,” Bassin said.

Biden, speaking Sunday at events at the White House, called Jan. 6, 2021, “one of the toughest days in American history.”

“We’ve got to get back to the basic, normal transfer of power,” the president said. What Trump did last time, Biden said, “was a genuine threat to democracy. I’m hopeful we’re beyond that now.”

Still, American democracy has proven to be resilient, and Congress, the branch of government closest to the people, will come together to affirm the choice of Americans.

With pomp and tradition, the day is expected to unfold as it has countless times before, with the arrival of ceremonial mahogany boxes filled with the electoral certificates from the states — boxes that staff were frantically grabbing and protecting as Trump’s mob stormed the building last time.

Senators will walk across the Capitol — which four years ago had filled with roaming rioters, some defecating and menacingly calling out for leaders, others engaging in hand-to-hand combat with police — to the House to begin certifying the vote.

Harris will preside over the counting, as is the requirement for the vice president, and certify her own defeat — much the way Democrat Al Gore did in 2001 and Republican Richard Nixon in 1961.

She will stand at the dais where then-Speaker was abruptly rushed to safety last time as the mob closed in and lawmakers fumbled to put on gas masks and flee, and shots rang out as police killed , a Trump supporter trying to climb through a broken glass door toward the chamber.

There are in place in the aftermath of what happened four years ago, when Republicans parroting Trump’s lie that the election was fraudulent challenged the results their own states had certified.

Under changes to the , it now requires one-fifth of lawmakers, instead of just one in each chamber, to raise any objections to election results. With security as tight as it is for the Super Bowl or the Olympics, law enforcement is on high alert for intruders. No tourists will be allowed.

But none of that is expected to be necessary.

Republicans, who met with Trump at the White House before Jan. 6, 2021, to craft a to challenge his election defeat, have accepted his win this time.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., who led the House floor challenge in 2021, said people at the time were so astonished by the election’s outcome and there were “lots of claims and allegations.”

This time, he said, “I think the win was so decisive…. It stifled most of that.”

Democrats, who have raised symbolic objections in the past, including during the disputed 2000 election that Gore lost to George W. Bush and ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, have no intention of objecting. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has said the Democratic Party is not “infested” with election denialism.

“There are no election deniers on our side of the aisle,” Jeffries said on the first day of the new Congress, to applause from Democrats in the chamber.

“You see, one should love America when you win and when you lose. That����ap the patriotic thing to do,” Jeffries said.

Last time, far-right militias helped lead the mob to break into the Capitol in a war-zone-like scene. Officers have described being crushed and pepper-sprayed and beaten with Trump flag poles,

Leaders of the and have been convicted of and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Many others faced prison, probation, home confinement or other penalties.

Those Republicans who engineered the legal challenges to Trump’s defeat still stand by their actions, celebrated in Trump circles, despite the grave costs to their personal and professional livelihoods.

Several including disbarred lawyer and and indicted-but-pardoned met over the weekend at Trump’s private club Mar-a-Lago estate for a film screening about the 2020 election.

Trump was impeached by the House on the charge of inciting an insurrection that day but was acquitted by the Senate. At the time, GOP leader Mitch McConnell blamed Trump for the siege but said his culpability was for the courts to decide.

Federal prosecutors subsequently issued a of Trump for working to overturn the election, including for conspiracy to defraud the United States, but special counsel Jack Smith was forced to pare back the case once the Supreme Court ruled that a president has for actions taken in office.

Smith last month withdrew the case after Trump won reelection, adhering to Justice Department guidelines that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted.

Biden, in one of his outgoing acts, awarded the to Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who had been the chair and vice chair of the congressional committee that conducted an investigation into Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump has said those who worked on the Jan. 6 committee should be .

___

Associated Press writers Fatima Hussein and Ashraf Khalil contributed to this report.

Re: “End of an era: Second Landmark movie theater to shutter,” Aug. 8 news story

Someone at Landmark Cinemas had the bone-headed idea of announcing Chez Artiste’s closure with one week’s notice. Did someone think that this was a courageous move? A rip-the-Band-Aid-off, gutsy decision? I disagree.

This was a heartless, insensitive, and disrespectful decision. They could have given the wonderful Chez Artiste staff and patrons much more notice. Why give several months’ notice for the recent closure of Landmark’s Esquire Theater but almost no notice for Chez Artiste?

I’m sure Chez Artiste has been losing money. I know that Landmark has to operate its business efficiently. And I know that the “old ways” of watching movies on a big screen are quickly fading. I also know that the Chez Artiste staff has always made us feel welcome. They know and love movies, and they see me, know me, and greet me (and many other patrons) by name. They provided a wonderful community for movie lovers like us and others throughout the Denver area.

I guess I’ll go to the Landmark Greenwood Village theaters (even though they rarely play art house films) and to the beautiful Mayan Theater. But I won’t cram myself into the Mayan’s barely functional, tiny upstairs theaters that feel like a punishment for handing over my hard-earned money.

Making decisions based solely on financial considerations isn’t always the kindest or smartest way to run a business. Thanks to Landmark Cinemas for diminishing the cultural standing of our city. Just call me a pissed-off art house movie fan.

Art Glover, Denver

One less reason to endure teeth-grinding anxiety on Interstate 25: the closing of Chez Artiste movie theater, a Denver icon, after 52 years. The Landmark managers figure that we can switch our viewing to Landmark Greenwood Village. Really? “Despicable Me” is considered alternative movie fare? Chez Artiste, Denver film lovers will miss you!

C. Greenman, Lakewood

Focusing our attention on the American hostages

Re: “Forgotten in Gaza?” Aug. 11 commentary

About the forgotten and dead U.S. citizens, I am ashamed of our current administration and our media for the lack of action for our fellow Americans. At least someone has the courage to write about it and ask the questions: Why is no one talking about this and why does no one care? If it was any one of the elite’s children over there, this would be finished, and they would be home. No one in journalism has any impact anymore. It is sad that we have lost one of the most important counterbalances in our democracy. Shame on you!!

Jule Taylor, Thornton

I seriously doubt Hamas thought its Oct. 7 attack in Israel would “bring Israel and the United States to its knees.”

More likely, it was to remind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel that the people of Palestine have the will to fight back against the repression of the decades-old Palestinian apartheid.

David Russell, Vancouver, B.C.

Doug Friednash is, understandably, worried about the five American hostages in Gaza. However, I will point out that negotiations in these situations are not usually conducted in public. Before the recent hostage exchange was announced with Russia, many people believed that nothing was being done to free those individuals. Attributing unpleasant motives to the administration without evidence seems unproductive at best.

Rose Gibbons, Denver

Preparing for continuing, relentless heat

Re: “Spend the rest of this summer preparing your landscape for next year’s heat,” Aug. 11 commentary, and “100-degree sizzlers here to stay as summers get hotter,” Aug. 11 news story

Now that global warming deniers have been proven wrong, I’m curious how conservatives will respond. I don’t know Krista Kafer’s personal feelings about the science of climate change, but when she worked at the Heritage Foundation (per her Denver Post bio) she must have been intimately associated with people who created and promoted policies that ignored the problem and rebuffed any attempt at mitigation.

Kafer, do you and your ilk feel any obligation to “own it” and concede that conservatives took a stand, often without scientific expertise, against recognition of the fact that humans are modifying our climate? Will you admit that conservatives were wrong to do so and that scientists were correct? Do you think continuing to deny the existence of human-induced climate change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is the proper course of action?

Perhaps writing a helpful newspaper column about replanting one’s yard with grasses adapted to 100-degree summer days, now that these are the norm in Colorado, is enough? As one who has believed and supported scientists and has consistently backed climate solutions at the community, state, and national levels, I’m angry with those who blocked us at every turn. What level of accountability, apology or remorse do they feel is owed?

Ian Baker, Fort Collins

RFK Jr. brings more conspiracy, not optimism

Re: “Cheering on the ‘third’ candidate for president,” Aug. 11 letters to the editor

Recently, two letters expressed the writer’s support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for president. One stated that Kennedy gave them “a renewed sense of optimism” and suggested that people vote for someone “who inspires them and makes them excited about what is to come.” If they truly desire a hopeful future, the wise choice would be to vote for the Harris/Walz ticket. We all know that Kennedy cannot win and “what is to come” with a Trump/Vance/Project 2025 win is a dark and fearful future for our nation. Vote for Kennedy to soothe your own conscience if you desire, but votes not supporting the Democrats put America in danger of a second disastrous Trump administration. To quote the second letter writer, “Here’s hoping America will vote on hope not fear!”

JM Jesse, Glenwood Springs

In response to the citizens writing to endorse Robert F. Kennedy Jr., I would encourage them to research his stance on important issues. Confidently, he addresses many of the problems that concern us — for instance, mass shootings. Kennedy claims psychiatric drugs cause mass shootings, while countries like Switzerland have as many guns as we do and do not experience the mass shootings that we do. Really? Prozac came out in 1988, and yet there were mass shootings before that.  Guns?  Our country leads the world in firearms ownership by far and four times that of Switzerland. Experts have found that there is no connection between psychiatric drugs and mass shooters. There is not enough space here to address the multitude of false data to which RFK Jr adheres. I urge readers to fact-check Kennedy using peer-reviewed sources, not just podcasts or social media.  Finally, remember that RFK Jr. rebuked Ralph Nader for running a third-party spoiler against Al Gore in 2000. The votes that Nader took away from Gore helped George Bush win the election and got us into an endless quagmire in the Middle East. Think about it.

Robert Nyboer, Longmont

RFK Jr can’t even get his own family to endorse his campaign. His anti-vaccine position would put our whole country in danger. COVID killed far too many people because of false claims by him and many Republicans. Vaccination rates are dropping among young children, and diseases that we thought were eradicated, like measles, are coming back.
Donald Trump and JD Vance are being labeled as weird and Project 2025 should scare every American. We don’t need another spreader of conspiracy theories on the ballot in Colorado. The Republicans have that covered and RFK Jr would only make it worse.

Be grateful that Joe Biden put our country first and stepped aside. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are the best things to happen to the Democratic Party since Barack Obama and represent the best chance of beating back the dystopian view that Republicans share about the future of our country. Conversely, the Democrats offer a future of hope and prosperity, which is desperately needed for the next generation of people in this country.

David Shaw, Highlands Ranch

Conservative support for Harris/Walz

“Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.  And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” — .

I have been a member of the Grand Old Party and have voted Republican from 1984 through 2016. My Party has been hijacked by a party of narcissists stealing the mantle of Lincoln, Reagan, and the great Senator from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith. I have joined with former U.S. Reps. Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney and Joe Walsh, and at least 60,000 other Republicans with whom I participated in an Tuesday night to prevent the ascension of a dictatorial regime which could well make all parties irrelevant, and will be voting Harris-Walz. Country over Party! If you are a disillusioned Republican, know that you are not alone and have a great number of colleagues who are going to take the brave step to vote for a Democrat.

It’s hard to cross the line, and I am only doing so to save the integrity of the GOP and a robust 2-party system that existed through the 20th Century.

Although I may profoundly differ on the Harris-Walz platform in a number of ways, the only issue important to me today is the preservation of our great Republic, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Former President Donald Trump has thumbed his nose at all of these pillars of the American social contract.

Fellow elephants, for the sake of the future of the GOP, join me! In doing so, we will live to fight another day.

Matthew S. Finberg, Broomfield

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Re: “The Colorado GOP wall of shame is a list of honorable Republicans,” March 17 commentary

Although I admittedly don’t share the same party affiliation as Krista Kafer, I felt compelled to write to commend her for the courage she has been demonstrating throughout the past several months regarding the current political situation.

Her op-ed on Sunday was very well-written and well-researched, and she confronted a number of issues that should be deeply troubling to many of us, regardless of political affiliation. The latest pronouncements by Donald Trump should put everyone on high alert for what could happen if a second Trump presidency were to actually occur. Krista’s voice of concern and caution should not be confused with being a RINO. Rather, it is a demonstration of real patriotism.

Krista has faced disparagement from members of her party for her opinions, and she mentioned that outrageous epithets like “traitor” have been used against fellow Republicans who have been so unfairly labeled as “RINOs.” Make no mistake about it: We have entered a dangerous period in American politics, and we must, like Kafer, speak out with clarity, courage, and strength if we want to preserve the democracy that we claim to so love and cherish.

Jean C. Lindsey, Denver

Why does Krista Kafer persist with her quixotic belief that the RINOs will be able to return the Republican Party to something resembling its former self? The primaries have demonstrated that the GOP is the party of Trump, by Trump and for Trump. Only those who demonstrate unquestioning idolatry are worthy acolytes.

From the people who still claim the title of “Republican,” one will often hear that while they do not like Trump, they like his policies. This means they are in favor of tax cuts for the rich, higher deficits, more debt, isolationism, and, in the words of Kafer, are untroubled by “epic dishonesty, moral cowardice,” and “counterfeit religion.”

It sounds like the Republican Party has left Kafer. She and other Republicans like her should take the hint and change their registration to “independent.” Of course, if “moderate” Republicans leave the GOP, the power of the Trumpists will be entrenched. But if it’s no longer your party, why stay?

Guy Wroble, Denver

Thanks to Krista Kafer for sorting out Trump’s MAGAs (Make America Great Again), and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Actually, Kafer shows many of the current MAGA policies, but not methods, are former liberal RINO policies. And the current RINOs are the problem-solving and all people’s conservative Republican Party of Lincoln. It no longer exists in Colorado. Nor in the nation, with Eric Trump’s wife now its new national vice-chair.

The only Republican organization left in our state is the Lincoln Club of Colorado, which has been here for over 100 years.

Disaffected or disengaged Republicans and former RINOs probably outnumber active, organized current MAGA RINOs. Like Liz Cheney, we may have to show ourselves at the polls with President Joe Biden. Our vote will prioritize saving the American way, values, civil discourse, and the Constitution’s highest political power that so many have fought and died for, ahead of policies that can be changed with a shift in administration and Congress.

Mary Estill Buchanan, Boulder

Editor’s note: Estill Buchanan is a former Republican two-term.Secretary of State; elected U.S. Senate nominee.

Thank you, Krista Kafer, for providing a true North Star for those who adhere to the Republican Party’s philosophy.

For the others who have lost their way in the feckless wilderness of Trumpism, may you take a deep breath and remember what it means to be an honorable Republican.

And Bravo to Kafer for presenting to us her well-wrought skills as a political cartoonist! She is a Renaissance woman!

Evan Siegel, Westminster

Speaking of Ken Buck …

Krista Kafer calls herself an honorable Republican, but all she has done as a Denver Post columnist is denigrate Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, and the Colorado GOP, and she less frequently is writing about the disastrous policies of the Biden administration or the two-tiered justice system and federal bureaucracy weaponized against conservatives and Donald Trump’s candidacy. She tried to prevent the more than 500,000 Coloradans who voted for Donald Trump in the Republican primary from being able to make that choice.

I will comment on one “honorable” Republican she lists. Rep. Ken Buck used to be a conservative hero. But he inexplicably decided against voting for the impeachment of Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, whose actions to implement Biden’s open border policy have done nothing but undermine our national security. Buck is also walking away from his U.S. House seat, leaving it unfilled for months and making a slim Republican majority in the House even slimmer because he can’t have his way. He is denying representation in Congress to his constituents who elected him.

Kafer claims to support lower taxes, a leaner government, a balanced budget, American world leadership, entrepreneurship, natural rights, the rule of law, personal responsibility, honesty, dignity, and optimism, which conservative Republicans stand for. However, as evidenced by current Biden administration policies, she will not see these things in a second Biden administration, which she is, in effect, endorsing.

Steve Lloyd, Cheyenne, Wyo.

What about a presidential ticket of Ken Buck and Liz Cheney to reinstate civility in Washington?

Bill Campbell, Arvada

Re: “Buck to step down,” March 13 news story

The article states that Ken Buck “indicated, without offering specifics, that he hopes to play a role more broadly in improving electoral politics in the U.S.”

U.S. Representative Ken Buck would do well by joining the movement of improving politics through the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in state and federal elections. In Alaska and Maine, which have implemented RCV statewide, the result is representatives that better represent their constituents, don’t need to cater to the polarized extremes in their parties, and have campaigns that are less cantankerous.

The job of a legislator is to represent all constituent voters and to bring a broad spectrum of ideas to the table. Single-party legislatures, like those in blue Massachusetts or red Wyoming, are known for orthodoxy rather than looking at things from different angles. Most Americans on either side agree on some fundamental principles and solutions that would make our nation work better. However, polarization from extreme elements of a party prevents working together and compromise. Compromise can cause a reasonable legislator to be “primaried” by that extreme element in their party.

The USA is operating on democracy version 1.0. We can improve our democracy through RCV.

Thomas G. Alley, Broomfield

In suddenly stepping away from Congress, Ken Buck has displayed his utter frustration and anger at the radical turn of the Republican Party, now so deeply enthralled with Donald Trump. Local conservative voices, such as Krista Kafer’s, have also expressed particular dismay at the joining of Colorado Republicans to Trump’s wildest claims. They see the Party as having gone off the rails. This is no guarantee that they will vote Democratic, but it does reveal a sizeable dent in the Republican Party structure.

Robert Porath, Boulder

Give victims more time to come forward

Re: “Child sex abuse: No time-limit for justice,” March 17 commentary

Thank you to Jill Brogdon for her excellent article in last Sunday’s Perspective. The stakes are huge. We need to give survivors time to heal and seek justice. Otherwise, our institutions will rot from within. Their crimes against children have a huge impact, and institutions won’t clean up their acts unless they see that they could be held accountable.

For a better society, give victims more time to tell the truth about what goes on in some institutions of learning or religion.

Joanne Hafer, Cañon City

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Buck’s early departure at first blush seems carefully calculated to keep Lauren Boebert from becoming his successor in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District on the eastern plains. She landed in the district as a carpetbagger after almost losing to a Democrat in Colorado’s 3rd District on the Western Slope two years ago.

The evidence of such motive would be Buck’s criticism of election deniers — of which Boebert is most assuredly one — and this tweet after the 2022 State of the Union calling Boebert a “joker” after she heckled President Joe Biden:

TGIF…

— Rep. Ken Buck (@RepKenBuck)

Whether this truly is a blow to Boebert depends on what voters in CD4 make of the confusing ballots they will receive on June 25 for both the Republican primary and a general special election. Boebert has said she won’t seek the nomination of the CD4 Republican Central Committee to appear on the ballot for the special election, but she is still in the running for the primary. Who the Republican Central Committee selects will likely get a bump in the primary as his or her name will appear alone with a Democrat for the special election. Would voters be predisposed to vote for the same Republican candidate on both for the sake of continuity? Maybe. In a way it’s almost like having a Central Committee endorsement get sent out with the primary ballots.

So, did Buck leave just to make things harder for Boebert? Far more likely is that this is one of Buck’s classic moves of “protest.” Much like when he supported the first ouster of a sitting speaker of the House, Buck’s decision to resign early is purely a wrench in the gears of a system he has railed against since first taking office and writing a tell-all book “Drain the Swamp,” exposing the dirty side of perpetual fundraising and glad-handing by representatives.

Buck’s protest votes often come with high-minded words but, ironically, sometimes work in the opposite direction he intends.

When he voted to oust House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, he said it was because McCarthy cut deals with Democrats that increased the unsustainable deficit in this country. That vote, however, helped put in power someone in cahoots with President Donald Trump, who was part of the scheme to keep Trump in office after he lost the 2020 election. Buck had previously said he would not support an election denier for the role … but here we are, several months into Speaker Mike Johnson’s rule.

Buck voted against the impeachments of Trump — even as he condemned Jan. 6 and called for justice against the Capitol’s attackers — because “This botched impeachment only fans the flames of an already out of control fire. Furthermore, we must open an investigation and hold congressional hearings to determine culpability.”

But where was Buck during the hearings run by Rep. Liz Cheney? He said leadership didn’t want him on the committee. And sure, he opposed the vote to oust her from leadership within the House, but he testified against her diligent work on the Jan. 6 Committee during the Colorado trial to label Trump as an insurrectionist unqualified to be president.

“It didn’t seem to me that the process was set up in a way that would elicit the whole truth in those hearings,” Buck said in court, giving credence to Trump’s lawyers as they attempted to discredit the damning report.

Does Buck believe what’s in the report or doesn’t he?

He believes it. He released a video in early November when he announced he would not seek re-election to a sixth term, calling out Republicans who were attempting to undermine the convictions of Jan. 6 attackers.

“Republican leaders are lying to America, claiming that the 2020 election was stolen, describing January 6 as an unguided tour of the Capitol, and asserting that the ensuing prosecutions are a weaponization of our justice system … These insidious narratives breed widespread cynicism and erode Americans confidence in the rule of law,” he said in the video.

Confused yet?

Buck railed against the ridiculous attempt to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, calling it an abuse of procedural processes over policy, not impeachable offenses, but then turned around and introduced a resolution calling for Biden’s cabinet to remove him using the 25th Amendment based on the report by Special Counsel Robert Hur questioning Biden’s mental fitness.

So, how will the history books classify U.S. Rep. Ken Buck? Is he more like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, speaking truth to power as he fights back against Donald Trump’s big lie? Or is he more like Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell, blowing whichever way the winds of Trump’s fortunes seem to be faring with a shameless lack of principle and fortitude?

I do think Buck is trying to do the right thing. He’s vacillating between worlds where he is gravely concerned about the possibility of America’s collapse under $33 trillion of debt and where he fears America’s collapse under Trump’s ongoing assault on our republic, our democracy and our Constitution.

Wherever he lands after his resignation, I hope he’ll continue to use his voice to sound warning bells about the fiscal cliff America is rapidly rushing toward and the grave threat Trump’s brand of extremism poses to this country.

It’ll be easier to do both simultaneously while not worried about re-election.

Megan Schrader is the editor of The Denver Post opinion pages.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Buck, for his part, earned their wrath because he would rather focus on issues that matter to voters in his district like inflation, southern border security, and crime, rather than embrace and evangelize their fantasy political sideshow.

Strike one: Buck, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, doesn’t believe the House has produced any evidence that Biden profited off his son’s foreign deals and has called the timeline for an impeachment inquiry absurd as he has seen no evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor. and Chief of the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office, but that is not a detail true believers respect — they only value blind allegiance. Buck is refusing to get in the party line on this issue telling an editor with the Daily Beast that “it’s crazy” to assume Democrats will help Republicans with critical spending bills that need to be passed in the coming days if the impeachment inquiry goes forward.

Strike two: In December of 2020, Buck, along with 125 of his other Republican colleagues signed onto an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania, a lawsuit contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which the Supreme Court declined to hear on the basis that Texas lacked standing to challenge the results of another state.  Buck, however, voted to certify the 2020 election results and was not one of the 147 House Republicans who objected.

Strike three: In a 4-page letter Buck eviscerated the inane claims made by El Paso County Republican Party Vice Chairman Todd Watkins that the January 6th defendants have been grossly mistreated and abused by our legal system.  Watkins’ letter refers to America as a “despotic, tyrannical, banana republic”. Buck’s detailed point-by-point response, correctly notes that Watkins’ letter “makes a number of factually incorrect claims, and then proceeds to overstate the threat to our Republic based on these false claims.”

If the Republican party continues to put extreme candidates on the ballot who are out of step with Colorado values and priorities, they will continue to lose traction in this state and will lose seats like his to moderate Democratic candidates. In 2024, a Trump-led Republican party will trigger another Colorado avalanche that will wipe out what����ap left of the Colorado Republican party if they don’t begin to push back and find stronger mainstream candidates that are focused on issues that matter and not bird-brained conspiracy theories that are devoid of facts.

But it turns out that speaking the truth and having integrity — even if you are one of its most conservative members — is a dangerous place to be in the Republican Party today as they will not hesitate to eat their own if they don’t participate in their Kabuki theater.

Just ask Former Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney. Like Cheney, Colorado Congressman Ken Buck has an impeccable conservative record.

Cheney, once the third-ranking Republican in the House and highest-ranking woman in GOP leadership, was stripped of her leadership position because of her stance on the Capitol riot, her vote to impeach Trump and her opposition to Trump’s Big Lie about the outcome of the 2020 election. She was then challenged in a Republican primary and lost her seat.

Buck is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, an ultra-conservative group of Republican members of Congress.  His voting record authenticates his core conservative values. The Conservative Political Action Committee’s rankings for conservative voting records gave him the 2022 Award for Conservative Excellence for a 90% or higher ranking. Heritage Action for America, which fights for conservative policies in Washington DC, gave Buck a 99% lifetime score. And, he wasn’t anti-Trump. Buck voted with President Trump’s position 87% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.

But like Cheney, Buck now faces retaliation for following his constitutional oath.

There are now widespread media reports that there is a serious effort to find a suitably extreme Republican candidate to mount a primary challenge against Buck. And, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene claims there is an “unbelievable” level of frustration with Buck amongst the House Republican conference. and she doesn’t think he should serve on the Judiciary panel or the GOP whip’s team.

However, Colorado, is not Wyoming and the play won’t work. Colorado Democrats will not pass up a chance to take this seat if Republicans replace Buck and nominate an off-putting, far-right fringe candidate.

Colorado once a Republican stronghold and then a true purple state, is now a deep blue state. Every statewide elected office is held by a Democrat. Democrats have a supermajority in the state House of Representatives, 46-19, and a majority in the Senate, 23-12. Five of the eight congressional districts are controlled by Democrats. Of the three Republican districts, Rep. Lauren Boebert barely beat newcomer Democrat Adam Frisch by 546 votes in a plus 9 district in large part because of her unbridled support for Trump. It’s not far-fetched to see how the Republicans could lose this seat too.

Conservatives like Ken Buck are critical to making our two-party system viable. His speaking out reflects common values like integrity, honesty and the courage to call out falsehoods when they are plainly visible. That����ap the Colorado way.

Doug Friednash grew up in Denver and is a partner with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck. He is the former chief of staff for Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Smoke taint is what happens when grapes growing close to wildfires absorb compounds released by burning wood. The affected grapes taste fine but later on, when the cork is popped the wine tastes burnt. Dirty ashtray notes don’t pair well so the wine must be discarded.

Likewise, although Donald Trump is out of office and will never live in the White House again, his pernicious influence lingers in the conservative movement like smoke phenols in fruit. It must be thrown out if conservatives ever want to be successful in this state again.

Overall featured quality speakers including two 2024 presidential hopefuls, representatives from noteworthy national conservative organizations, and three of Colorado’s representatives in Congress. Had I been there, I would have enjoyed hearing Seth Dillion, whose Babylon Bee satire site makes me chuckle; Kristen Waggoner, CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, a law practice that defends First Amendment rights; and Riley Gaines, former Division I swimmer who is taking a stand for women in sports.

The event was not the Trump fest it has been in the past. Nevertheless, I was dismayed to see that former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis took the stage. She has been publically censured for making false statements about the election. At the summit, Ellis, along with Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, defended the former president who has been charged with willfully taking classified documents and obstructing efforts to secure their return. Their “Democrats got away with it, so he should, too” reasoning is problematic at a Christian forum.

The event also featured Wyoming Congresswoman Harriet Hageman whose only accomplishment has been to unseat Liz Cheney a leader who dared criticize Trump’s complicity in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, Dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners whose attacks on moderate Republicans helped usher in the party’s minority status, and Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen vigilante whose reckless stupidity is the antithesis of responsible gun ownership. While a minority of speakers, these individuals risk burning the credibility of the Centennial Institute.

Evidence of Trump taint was also in the summit����ap straw poll. Trump beat out Florida Governor Ron DeSantis 40.3% to 35.8% for the top place. The good news is that only 40% of participants picked Trump. The bad news is that 40% of participants picked Trump. The man can’t win the 2024 presidential election, even from jail.

Those of us who once held our noses and voted for a cretinous liar who supported some good policies and judicial nominees will not vote for a cretinous liar who tried to steal an election and fomented an attack on the Capitol. Our standards are low but not that low. Believing Trump can beat even an unpopular, addled octogenarian is pure folly. Anything that conservative movement leaders do that contributes to the illusion of Trump’s innocence or his ability to win an election is bad for conservatives. It����ap blowing smoke.

The Centennial Institute plays an important role in educating members about the importance of the U.S. Constitution, parents’ rights in education, religious liberty, the right to life, women’s right of association in sports and personal spaces, and other issues.

It is distinctive from other conservative and libertarian think tanks and organizations in its faith-based and socially conservative character. Its annual summit is something many conservatives value. The think tank would do well to jettison its Trump association before Trump taints its efforts to influence the direction of the West.

Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

In a commencement speech at Colorado College, the Wyoming Republican repeated her fierce criticisms of Trump but steered clear of talking about his 2024 reelection campaign or her own political future.

Cheney, who graduated from Colorado College in 1988, recalled being a political science student walking into a campus building where a Bible verse was inscribed above the entrance that read, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

“After the 2020 election and the attack of January 6th, my fellow Republicans wanted me to lie. They wanted me to say the 2020 election was stolen, the attack of January 6th wasn’t a big deal, and Donald Trump wasn’t dangerous,” Cheney said Sunday in Colorado Springs, connecting her experiences as a student to her work in the U.S. House of Representatives. “I had to choose between lying and losing my position in House leadership.”

In three terms in office, Cheney rose to the No. 3 GOP leadership position in the House, a job she lost after voting to impeach Trump for the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol and then not relenting in her criticism of the former president.

Cheney’s speech touched on themessimilar to those she has promoted since leaving office in January: addressing her work on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and standing up to the threat she believes Trump poses to democracy. She also encouraged more women to run for office and blasted one of the election-denying attorneys who worked for Trump after the 2020 election for recent remarks about college students voting.

“ Cleta Mitchell, an election denier and adviser to former President Trump, told a gathering of Republicans recently that it is crucially important to make sure that college students don’t vote,” Cheney said. “Those who are trying to unravel the foundations of our republic, who are threatening the rule of law and the sanctity of our elections, know they can’t succeed if you vote.”

In an audio recording of Mitchell’s presentation from a recent Republican National Committee retreat, she warns of polling places on college campuses and the ease of voting as potential problems, the Washington Post reported.

Most students and parents in the audience applauded throughout Cheney’s remarks, yet some booed. Some students opposing the choice of Cheney as speaker turned their chairs away from the stage as she spoke.

Cheney’s busy speaking schedule and subject matter have fueled speculation about whether she may enter the 2024 GOP presidential primary since she left office. Candidates ranging from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley have calibrated their remarks about Trump, aiming to counter his attacks without alienating the supporters that won him the White House seven years ago.

Though some have offered measured criticisms, no declared or potential challenger has embraced anti-Trump messaging to the same extent as Cheney. She did not reference her plans on Sunday but has previously said she remains undecided about whether she wants to run for president.

Though she would face an uphill battle, Cheney’s fierce anti-Trump stance and her role as vice chairwoman of the House committee elevated her platform high enough to call on a national network of donors and Trump critics to support a White House run.

A super PAC organized to support of her candidacy has remained active, including purchasing attack ads on New Hampshire airwaves against Trump this month.

After leaving office and being replaced by a Trump-backed Republican who defeated her in last year’s primary, Cheney was appointed to a professorship at the University of Virginia and wrote “Oath and Honor,” a memoir scheduled to hit shelves in November.

Two of Cheney’s five children as well as her mother are also graduates of the liberal arts college.

Cheney’s speaking tour appears to be picking up. She is scheduled to appear Thursday at the Mackinac Policy Conference in Michigan.

Metz reported from Salt Lake City.

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

Re: “All that is right with that Griswold, Williams ad,” Aug. 21 editorial

While The Denver Post editorial board covered all that was right with the Jena Griswold, Wayne Williams election misinformation ad, it turned a blind eye to all that was egregiously wrong with it. When Griswold burned through $2.8 million in publicly-funded TV ads featuring herself in 2020, the blowback against the Democratic secretary of state was fairly light.

Fast forward to 2022, when Griswold spent another $1.2 million in federal money on an ad that boosted her ID before her November re-election. This time she appeared with Wayne Williams, her predecessor, to warn against misinformation.

The Post editorial board thinks that����ap a good thing. But the ad should come from campaign dollars and not federal money earmarked for improving elections.

That ad is not going to sway anyone. Believers of the Big Lie aren’t interested in facts about safe and secure elections.

In 2012, then-Secretary of State Scott Gessler ran TV spots encouraging Coloradans to register to vote. The Denver Post supported Gessler’s message but warned, “As a rule, we’re not crazy about politicians using public money for ads that burnish their appeal — even for bipartisan, good-government causes such as voter registration — but at least Gessler doesn’t try to hog the stage.”

When I served on the Denver City Council, The Post would never have turned such a blind eye to self-promotion billed to the taxpayer. Hopefully, Coloradans won’t be so easily fooled this November.

Susan Barnes-Gelt, Denver

Editor’s note: Barnes-Gelt served on the Denver City Council from 1995-2003.

Hats off to Jena Griswold and Wayne Williams! For a Democrat and a Republican to appear together in a TV spot to serve the Colorado electorate with a timely message about the safety of the state’s elections, is more than heartwarming. It is a giant leap in the right direction.

In this day of dirty, destructive partisan politics, to watch two politicians rise above that to serve the people of this state is an affirmation of what politics is supposed to be about. Thank you, Griswold and Williams, for so clearly pointing that out.

Elizabeth Moffatt, Denver

How to best support students in Adams 14 schools

Re: “Students in Commerce City need community schools,” Aug. 21 commentary

Amie Baca-Oehlert was correct in her commentary. For children to succeed in this world, they need much support, starting with basic needs such as shelter, safety, food, clothing, and health care. Students then need caring adults who can help support them both in and out of school. Only then can learning take place when basic needs are met.

A community school does just that. It helps to meet basic needs. The more we invest in our young children, the better the education outcome.

We also cannot ask students who are learning English to be taking the same tests as those who grew up speaking English. We must even the playing field before we can even begin to compare students on state exams. It is time to step up for our children in the U. S. and provide the much-needed resources in Title 1 schools so that all our children can succeed. They are our future.

Beth Michieli-Grote, Broomfield

Amie Baca-Oehlert has the answer for Adams 14 District students in a recent op-ed piece. Sadly, but as expected, this union representative won’t use the word “accountability” to leadership in her prescription. I think her answer is “more money,” which has been proven time and time again to be the false narrative from union representatives. The real issue is holding teachers and principals accountable by removing them from the school or classroom if they are unable to effectively improve the performance of their students over time. No union representative would dare suggest that even if, in the end, that is required to solve the shortcomings of current public education.

Craig Bakken, Golden

The cost of ozone-reducing gas is worth it

Re: “Special gas to cost more,” Aug. 21 news story

Your article relating to using oxygenate in gasoline to reduce ozone along the front range contained the standard scare tactic from the oil industry: a person who said that it wasn’t the time to raise gas prices (as if it ever is), and comments from a spokesperson for our governor who apparently considers it better for his reelection campaign to save people money instead of improving the quality of air that they breath.

The governor also holds out the prospect that more zero-emission vehicles would fix the problem without having to resort to reformulated gasoline. So governor, what percentage of vehicles on the front range would need to be zero-emission to have the same effect as the treated gasoline?

The EPA doesn’t make up the goals for pollution reduction, pardon the pun, out of thin air.

Why did you not tell us how many lives would be saved or how much health care costs would be reduced through the use of special gas? The broader point is that humans have been dumping their garbage into the air for too long. And yes, it will now cost money to clean it up.

Guy Wroble, Denver

Approaches to water shortages, climate change

Re: “Colorado River: Upper-, lower-basin states each want other to make first move,” Aug. 21 news story

Thank you for your in-depth article on the Colorado River. It was well written and explained the complexity. We, of course, are hearing a lot about inflation and some try to blame President Joe Biden even though the oil and gas industry is raking in billions of dollars in profits.

Many cattle have died in Kansas and elsewhere from heat and stress. The drought already has caused farmers and ranchers to reduce the acres of crops and sell off cattle to survive. This results in less food and increases in prices, which are about to get worse. So those politicians who ignore and/or deny climate change, another big lie to their list, are at least in part responsible for inflation.

It would be interesting to see how much in campaign funds they receive to ignore climate change.

If I didn’t want my home or business, or crops and cattle lost from drought, floods, wildfires, or other climate change issues, I would sure look to vote for someone who addresses these issues truthfully, no matter their party affiliation.

Wayne Wathen, Highlands Ranch

Re: “Feds impose deeper water cuts amid drought, overuse,” Aug. 17 news story

The front-page story was especially alarming. Drought. Climate change. Natural habitat. They have a common contributing cause: Overpopulation.

With all the ingenious engineering ideas that have been implemented for managing these problems, the most important thing we can do is to control our population growth. A scientific article entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals” by Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax in the journal, Global Environmental Change (2009), has made this clear. If we do all the other good things that environmentalists and engineers recommend for controlling our environmental problems but let world population grow uncontrollably, the damage to our water and air resources will still continue to worsen. Therefore, it is crucial to develop human population targets in our country and across the world.

Further, the world would likely need population targets for trees as well so that forest land can increase to a level that will continue to sustain the environment.

Although the population problem in our country is not as serious as in many other countries, the U.S. can set an example with goals and tax incentives that specifically address it.

Theodore Vorburger, Highlands Ranch

Putting money in the hands of the helpers

Re: “Give to charity, not panhandlers,” Aug. 21 commentary

I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve agreed with Post columnist Krista Kafer, but her support of Aurora’s resolution to encourage folks to give to organizations rather than panhandlers is right on the money.

This is the same reasoning that
led our family to split our entire TABOR refund between Urban Peak, Step Denver and The Action Center; just three of many local organizations with proven track records helping people who are ready to help themselves overcome homelessness, addiction and
poverty.

R. Norman, Wheat Ridge

Heartbroken over killing of bear and her cubs

Re: “Momma bear, four cubs put down after breaking into Five Trees home in Aspen,” Aug. 25 news story

I am at a loss for words about the euthanizing of a mother bear and her cubs.

Why, oh why, if no one was harmed and she was not disturbing anyone, why would authorities put them all down? It absolutely breaks my heart.

Something should’ve been done to relocate them; this is horrific! My heart is aching and my tears are falling.

Karen Clark, Lakewood

I’m a gay grandfather, and I am not unmentionable

Re: “Debate on what to teach in state,” July 17 news story

I’m a retired, married, grandpa living quietly in semi-rural Douglas County tending my tomatoes, abiding all the laws and getting along fine with all my neighbors.

I am also gay.

It����ap 2022, I’m neither a threat to anyone nor about to go back into the closet because some homophobic biddies on some state board of education are afraid my existence can’t be safely acknowledged to children.

Hogwash — my own grandchildren had no problem with knowing I’m gay from the get-go.

We’re not talking sex education here.

I’ll suggest it����ap the board members’ own prejudices and ignorant fears that makes them want me to be an “unmentionable.”

Please knock it off. We hardly want our children to grow up with the same prejudices we did.

Richard Opler, Parker

Did Trump follow the rules of declassification?

Re: “Same rules should apply to Trump as to Clinton,” Aug. 21 letter to the editor

In brief response to a letter writer, there is a procedure for declassifying documents.

It can be found at Executive Order 13,526.

The order establishes the process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified by the president while he holds his office.

After Jan. 20, 2021, President Donald Trump no longer had the power to declassify anything.

More to the point, he was not the owner of the documents he took.

We are.

He worked for us.

James Fiest, Manchester, N.H.

A letter to the editor expressed a theory about our government, to the effect that “only one person in the executive branch — the president — has any power.” Judging from the tone of the letter, I received the impression that the president����ap authority is absolute.

That theory is wrong. The Constitution was designed specifically to prevent absolute power being invested in any single person.

The laws, rules and common practices that have developed in the past 250 years indicate that the president can direct classifications to be altered.

But those same rules and common practices dictate that he accomplishes that process through appropriate channels.

That is done to promote a record of transparency and integrity on the part of our political leaders.

Rehashing the litigation and decisions about Hillary Clinton from more than six years ago does not change the facts about former President Donald Trump’s behavior.

The various current investigations are based on credible accusations that he violated various laws. No citizen, not even the president, should be able to use his office to conceal wrongdoing.

Greg Fedorchuk, Lakewood

CU can protect its students from sexual assault

Just days before fall classes began, University of Colorado students received notification of a sexual assault in a dormitory. Alcohol-drenched frat parties, a known breeding ground for sexual assaults, are about to begin. According to the American Association of Universities, 25% of female students will be assaulted sexually. This is a serious and widespread issue impacting the physical, mental and emotional health of students. In short, an epidemic.

Epidemics require a well-coordinated approach with education, buy-in and accountability at all levels, with funding to match. COVID-19 proved that CU could address epidemics. But will CU ever acknowledge the likelihood that more than 4,000 of its students will be sexually assaulted? And will it ever devise, fund and implement a comprehensive plan to address this public health threat?

In an open forum on the Boulder campus last semester, in response to a question asked by my daughter about fraternities and sexual assault, CU President Todd Saliman stated he took sexual assault seriously. Yet, months later, there still is no comprehensive, well-funded plan to prevent the thousands of devastating sexual assaults that are likely to occur.

Is this failure the result of having yet another male president? Is it because he, like all the other presidents save one, will never know what it is like to live with the knowledge that you have a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted as part of the CU community? What a devastating result of long-standing sexism.

Carol W. Napier, Arvada

A forgiveness mistake

Re: “Is Biden’s student loan forgiveness fair?” Aug. 25 commentary

Please! Justify how because bad financial decisions have been made in the past, we should proceed to make another one again.

I didn’t co-sign on to any loan to be responsible for its payment if the taker fails to comply with repayment requirements.

Bad policy decisions on top of bad policy decisions do not make this idea “good.” Bah! Humbug!

Douglas M Monsoor, Spring Hill, Fla.

The logic behind your editorial regarding Biden’s forgiveness of student loan debt is incredible — literally.

Because you believe money has been doled out to private enterprises in the past, even though you say: “Yes, the justification for the bailouts was sound,” it����ap OK to dole out $300 billion to forgive student debt.

Further, you state, “Government is in the business of picking winners and losers.” Really? Is that the function of our government, for which we pay tax dollars?

The students who took out student loans signed a promise to pay. Now we’re telling them they really don’t have to. Are we teaching these students the value of integrity and honoring one’s obligations?

Forgiving these student loan debts is nothing other than an unadulterated attempt to buy votes. The logic used in justifying it is just as unadulterated — we’ve used taxpayer dollars in the past, so let����ap use them to buy votes. Incredible, indeed!

John Griggs, Evergreen

Police shooting downtown will leave scars seen and unseen

Re: “LoDo police shooting: Body cam video released,” Aug. 18 news story

Police violence is gun violence. This isn’t just a hashtag but a statement of the real trauma and harm to people and the community.

On July 17, Denver police shot into a crowd of people in Lower Downtown, wounding six bystanders. According to some definitions, this qualifies as a mass shooting. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, “research makes it clear that Colorado in particular is severely impacted by fatal police shootings.” We are one of the five states with the highest rate of fatal police shootings in the country, according to the organization. Its research also shows that Black people in the U.S. are nearly three times more likely to be shot and killed by police than white people.

In 2020, Colorado passed legislation in the wake of — and less than a month after — the murder of George Floyd, removing qualified immunity as a defense in actions against law enforcement for misconduct. Yet the instances of police violence and gun violence in Colorado over the past month have highlighted the need for further action to protect communities from gun violence.

The injury, pain and trauma of the survivors from the downtown shooting do not fade with the headlines, and they will live with the impact for the rest of their lives. In the complex landscape of gun violence, we must include police gun violence in the conversation to achieve the ambitious goal of ending gun violence and ensuring safety for all communities.

Abbey Winter, Denver

Editor’s note: Winter is the leader of the Colorado chapter of Moms Demand Action.

Mixed feelings on Cheney

Wyoming is home to a national heroine, Congresswoman Liz Cheney.

Wyoming is also home to a lot of sheep, not all of the four-legged variety. Bah-bah-bah humbug to the Trumpist Republican Party of Wyoming.

Allan Ferguson, Denver

Re: “The Cheney legacy,” Aug. 24 letter to the editor

In response to the letter writer’s question regarding Liz Cheney and Donald Trump: “Aren’t there far more pressing issues facing our nation that should be immediately addressed?” The answer is no.

There is no far more pressing issue facing our nation than the preservation of our democracy. And the key to that is making sure Trump never serves as president again. Those who shrug their shoulders or close their eyes to this glaring truth are ignoring Trump’s envy of dictators around the world and his belief in authoritarian ways. He has made many statements in this regard, including, according to a book by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, telling John Kelly that he wished his generals were more loyal like German generals during World War II.

So if Rep. Cheney’s legacy is “only” ensuring that Donald Trump can never again hold elected office, thanking her for her “target fixation” is the least we can do.

Linda Harris, Denver

Like the letter writer, I have reservations about Liz Cheney, but for different reasons. Her work to prove that Trump doesn’t deserve another run for president has been remarkable, something I’ve admired and thank her for.

However, Coloradans, before you jump totally on her bandwagon, please be diligent. Look up her record as a Republican who voted more with conservative policies than not. Just for starters, she has never been a supporter of a woman’s right to choose, and this, for me, is a non-starter.

Candy Markley, Broomfield

Riding my bicycle is an important source of joy and self-care. The places I’ve seen and the people I’ve met while riding my bike are some of the highlights of my life. Heartbreakingly, the reality of trying to move about this world outside of a car took a cruel twist for my family last year when a driver killed my life partner as she was trying to walk across the street leaving her job.

Her death led to my relocation to the Denver area. Despite the horrible circumstances, I was grateful to at least be coming to a city where active transportation was prioritized, protected and valued. Or so I thought.

Now that I’ve been here a while, it����ap terribly discouraging to see the marginalization of transportation modes that offer alternatives to the private automobile. It����ap clear from the plans and goals for the area that officials know what needs to be done and how to do it. It����ap also crystal clear that these plans and goals are being actively undermined to maintain the status quo.

To the governor, legislature, mayor, council, CDOT, DOTI, etc.: Please properly fund and support active transportation because it����ap the right thing to do, despite it being temporarily uncomfortable politically.

Dealing with a senseless loss like mine is horrible, and it breaks my heart to know so many others will have to endure it simply because changing the status quo is hard. Colorado deserves better. Our lives depend on it.

Keith Reed, Aurora

Independent force is needed

Once again the country is being forced to put up with the two-party battle to see who controls Congress.

I am glad I am a member of the majority of registered voters here in Colorado, an independent. This puts me in the unique position of not being called a Communist or a Nazi.

I am just an American able to think for myself and not be led around with a ring in my nose and hating everyone affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican parties.

I do know that being a registered voter is doing my civic duty so this great country can continue to be the world leader for all others to emulate. Please, if you are registered to vote, do it. November is just around the corner.

Barry Nielsen, Denver

The Cheney legacy

Absent all the media’s wailing and gnashing of teeth that have accompanied the demise of Rep. Liz Cheney, can anyone name a cause or legislative accomplishment for which she was known?

Might “target fixation” (on former President Donald Trump) be the only item that would define her legacy? Doesn’t such fixation often lead to death or destruction?

Aren’t there far more pressing issues facing our nation that should be immediately addressed?

Russell W. Haas, Golden

New fan of e-bikes

I’m 69 years old and have never been a serious bike rider. I didn’t learn until I was 12 and have always felt intimidated by bikes. Our daughter encouraged me to give e-bikes a try. I had a total hip replacement in August 2021. This made me even more scared. But, I did try and have found that e-bikes have made biking fun and accessible.

My husband (72) and I get our groceries and go to all our close-by appointments by riding our e-bikes. My friend and I take a 15-mile ride every week to stay connected and explore our city via the bike infrastructure. I always feel better physically and emotionally after a ride. I encourage everyone to give it a try. We’ve also decided we only need one car!

Betsy Depersis, Denver

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

It was a display of respect and affection toward Minority Leader Bob Michel, R-Ill., retiring after a 38-year House career served entirely under Democrats. He embraced with outgoing Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash. Republicans were taking over in January under the combative Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., abandoning Michel’s consensus-building style.

Those feelings between leaders are all but gone. In their place are suspicion and even hostility, most starkly symbolized by magnetometers lawmakers must pass through before entering the House chamber.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., installed the metal detectors over GOP objections after the brutal Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. Democrats also expressed concerns about Republican lawmakers who carry guns.

As I retire after nearly four decades covering Capitol Hill, that contrast and the forces behind it illustrate why I’ve loved covering Congress — and why I’ve recently felt dispirited.

___

Congress is dominated by masters of political hardball who’ve survived a Darwinian culling of the nation’s most ambitious politicians. Covering them is like attending a riveting theatrical drama, except you get to wander behind the curtain and chat up the actors.

In a moment of irony, I saw Gingrich in 1998, then speaker, lash out at the very conservatives who’d powered his own rise after they opposed his budget deal with President Bill Clinton as a surrender. Gingrich mocked them as the “perfectionist caucus,” a bow to the compromises needed in a divided government. He soon announced his retirement.

Near midnight on Sept. 11, 2001, I watched Democrats and Republicans, in a show of solidarity on the Capitol steps, spontaneously sing “God Bless America.”

Pelosi triumphantly waved the gavel aloft in 2007 when she became the first female speaker. “For our daughters and our granddaughters, we have broken the marble ceiling,” the California Democrat said.

Eight years later, I saw awe in the eyes of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, a Catholic, as he greeted Pope Francis, whom he’d invited to address Congress.

I saw shock on Republicans’ faces the very next morning as they left a Capitol basement meeting where Boehner revealed he was quitting, hounded by a new generation of hard-right conservatives, the House Freedom Caucus.

Democrats and Republicans cheered when No. 3 House GOP leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana limped into the chamber in 2017, three months after being gravely wounded when a gunman attacked a Republican baseball practice.

I’ve seen change. Since Pelosi’s 1987 arrival, the number of women in Congress has multiplied from 25 to 146. There are around 130 lawmakers of color, up from 38.

And I’ve witnessed upheaval. Starting in 2017, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., and others resigned amid the #MeToo sexual harassment movement.

I had one deeply embarrassing close encounter with a freshly sworn-in president in 2001. I was assigned to a ceremonial Senate room where new presidents sign papers immediately after their inaugural address.

Someone brushed my elbow. Standing beside me was President George W. Bush. I tried drawing him out with a folksy, “So, how’d it go?” He parried what was likely his first reporter’s question as president with a nod, adding, “Good.”

___

Since coming to Washington in 1983, I’ve seen debates over wars, terrorism, recessions, government shutdowns and taxes. Three of history’s four presidential impeachment trials. Fights over social justice, abortion, a pandemic.

I still overhear Democrats and Republicans making dinner plans. The sorrow over this month’s traffic accident death of Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., and two aides was bipartisan and heartfelt.

Yet today’s common ground seems narrower, the atmosphere darker, the stakes higher.

Pelosi referred to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., as a “moron” after he opposed mask mandates in the House as the coronavirus pandemic spiked. McCarthy said it would be “hard not to hit her” with the gavel if he becomes speaker. His spokesperson called it a joke.

Both parties have fewer moderates. House districts increasingly drawn for partisan advantage push Democrats left, Republicans right as they appeal to their most activist primary voters.

Voters self-sort among social media and news outlets they believe. That hardens constituents’ views, further constraining lawmakers’ willingness to compromise.

Senate filibusters requiring bills to garner 60 votes are commonplace, derailing nearly anything without broad bipartisan support.

Through early this century, most Supreme Court nominees were approved easily.

In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., refused to let President Barack Obama fill a Supreme Court vacancy, citing upcoming elections a full nine months away. Then just weeks before Election Day 2020, McConnell sped a Trump appointee through the Senate, giving the court a 6-3 conservative majority and McConnell a legacy achievement that outraged Democrats.

___

None of that approximates Trump’s baseless assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him, a claim rejected by dozens of courts, local officials and his own attorney general.

His false construct fueled the Jan. 6 insurrection. I wasn’t in the Capitol because of the pandemic, but there is no forgetting the death, injury, destruction and disheartening sense that democracy itself had been defiled.

Just hours after the mob was dispersed, more than half of House Republicans and eight GOP senators voted against certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. McCarthy initially said Trump “bears responsibility” for the attack but later blocked a bipartisan investigation.

Many Republicans have downplayed or deflected attention from that calamitous day. Trump remains his party’s dominant figure.

Republicans have backed Trump’s claims that this month’s court-sanctioned search of his Mar-a-Lago estate was politically motivated. The FBI is led by Trump-appointed Director Christopher Wray and emerged with sensitive national security documents that are federal property.

Anti-government rhetoric by politicians is not new. But these latest assaults on faith in government and the election system underpinning it — by potent influencers like a former president and his elected supporters — come amid authorities’ warnings about increased calls for violence, even civil war.

___

Despite ever-tighter security, reporters still walk unfettered in most Capitol corridors.

I’ve bumped into celebrities from Muhammad Ali to Jon Stewart. But politicians have left the most lasting impressions.

Senate Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas wielded light-speed wit. After the newly elected Clinton dined with GOP senators in a gesture of bipartisanship, he described a novel he’d read involving a murdered Democratic senator. “A happy ending!” Dole replied.

Gingrich’s hardening of partisan enmity — he counseled describing Democrats with focus group-tested words like “traitors” and “sick” — was sometimes answered in kind. Rep. Sam Gibbons, D-Fla., angrily left one 1995 House hearing on Medicare cuts Republicans wanted. “I had to fight you guys 50 years ago,” shouted Gibbons, who parachuted into France behind Nazi lines on D-Day.

I’ve seen agreements to authorize a military response to 9/11, keep the 2008 Great Recession from getting even worse and spend trillions of dollars to counter the pandemic.

Republicans have enacted huge tax cuts and created Medicare prescription drug coverage. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., recently muscled a top Biden priority to passage bolstering environment and health initiatives.

___

Trump’s norm-busting four years featured constant clashes with Congress including Republicans, from whom he tolerated no dissent.

I prodded one Republican, privately critical of Trump, to talk on the record. “He’d send me to Gitmo,” he said.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., just 48, announced in early 2018 that he would retire. He later told author Tim Alberta he could not endure two more years working with Trump.

The cautious McConnell and impulsive Trump long had a fraught relationship. It was severed as McConnell, who voted to acquit Trump over Jan. 6 on the grounds that he’d already left the White House, immediately afterward blistered him as being “practically and morally responsible” for the riot.

I’ve seen lawmakers risk their jobs by backing the party line. Democrats lost dozens of seats in 1994 after rallying behind a Clinton deficit-reduction package. They lost again in 2010 after enacting Obama’s health care law.

And I’ve seen some infuriate colleagues by straying. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., elicited gasps with his decisive thumbs-down that derailed Trump’s effort to repeal Obama’s health care statute.

Ten House Republicans voted to impeach Trump over the insurrection. At least eight, including Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., Trump’s most relentless GOP foe, will not be in Congress next year.

Lawmakers have recently approved accords helping Ukraine and veterans and modestly restricting guns — glimmers suggesting they can still work together.

Yet the confluence of today’s forces chipping away at faith in government institutions would not be recognizable to Foley and Michel.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of Congress at https://apnews.com/hub/congress.

But in the days since, would-be supporters in key states have openly expressed skepticism about a Cheney presidential run, even one solely designed to block Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

In fact, Republican voters and local officials in three of the states that matter most in presidential politics — Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — believe the soon-to-be-unemployed congresswoman has little path to relevancy in a 2024 presidential primary, never mind a path to victory. Some sympathizers fear she would actually help Trump if she runs.

Such is the colossal political challenge ahead for Cheney, a Republican seeking to transform a 37-percentage-point home-state loss into a national campaign to destroy Trump’s White House ambitions. There is no precedent for what she hopes to accomplish.

“The Republican Party is a lot more diverse than it����ap given credit for, and there will be some number of people who find her, and her message, appealing, but that is far from saying that there would be a warm reception, or a large reception,” said Micah Caskey, a Republican state representative in South Carolina. “I don’t see a Liz Cheney candidacy as being viable.”

In the hours after she conceded her Wyoming congressional primary to a little-known Trump acolyte, Cheney’s team transferred leftover campaign funds into a new entity she named “The Great Task,” borrowing a phrase from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. She vowed to devote the weeks before the November midterms to defeating Trump loyalists who continue to promote the lie that the 2020 election was stolen.

“I will be doing whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office,” Cheney told NBC’s “Today” show. She acknowledged she is thinking about a 2024 presidential run. “I’ll make a decision in the coming months.”

Cheney, the 56-year-old daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, has not ruled out running in 2024 as a Republican or an independent. But those close to her now believe an independent run would likely attract more support from Democrats than Republicans, which would undermine her goals. Therefore, if she runs, it would almost certainly be as a Republican.

Her team believes that Cheney would enter the 2024 Republican contest as the undisputed leader of the anti-Trump lane, which could include the likes of Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The Cheney name is universally known, they note, and she enjoys a national fundraising base that brought in more than $15 million for her failed reelection bid. She would also have the support of her father and maintains close ties to former President George W. Bush, who hosted a fundraiser for Cheney last fall.

She will continue to play a leading role in the House investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection, which is set to host another round of hearings in September.

Despite those factors, there has been little sign of enthusiasm for Cheney in the states most likely to decide the next GOP presidential nomination.

Voters were openly celebrating her loss at the Iowa State Fair, a must-stop for presidents and presidential contenders ever since the state began hosting the nation’s opening presidential primary contest a half-century ago.

“It����ap celebration day at the Iowa Republican Party. Liz Cheney is outta here!” crowed Debra Wyna, a Des Moines-area GOP volunteer and 57-year-old retired salon owner. “Liz Cheney is a swamp monster.”

Other voters who stopped by the GOP booth were less pointed than Wyna but no less dismissive of Cheney’s political ambitions.

“I’m never going to vote for her because I believe she betrayed the Republican Party by voting to impeach President Trump,” said Janet Diers, a 67-year-old retired special education teacher from rural western Iowa.

Gentry Collins, a veteran Iowa and national Republican operative who opposes Trump, said he has “great respect” for Cheney, but he doesn’t see how she wages a viable campaign for president.

“Where do the votes come from? Maybe she aggregates the anti-Trump vote, but that����ap not enough,” said Collins, a former political director for the Republican National Committee. “She’s my kind of Republican, but I don’t see an opening.”

It was much the same across New Hampshire, which traditionally hosts the nation’s second Republican primary contest.

While the state prides itself on ushering in presidential candidates every four years, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, who has mocked Trump, declined an opportunity to welcome a prospective Cheney campaign when given the opportunity.

“The governor has given no thought or consideration as to who may or may not run for president in 2024,” Sununu spokesperson Ben Vihstadt said. “He is solely focused on the midterms in less than 100 days, and firmly believes every second spent speculating about 2024 is a waste of time.”

Early presidential primary jockeying has been underway for several months. And the first Republican presidential announcement could come any time. Trump is weighing whether to declare his presidential intentions before or after the midterms.

Republican presidential prospects have been flocking to Iowa and New Hampshire for months already. The visitors include former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Sen. Tom Cotton and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is another frequent name discussed by local Republican primary voters, though he has yet to make an appearance.

Cheney herself delivered a speech in New Hampshire late last year, declaring that Trump was at war with the rule of law.

Caskey, the South Carolina state representative, believes Trump may be vulnerable in a small Republican field, but a large Republican field would divide the anti-Trump vote and help Trump claim his party’s nomination again.

“I think Donald Trump is the odds-on favorite to win if he runs, but I don’t think he has an assured path to victory,” Caskey said. “I think the more candidates that get involved, the more likely it is that he succeeds.”

Matthew Bartlett, a veteran New Hampshire Republican operative who worked in Trump’s State Department but quit after the Jan. 6 insurrection, said there’s plenty of buzz across the state about presidential candidates — save one.

“Not one person is talking about Liz Cheney,” Bartlett said. “I don’t think she knows what she’s doing.”

Nationally, around 7 in 10 Republicans continue to support Trump. That number may have jumped in the days after the FBI executed a search warrant at his Florida estate, though critics note that Trump’s multiple legal entanglements could ultimately damage his standing. Cheney, meanwhile, is lumped near the bottom with Pompeo and Haley, among others, in early public polling.

Voters tend to agree with the political professionals.

Claire Potter wore a Cheney T-shirt on a recent trip to Conway, New Hampshire, to “express my admiration as a Democrat” for the position she has taken against Trump. Potter, a history professor at The New School in New York, also donated $25 to the Cheney campaign.

Just don’t expect her to vote for Cheney in 2024.

“I don’t hope that she runs for president,” Potter said. “I think that could be really dicey in terms of keeping Trump out of the White House. But I trust her political instincts around what she does next.”

Associated Press writer Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina, contributed to this report.