Democrats Michael Carrigan and Stephen Ludwig released a statement Wednesday that chastised McInnis for engaging in plagiarism and said past candidates have stepped down for similar abuses and they feel McInnis should do the same.

A Denver Post story exposed former Congressman McInnis for having plagiarizes the works of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs. McInnis has blamed his assistant, Roland “Rolly” Fischer, for not citing the work he contributed to the reports. McInnis was commissioned to write on water issues for the Hasan Family Foundation while working as a fellow.

Fischer in turn has said McInnis was responsible.

The regents had this to say in a release sent out Wednesday:

“Mr. McInnis has claimed that his plagiarism only matters because he is a candidate for governor and that it’s a non-issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Plagiarism is stealing someone else’s hard work and claiming it as one’s own – this is no more permissible for a candidate or politician than it is for a college professor. In the past, the public, including many elected officials, demanded consequences for those engaged in plagiarism. We agree and think the same standard should apply to Mr. McInnis.”

The McInnis campaign released this statement Tuesday:

“In 2005, I accepted a water fellowship with the non-profit Hasan Family Foundation. Part of this fellowship entailed compiling a series of articles designed to promote public understanding of historical water issues in Colorado.

“In order to complete this project, I retained a renowned Colorado water expert. That expert, Rolly Fischer, spent nearly three decades with the Colorado River Water Conservation District , and is well-respected across the state. During our collaboration, he provided research for the articles.

“Regrettably, it has now become clear that much of the research was in fact taken from other source material without proper attribution. While I do not believe that this was a deliberate act, it was a serious mistake.

“It’s unacceptable, it’s inexcusable, but it was also unintentional.

“I made a mistake, and should have been more vigilant in my review of research material Rolly submitted.

“I’ve reached out to Justice Hobbs and the Hasan Family Foundation, and hope to meet with both in the not too distant future.

“We all share a deep commitment to Colorado’s future. In the coming days, I hope we can put this matter behind us, and focus on solving the many problems that face our state.”

For the formal letter requesting the investigation, go to www.coloradoforethics.org. Here’s the Ethics Watch release on the request:

“Today, Colorado Ethics Watch asked the Office of Attorney Regulation to investigate reports that former Congressman Scott McInnis, a licensed Colorado attorney, earned $300,000 from the Hasan Family Foundation for original writings on water issues but delivered to the foundation reports that were partially written by a non-lawyer assistant and which contained material allegedly plagiarized from an article written by Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hobbs when Hobbs was an attorney in private practice.

“Rule 8.4 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits attorneys from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. Rule 5.3 requires attorneys to supervise non-lawyer assistants to insure that the assistants do not engage in conduct on the lawyer’s behalf that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The application of these rules has been called into question by reports that Congressman McInnis submitted as his own work articles that were partially written by a water engineer, without knowledge or approval from the Hasan Family Foundation, which contained sections that appear to have been copied from a 1984 article written by Justice Hobbs.

“Luis Toro, Director of Colorado Ethics Watch, issued the following statement: ‘News reports alleging that Congressman McInnis’ fellowship work was largely outsourced to a water engineer and contained plagiarized material raise serious ethics questions under the Rules of Professional Conduct that apply to all Colorado lawyers. Today’s filing will ensure that the matter is not overlooked by the Office of Regulatory Counsel simply because no one formally brought it to the office’s attention.’”

Tancredo told the tale to KHOW radio listeners on Thanksgiving Eve, The Tank no doubt coming down from his work earlier in the week helping to draft and present the embattled Colorado GOP “Platform for Prosperity” meant to unite the state Republican Party and designed primarily, it seems, by McInnis and his one-time gubernatorial primary race rival Josh Penry. Tancredo, of course, likely worked in the lines about making sure employers verify workers are legal residents or citizens of the U.S.

Among other things, listeners to his show Wednesday learned that, although slavery was not good, African Americans are better off for having been brought out of Africa to live in America; that Native American culture was only environmentally friendly because it lacked industrial-age sophistication; and that the (perhaps) Dutch Pilgrims came to America not to flee religious intolerance, but as part of an admirable quest to start an exclusive and intolerant society of their own. They also, in this telling, seem to have paved the way for Columbus.

“They had come from Holland, where there was a great deal of religious freedom and far too much for them, as a matter of fact. They didn’t like it. They didn’t like living around other people who had a different attitudes about God. And so they thought, ‘Let’s get out of here and go where we can be what we want to be and don’t have to live by people who don’t think the way we do.’”

Tancredo then poses a rhetorical question:

“Were the [Pilgrims] brave Christians who risked everything to gain religious freedom in the new world or were they European interlopers guilty of genocide?– which is the way they are portrayed in most history books today and the way that most children think of them. The schools have done this. The cult of multiculturalism has done this.”

And here we land upon Tancredo’s Thanksgiving Day message: Multiculturalism is destroying American culture. He said that if the Native Americans had really wanted to save their own culture and were smart, they would have killed the pilgrims. Here Tancredo was drawing on a speech he gave to the American University earlier this year.

According to American Renaisance, a white nationalist magazine, Tancredo said at the function that, “Throughout history, people who are not white Anglo-Saxon have become American by adopting a white Anglo-Saxon culture. Today, this cult of multiculturality emphasizes our differences— things that pull us apart instead of bringing us together.”

He was no less adamant on the radio Wednesday:

“We were dividing our selves–this multicultural push that we have is dividing us up into camps… The Indians, the biggest mistake they made was accommodating us, if you want. The Puritans. The Pilgrims that followed them. Columbus later. And it led to their destruction. Undeniably true. Their society, their way of life ended. And the beginning of the end started the day the pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock.”

The Tancredo Thanksgiving Tale:

25 November 2009
KHOW
8:50 pm

TANCREDO: But going back before that we have this fact that the pilgrims came here to the colonies. Well there was no colonies. They came here to Plymouth Rock, established a new existence for themselves, their families, et cetera. We have a tendency of thinking of them as coming here trying to find religious freedom. In fact it was a little bit different than that.

They had come from Holland, where there was a great deal of religious freedom and far too much for them as a matter of fact. They didn’t like it. They didn’t like living around other people who had a different attitude about God. And so they thought “Let’s get out of here and go where we can be what we want to be and don’t have to live by people who don’t think the way we do.” So it wasn’t really to find religious freedom. It was to establish a place where they could do what they wanted to do unencumbered and uninhibited.

Now the way the history books treat them today — of course they are ravaged by most history books and revisionists and people who want to create the worst possible image of the people who came here and started the country. So the question was Were they brave Christians who risked everything to gain religious freedom in the new world or were they fanatical European interlopers guilty of genocide?– which is the way they are portrayed in most history books today and the way that most children think of them. The schools have done this. The cult of multiculturalism has done this. So the question I guess is whether or not– I mean what is accurate?

They came in 1620, I think it was, about 100 of them. Only half that many survived the first winter in new England, so you had about and 50 of them left. They did make friends with Indians there. The tribe was the Wampanoag. They were befriended by them. They had a treaty for about 40 years as a matter of fact. Why? A little lesson here.

The Wampanoag saw them as an ally. They could gain their support against their historical enemy, the Narragansett . They were fighting with them a long time, they thought “Geez, these guys might help us out.” So they became friends with the colonists. Then a lot of things happened and they got in a fight. So after 40 years a lot of other stuff occurred. But that is what happened. And yes at a certain point they did get together and share some of the bounty of the land but that wasn’t the first year that they were there.

But at any rate, the point that is really interesting is– and a different take that I have on this than perhaps a lot of people on my side of the political isle, on the conservative side, who look at this whole thing and say “Why is it that everything in American– everything in our history is portrayed in the worst possible light?”

Well, see, about I don’t know 6 months ago I was speaking at American University and I was talking about the problems with the whole issue and the phenomena of multiculturalism. And I was talking about the fact that we are dividing ourselves up in this country. We were dividing our selves– this multiculturalist push that we have is dividing us up into camps– linguistic and ethnic and religious and familial. All of these things. The cult of multiculturalism is not something which unifies us. It is something that divides us, I was saying. And it is a bad thing and we should fight it.

But by the end of this speech– and by the way this crowed was not friendly: American University, probably 400 students. I would say 50 were on my side; 350 certainly were not– came in with these signs all in Spanish. I couldn’t read them. But they would just sit there holding these signs up. Then at the end they started screaming and yelling and getting obnoxious. But during the speech they were fairly pleasant, I mean they just sat there with these signs.

And then one guy screamed out at one point in time: “Well you know what we should have treated– the Indians should have treated us the same way that you are talking about treating other immigrants to the country.”

And I guess he was surprised by what he said. Because what I said was “You’re right. You are absolutely right. The Indians, the biggest mistake they made was accommodating us, if you want. The puritans. The pilgrims that followed them. Columbus later. And it led to their destruction. Undeniably true. Their society, their way of life ended. And the beginning of the end started the day the pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock. And I think it was Malcolm X that coined that phrase “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock; Plymouth Rock landed on us.”

In fact, in Plymouth– in Massachusetts where Plymouth Rock supposedly exists, the town there has for the last 6 or 7 years– 5 or 7 years ago, I should say, put up a big sign that said “The Native Americans in this area don’t believe that we should be celebrating this day. They say it is the beginning of the end.” You would think that you would see something that said “Here is where the pilgrims landed.” No. It is this other thing to stress the fact that it was a bad deal for the Indians. Excuse me, Native Americans.

And you know what? It was. A lot of bad things happened to them. And they probably should have done something different. If they wanted to preserve their culture. They should have resisted the onslaught of these Westerners. They didn’t however except in scattered and uncoordinated opposition. They really didn’t do anything that was going to be significant enough to stop it. Here are 51 people. Okay. 51 people survived the first winter in Plymouth colony. And those 51 people, how could they have possibly overcome the advantages that the Native Americans there have just in numbers? The [pilgrims] could have been gone in the blink of an eye. Just like that. Why were they not? Why were they not. How come they were able to do what they did?

How were they able to prosper and expand, and more people came. And how come when Cortez came to the quote New World and landed and eventually ended up in what is now Mexico, of course, and was able to defeat a civilization that was centuries old–hundreds of thousands of–in fact millions of people made that civilization which he with 400 and some people conquered. How could this be?

Because of course the Indians who were here, the native Americans, the Aztecs and all the rest were not unified. They were enemies. They had been killing each other off because they were tribal and they were unable to get together and respond. Hence, they fell.

Now there were other reason of course. The cultural advantages–I mean the technological advantages of the people who came here. Let’s face it the people–the Native Americans had not even created the wheel. That is a problem when you face a civilization that comes with ships and guns.

[...]

They were, by the way this was not a society that was friendly to the land as we were led to believe. Remember that commercial of the Indian on a horse looking out over a, I don’t know, it was a highway in California or something. Trash was all over the place and this tear came to his eye. Let me tell you, my friends, the only reason that the trash wasn’t here when we got here was because nobody could make paper. It wasn’t because of this love for this pristine environment.

If you think that there is that within the Native American culture, please just go up and take a look at the roads at the Sioux Indian Reservation, the Crow reservation, almost any reservation in the United States. This is not– not necessarily, I mean some are better than others– but for the most part they are not models of a clean society. Lots of things happening here. And I don’t mean to put them down. I happen to really enjoy the Native American culture and appreciate what they were all about. But we have to be realistic about things and recognize that
when one culture, as I say, gets here with the technology that the West had at the time and faced a culture without that technology and there was a clash– probably no one is going to be too surprised which side
wins.

Now, the– but all that said– I am not telling you it is a good thing. It is just the way it was. And I think to tell you truth that perhaps people who live here today that were not, that did not come here voluntarily, I think that many of those people are lucky that they do live here even though their ancestors didn’t get here on the Mayflower. Mine certainly didn’t. But made the decision to come. But a lot of people didn’t. African Americans certainly. They for the most part, their relatives, their ancestors did not choose to come here.

Now the question that we have to ask ourselves and certainly African Americans have to ask themselves is: Are they better off as a result of the fact that they came under any conditions? And it does not mean for a second–let me reiterate– it does not for a second mean that slavery was a good thing, that we should be happy about it. It is a black mark on our society and all societies that have had it since the beginning of time. Or recorded time… It doesn’t mean it is good. Is someone better off today in the United States of America as a result that they came under–or are Native Americans better off as a result that people came here from the West and created the society that we have here? Or would they have been better off if that had not happened?

Everything is relative and depends on what you consider to be better, of course. But in terms of being thankful on Thanksgiving, I think probably everybody here could be thankful. No matter how they got here.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

WSJ readers looking for substance in the Platform were also discouraged.

“Color me less than impressed,” writes someone named Colin, reporting at his “To Get Rich Is Glorious” blog. (The name of the blog is a quote from postmodern Chinese Communist Party leader and free market enthusiast Deng Xiaoping.) Colin criticizes the Platform as a sad mixture of not-very-conservative platitudes, “sops to various party factions” and borrowed thinking– some of it borrowed from pro-government Democrats!

Here’s how the WSJ summarized the Platform:

Key Points from the Colorado GOP’s ‘Platform for Prosperity’

* Oppose efforts to increase taxes and fees unless they’re put to a popular vote

* Restore a cap on state spending

* Invest in roads, bridges, higher education and workforce training

* Support a law to make health insurance portable from job to job

* Allow patients to purchase health insurance across state lines

* Promote responsible development of Colorado’s energy resources

* Expand charter schools

* Require employers to verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally

* Prohibit state grants for women’s health care to any organization that also provides abortions

* Oppose future stimulus bills

Here are some choice bits from sharp analyst Colin:

Of the ten items outlined, two of them — the first and last — aren’t even plans for action but rather statements of what the party will not do. Are they really so bereft of ideas that they must define themselves by what they are opposed to than what ideas they support?

What on earth does the third point have to do with limited government or conservative values? And have the Republicans really sunk to co-opting Democratic rhetoric about government spending being “investments”? Truly pathetic.

The fourth point shows a real lack of ambition. Serious health reform would not attempt to make employer-provided health care portable, but rather would seek to sever the connection between employment and health care. Introducing portability is simply another burden for business and helps to calcify the current system.

Where is the truly bold thinking? Solutions meant to address the true ills which face this country? Where are proposals for regulatory reform? Restoring personal freedom through a re-examination of drug policy (which diverts police resources)? A simplified tax code? Outsourcing government functions where possible?

If this is symptomatic of the national Republican party and the narrow thinking taking place in party corridors then Republicans deserve to wander the Sinai a bit longer.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The question: Have Colorado purists Tom Tancredo and Josh Penry made solo-GOP gubernatorial frontrunner Scott McInnis endorse the Bopp resolution? Text after the jump:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Former 3rd District Congressman McInnis was criticized in a 2004 Washington Post story for paying his wife tens of thousands of dollars in salary and benefits to serve as his campaign manager even after he announced that he would not seek re-election. According to the Post:

Lori McInnis has been a paid employee of her husband’s reelection campaign since 2001, spending reports show. She was paid about 50 percent more for the 2004 election cycle, with no candidate, than she was paid in the 2002 campaign, when she had an active candidate to manage.

The author of the bill, Rep. Phil English (R-PA) said, “It defies common sense that our campaign finance system allows federal candidates to channel special interest campaign donations directly to family members.”

In his press release announcing his co-sponsorship of the bill, Udall stated:

In effect, the 2002 FEC ruling allowing candidates to use campaign funds to pay salaries to themselves or their family members enables them to evade the federal law that prohibits candidates from using campaign funds for personal expenses. This is a loophole big enough to drive a truckload of money through. Campaign accounts should be used for legitimate campaign expenses, not as a slush fund that candidates or their family members could use to pay for their personal expenses. Coloradans expect their elected officials to act ethically and appropriately and I’m pleased that Rep. English has sponsored this important piece of legislation. I’ll work with him to get it passed in the House,” said Udall.