Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
Integrity and transparency are not slogans. They are observable characteristics – especially when a candidate is challenged, publicly, by voters.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Victor Marx joined Denver’s Ryan Schuiling on Tuesday, December 16th, and made several public claims about his opponents in the race, including Representative Scott Bottoms (HD15).
On Wednesday, Bottoms joined the show and disputed several of Marx's claims:
Later in the day Wednesday, Marx appeared before voters at the El Paso County Republican Strategy Forum. I attended that forum after listening carefully to both radio interviews.
What unfolded at the forum deserves public attention – not because of political disagreement, but because of how a candidate for governor responded when asked to clarify his own statements.
A Simple Question, Repeatedly Avoided
My question to Victor Marx was straightforward:
Did Scott Bottoms, word for word, ask you not to run for governor and ask you to be his Lieutenant Governor, as you publicly claimed on the Ryan Schuiling radio show and at other events?
Marx has made these assertions repeatedly in public forums, including in the interview linked above. Bottoms claims Marx has misrepresented that conversation – essentially, that the story Marx is telling is not true.
While this may seem trivial, both men involved in the dispute are running on their positions as faith leaders in our state, and only one of them is avoiding questions about it. Rather than answer, Marx redirected attention to me personally.
He asked for my name.
He asked “where this question was coming from.”
He asked why I was “upset.”
He repeatedly interrupted, spoke over me, and accused me of bias.
Marx did not deny that Bottoms discussed the possibility of him serving as Lieutenant Governor at an earlier point in time than he told voters; however, he told me that my assertion that he knowingly misrepresented that discussion, publicly, to voters, multiple times, was "not true."
At one point, he stated:
“Ma’am, I promise you, you have not seen me angry.”
This was not reassuring. It was implicitly threatening, especially given the power dynamic of the "dangerous gentleman" confronting this female voter, asking him to clarify if the events he's frequently spoken about actually happened as he claims.
Despite repeated yes-or-no requests, Marx would not answer the question.
“Ma’am, I promise you, you have not seen me angry.”
~ Victor Marx
What Scott Bottoms Actually Said
Scott Bottoms has consistently declined to engage in a public political dispute. From the outset of Victor Marx’s public assertions, Bottoms has stated that he would not speak negatively about a fellow Christian. Instead, Bottoms tried repeatedly to contact Marx rather than publicly address or escalate the matter.
But it did escalate. Following Marx's repeated false claims on Schuiling's show, Bottoms addressed the issue publicly for the first time, clearing the air and correcting the record.
According to Bottoms, Marx finally returned his repeated attempts to reach him (after several months) a few days before Marx made his announcement. Bottoms told Marx he should not run for governor because he believed Marx was being used by influential figures in Colorado politics.
Bottoms acknowledged that at one point in the past, he was considering Marx as a potential Lieutenant Governor, but that he had received concerning information during the period where Marx was ghosting him. By the time of their actual conversation, Bottoms had zero intention of asking Marx to serve in that role, and he made that clear during their exchange.
This is key: Marx has publicly reframed that conversation as Bottoms begging Marx not to run and offering to have him serve as Lieutenant Governor. Since his first announcement, Marx has positioned this discussion as evidence that Bottoms “couldn’t win.”
According to Bottoms, Marx's story isn't true.
A Pattern, Not an Isolated Incident
Marx's reaction to my question was not the only notable display at the forum.
Earlier in the event, Marx told the audience that State Senator Mark Baisley – another Republican candidate for governor – had called him and expressed willingness to help Marx’s campaign after Marx wins the primary.
Concerned by this claim, I contacted Senator Baisley directly. Baisley stated clearly:
He has not indicated that Marx would win the primary. He fully expects to win himself.
Like other candidates, he has said he would support whoever wins the Republican primary in the general election. Once again, Marx appeared to reshape a general statement of party unity into personal endorsement or inevitability.
Following my exchange with Marx, another attendee asked him to clarify his position on Tina Peters. Two days earlier on the Ryan Schuiling show, Marx stated that Peters had committed a crime, had been convicted, and that while he would not pardon her, he would commute her sentence because the punishment was excessive.
At the forum, however, Marx said:
“I’ve never said she committed a crime.”
When challenged, he shifted again – acknowledging the conviction but claiming insufficient knowledge of the case, while still promising to commute her sentence on day one. When pressed by the attendee about his knowledge of the case, he said he knows enough to make a statement.
After just two tough questions, he ended the event.
Now check out this exchange he had with Schuiling:
Why This Matters
This is not about politics, it's about pattern recognition.
When a candidate repeatedly reframes others’ words to elevate himself, avoids direct answers and deflects from the question, treats voter scrutiny as hostility, and responds to factual questions with personal attacks...
Voters should take notice.
The bar for governor is higher than confident word salads.
It's integrity and transparency.
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
