Weiser and Marx share rare stage, but advance questions yield few surprises

By Tori Stork (Ganahl) | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado’s two major-party candidates for governor shared the stage Thursday at a Colorado Chamber of Commerce luncheon in Denver, offering business leaders a chance to hear Democrat Phil Weiser and Republican Victor Marx address the state’s mounting economic challenges.

But anyone expecting a spirited debate encountered something considerably more subdued.

The moderated discussion covered business regulations, housing affordability, government spending, healthcare and energy policy. Yet despite the significance of those issues, the candidates largely delivered familiar talking points with limited direct exchanges or meaningful follow-up questions.

Both candidates received the questions verbatim ahead of the event, Weiser confirmed in a post-event interview. Combined with the seated format and two-minute response limits, the advance preparation made the forum feel more like a series of rehearsed responses than a substantive debate.

Marx consulted notes resting on his lap during portions of the discussion, while Weiser generally answered without written materials.

The format was negotiated. Marx agreed to appear only after the Chamber removed 9NEWS anchor Kyle Clark as moderator and replaced him with Ed Sealover, a Chamber employee. Chamber President and CEO Loren Furman has declined to say whether Clark’s removal was a demand from the Marx campaign.

Both agree Colorado’s business climate needs improvement

The candidates found common ground on one major issue: Colorado has become increasingly difficult and expensive for businesses and families.

Marx blamed years of government regulations, fees and mandates, arguing that state leaders have made Colorado less competitive.

“Good regulations protect people. Bad regulations protect bureaucracy,” Marx said. “I’ll keep the first and cut the second.”

He proposed reviewing major regulations based on their effects on small businesses, housing, energy costs, jobs and consumers.

Weiser acknowledged similar concerns, sharing the example of a Durango company that chose to expand in Oklahoma rather than navigate Colorado’s permitting process.

“That’s a call to action,” Weiser said, arguing that state and local governments must respond when businesses encounter unnecessary obstacles.

However, Weiser emphasized collaboration rather than sweeping regulatory rollbacks.

“I believe in Colorado we’re collaborators, and we are creative problem solvers,” he said.

Both promised to improve Colorado’s business climate, but neither identified a detailed list of regulations they would eliminate or reform.

Government spending and Medicaid oversight

Colorado’s budget challenges exposed another area of agreement, although the candidates differed on solutions.

Marx called for greater scrutiny of government spending, including vacant positions, outside consultants, administrative growth and improper payments.

He pointed to findings involving Colorado’s Medicaid-funded autism therapy program, including $77.8 million in improper payments identified by federal auditors, who recommended the state refund $42.6 million, a recommendation state Medicaid officials disputed.

“This is not compassion. This is mismanagement,” Marx said during the healthcare discussion.

Later, addressing the state budget, Marx argued that “before government asks more of our money, it should prove that it can actually manage our money.”

However, he declined to identify specific spending cuts before conducting a comprehensive audit.

Weiser acknowledged problems with Medicaid oversight but rejected the suggestion that Colorado’s fiscal challenges could be solved through spending cuts alone.

“This is a classic false choice. We have to be looking at our spending,” Weiser said.

He argued that Colorado has failed to adequately fund education for years, pointing to approximately $10 billion he said should have gone to schools under the state’s previous budget stabilization practices.

Neither candidate presented a comprehensive plan for balancing Colorado’s budget while addressing rising costs.

Housing and energy affordability

Both candidates identified housing affordability as a major obstacle to Colorado’s economic competitiveness.

Weiser emphasized partnerships with local governments, modular housing and expanding the skilled-trades workforce.

“We’re going to have a shared goal to build the type of homes that workers can afford, that nurses can afford, that teachers can afford,” Weiser said.

Marx focused on reducing permitting delays, encouraging local governments to approve construction and exploring the use of state-owned land for housing.

“Colorado doesn’t have a money problem. It has a spending problem,” Marx argued during the housing discussion.

On energy, their differences became clearer.

Marx warned against retiring reliable power generation before replacement resources are available.

“Our energy future has to move at the speed of reliability, not ideology,” he said.

Weiser defended environmental protections and the state’s methane regulations, citing them as a national model, but did not directly address the affordability or reliability trade-offs the question raised.

“We need smart, effective regulation up front and effective oversight targeting those who don’t follow requirements on the back end,” Weiser said.

Both also agreed that large data centers should not shift infrastructure and electricity costs onto existing customers.

The candidates differed on Colorado’s Labor Peace Act as well. Marx supported preserving the second employee vote, which requires 75% approval before union fees can be deducted from all workers’ paychecks, while Weiser favored reform.

“The Labor Peace Act is antiquated and we can do better,” Weiser said.

Marx responded that he would protect workers’ ability to choose whether to support union fees, adding, “I respect the right to organize. I respect collective bargaining. But the individual workers matter, too.”

Marx confronts Weiser over resurfaced recordings

The forum’s most contentious moment came when Marx shifted a discussion about technology to address recent allegations concerning his past conduct.

A September 29 investigation by The Daily Beast highlighted resurfaced podcast recordings in which Marx described physically aggressive incidents involving his wife and young son.

In a 2021 recording, Marx described grabbing his wife and slamming her into their front door during an argument. In a separate 2020 recording, he recounted grabbing his toddler son and throwing him across a room after the boy pushed his sister.

The recordings drew condemnation from Democrats and from some Republicans, including former Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams, who has said Marx is not fit to be governor. Marx and his wife have disputed the characterization of the incidents as domestic abuse, arguing that important context was omitted.

During the forum, Marx accused Weiser of implying at a domestic violence awareness event earlier in the week that he had committed domestic violence against his wife. The two have never debated, and Thursday’s forum was their only joint appearance of the campaign.

“The other night during a debate you brought up a term of domestic violence and it implied me and my wife, sir,” Marx said, before demanding an apology.

Weiser said he had never commented on Marx’s marriage or family. His criticism, he said, concerned a 2014 sermon in which Marx said more girls and women wouldn’t be abused by men if they were content with where God has them. That statement, Weiser said, tells victims of domestic violence that somehow it’s their fault.

Addressing victims of domestic violence, Weiser said, “It’s not your fault,” adding that public officials have a responsibility to support survivors. “I stand by that statement,” Weiser said.

The moderator intervened, returning the discussion to the scheduled questions.

Marx also told the room that a code placed on each table linked to what he called the full context of the recordings.

The exchange was the afternoon’s rare moment of direct confrontation. However, the forum did not allow for sustained questioning about the original recordings or Marx’s explanation, leaving attendees to evaluate the controversy largely through the candidates’ competing accounts.

Can either candidate deliver results?

The candidates also addressed how they would work with a Democrat-controlled legislature.

Marx pointed to what he described as his experience negotiating in dangerous international environments, including with gang leaders in Haiti, as evidence of his ability to work with people who hold opposing interests.

“I’m not going in there to be a Republican governor only. I’m a governor for the people of Colorado,” Marx said.

But he offered few specifics about how he would advance his agenda through a legislature likely to oppose many of his proposals.

Weiser emphasized his experience working across party lines as attorney general.

“We need to respect you and ensure that your views are taken into account,” Weiser said, stressing the importance of listening to Coloradans regardless of party affiliation.

However, when asked how he would push back against more progressive legislation from his own party, Weiser did not identify specific policies he would reject.

For business leaders concerned about Colorado’s direction, both answers left important questions unresolved.

More conversation than debate

Thursday’s forum provided a useful overview of the candidates’ priorities but revealed relatively little about how either would tackle the difficult decisions facing Colorado’s next governor.

Marx emphasized reducing regulations, controlling spending and protecting energy reliability, but offered limited specifics about implementation.

Weiser focused on collaboration, environmental protections and maintaining public investments, but left questions about how he would contain costs and challenge his own party’s legislative priorities.

Both acknowledged that Colorado faces serious challenges involving affordability, economic competitiveness and government accountability.

What remains less clear is how either candidate intends to deliver measurable results.

With questions provided in advance, limited follow-up and few spontaneous exchanges, the forum produced more familiar campaign positions than meaningful scrutiny.

For Colorado voters looking for a clearer picture of who is prepared to lead the state, Thursday’s conversation left plenty of questions still unanswered.

You can watch the full forum here.