McInnis to Schaffer: Find Another Senate Seat

As the Grand Junction Sentinel reports:

A spokeswoman for presumed 2008 U.S. Senate candidate Scott McInnis said Tuesday the former congressman hopes to avoid a messy, divisive primary in the vein of 2006’s primary battle between Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Bob Beauprez and Marc Holtzman.

Susan Smith, a spokeswoman for the former Grand Junction congressman, said McInnis was hoping the party will unite behind his candidacy.

“The concern is that it would cause further damage to the party,” Smith said of a primary. “We want to learn from the past couple election cycles.”

McInnis, who has all but formally announced his candidacy, could find himself pitted against former Front Range Congressman Bob Schaffer, who told the Fort Collins Coloradoan last month that he has not ruled out a run for retiring Sen. Wayne Allard’s seat.

Schaffer, who ran for retiring Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s seat in 2004, lost to beer magnate Pete Coors in the Republican primary.

Smith said the McInnis camp is “working with party activists” to ensure that there will not be a divisive primary for Republicans while the Democratic candidate, presumably Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., sits on the sidelines unscathed like Gov. Bill Ritter did last year.

58 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. parsingreality says:

    that will prove Doc wrong.

  2. roll the idiots says:

    Schaffer is the candidate of the grassroots and activists. He’s our first choice. Period.

  3. Druid says:

    This is a very bad move on McInnis’s part.  He wants the Republicans ot unite behind HIM, not Schaffer.  That is not going to sit well with many.

    Instead of calling for Schaffer not to run, why not get together with Schaffer and pledge to run a clean primary.  Demonstrate that you have grown up and can act like muture candidates.  But no, McInnis would rather make an early move to get Schaffer out.

    Arrogant to the extreme.

    • Go Blue says:

      and I couldn’t agree more. McInnis is another arrogant authoritarian republican. Im not saying all republicans are like him, he just fits into the crowd like Paschall, Balmer, John Andrews, et al.

    • One Queer Dude says:

        Arrogance on the part of McScooter is only the start.  He and the GOP party “leadership” (i.e., the Trailhead board) will label Schaffer an extremist and an unelectable candidate (which in fact, he just might be). 
        Then there will be complaints filed against B.S. with the Federal Election Commission, administrative hearings on the eve of the state convention as well as the week before the primary.
        Condom Bob will be spending a good deal of time testifying at hearings, ultimately he will either not make the primary ballot, or if he does, he’ll be clobbered by McScooter on primary day, and McScooter will be too arrogant to ask the defeated Schaffer for his support in the general election.
        But for the absence of the horse’s ass TV commercials and Janet Rowland, you’ll be re-living last year’s gubernatorial race.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      • what?!? says:

        But that suggestion brought back incredible memories. 

        As Bob Martinez said – “Oh, the darkness”. 

        Eh – Iron sharpens Iron.  Primaries can liven up the base and hone the candidates.  So long as a candidate isn’t sued out of a race… let the competition begin.

      • puddin says:

        Dick Wadhams will be in charge of the GOP.  Whomever the nominee, a better campaign will be run than we saw in 06.

        McInnis was smart to call Schaffer out before he declares one way or the other.  McInnis is trying to take control.  Schaffer will eventually do something.  And, no matter what decision he makes, it looks like he is reacting to Scott.  Let the games begin!

        • Craig says:

          Can’t cure the real problem with McInnis and the Republican Primary voter.  McLobbyist is pro-choice.  All of the pro-choice people have left the party.  He can’t win the primary.  The only people who don’t know that are the idiots at the Trailhead Group, because they can’t tell their assholes from a hole in the ground.  The party is lost.  McInnis can’t win. 

        • One Queer Dude says:

            Did Wadhams ever think up a reply to the charge that a candidate is a millionaire-lawyer-lobbyist?
            He may have introduced a political campaign WMD to which there is no defense and which may turn around and destroy his party’s candidate, assuming that the GOP nominee is McScooter.
            The best argument for Bob Schaffer in the GOP primary:  he’s not a millionaire-lawyer-lobbyist.

  4. The River says:

    Why does McInnis think he’s a big enough star to drive Schaffer off? If Pete Coors couldn’t do it, there’s no way in hell McInnis’ name will intimidate Schaffer into dropping out.

  5. Oliver says:

    Scooter thinks of himself as a demi-god.  He deserves the Senate seat.  He is Scooter McInni-weinie, using his last days in Congress to get a National COnservation Area named after him.  Maybe he’ll make Bob debate him at the McInnis Canyons NCA? 

  6. We Need Bob says:

    Bob Schaffer has just as much of a right to run for the senate as anyone.  Since when did McInnis inherit the seat?

  7. Oliver says:

    I love primary season…especially when it comes early!

  8. Haners says:

    Primaries themselves don’t divide the party-it’s people flip-flopping between candidates.  The reason the party was divided last time Schaffer ran was when Owens endorsed Schaffer and then recruited Coors.  That started all sorts of posturing by party people who said they were for one person then endorsed another.  Can you blame people for viewing this as back-stabbing?

    Anyway, I like Schaffer personally but I don’t think he could get elected to the senate, even against someone like Udall.  But people are expecting him to run and I think they’ll be pissed if they feel like Schaffer is playing games about his plans.

  9. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Is he afraid he can’t even win the primary? If so he is definitely toast in the general.

  10. Rizzo says:

    McInnis is running scared from an honorable public servant who keeps his promise and brought morality back into public life. Bob Schaffer won’t have Bill Owens to stab him in the back this time!

    • One Queer Dude says:

      …but having a hissy fit over the condoms at the safer sex display at the state Capitol on AIDS Awareness Day is hardly evidence of bringing “morality back into public life”

      • Rizzo says:

        State-sanctioned promotion of adolescent and pre-adolescent sex is the immorally poisons the minds of the young and is the  best way to make sure that Sexually Transmitted Diseases is spread throughout society!

        I admire Bob Schaffer for being a man of principle, and not being guilted by the Victimhood Logic of the liberal postmodernists.

        “The truth is not in condoms or clean needles. These are lies, lies perpetrated often for political reasons on the part of public officials…by some health care professionals who believe they have nothing else to offer persons with AIDS…lies told by often well-meaning counselors.”

        — Cardinal John O’Connor

        • Mr. Toodles says:

          Are you going to change your signature everytime you post to respond with a Catholic diatribe or will you stick with this one? By the way, abstinence only education does nothing to stop kids from having sex. In fact, all it really does is prevent kids from learning the options to prevent the spread of STDs and pregnancy, but feel free to repeat whatever backwards thinking the church has started to spout in an effort to turn away more and more potential and current parishioners.

          • Rizzo says:

            Nice anti-Catholic rant. A very mature response.

            • Car 31 says:

              of what I think Toodles is speaking to.

              HPV shots for 6th graders would vaccinate them against cervical cancer, which kills thousands of women each year.

              Conservatives in the Senate, those following “the Path” you mentioned above, argued against the bill saying that this vaccination would increase teenage girls’ sexual tendencies.

              Conservatives miss the boat too often on the issue of sex, which is ironic as well. Sex Ed, but only abstinence.  AIDs funding, but nothing about condoms.  Vaccinations against cervical cancer, leading to promiscuous girls…

              • Mr. Toodles says:

                Oddly enough Rick Perry, Gov. of Texas, is pushing a similar bill in their legislature.

                More to the point, I am tired, very tired of religion trying to intrude in on public life. Rizzo, you can believe whatever you want. I honestly do not care. What I do care about is trying to force morality down people’s throats. Needle swapping is an effective combatant against the spread of AIDS, so are condoms. Just because some religious leader that you, I assume, follow says all the scientific data is wrong does not mean it is so. In fact, he can cite all the scripture he wants, I’ll stick with the quantifiable data. As far as the pews getting dusty, I only repeat what I heard on the BBC. By the way, I couldn’t help but notice that you opted to not include your sig in response, why not?

                • parsingreality says:

                  Is doing the vaccination thing by executive order, I believe.  That’s the way I’ve been hearing it.

                  • Mr. Toodles says:

                    Had to double check that, but you are correct. I tacked on oddly because, quite frankly, it is odd. He tows the line on so many other socially conservative positions that I was suprised when I heard about this.

                    • El Paso Rockefeller Republican says:

                      market for the vaccine manufactruer. Every once in a while the economic engine of getting a government induced monopoly and public saftey (see Tamiflu) become synergistic.

                    • parsingreality says:

                      To their credit.  Because of the openness and the effectiveness of the vaccine, I don’t have a problem with their efforts to mandate innoculations.  So far, there are exemptions for those who have religious or any other reason to object, as it should be.

                      At $360 for the series, and with payback out into the future one or more decades, it’s a hard one to swallow.  Maybe as the usage increases, health care providers or others will put the heat on them to lower the price.  I’m not adverse to a fair profit and recouping of costs, but I am adverse to excessive profits, especially in life or death matters.

                      Perhaps another pharm company can develop their own vaccine to compete.  If competition is good for the consumer…..

                • One Queer Dude says:

                    After looking at the numbers, the economic conservative really should be telling the fundies to go screw themselves. 
                    What does it cost for the govt. to provide free, clean needles to drug addicts and encourage them to use them?  A negligible sum of money. 
                    What does it cost the govt. to pay to treat an indigent, HIV positive drug addiction?  Roughly $20,000 per year, and that is assuming that the indigent patient only stays HIV positive and does not progress to developing AIDS, in which case the treatment costs increase substantially.
                    Do the math……..this is no brainer. 

                • Lauren Bacall says:

                  there are other reasons to be concerned about the executive order.  According to the Houston Chronicle:

                  “But the Texas Medical Association also opposes the mandate, citing the vaccine’s newness, liability concerns and cost.

                  Others have raised issues related to Merck, the manufacturer of the vaccine, known as Gardasil.

                  Merck has been working around the country to get the vaccine required for school enrollment, and stands to earn millions.”

                  And additional on Yahoo News:

                  “Merck is bankrolling efforts to pass state laws across the country mandating Gardasil for girls as young as 11 or 12. It doubled its lobbying budget in Texas and has funneled money through Women in Government, an advocacy group made up of female state legislators around the country.

                  Perry has several ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry’s former chief of staff. His current chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.”

                  I know you guys don’t need any more red meat against Republicans or Big Corporations, but in the interest of putting all facts on the table, there are good reasons to slow this train down and take a closer look.

                  • I doubt Perry is doing this out of the goodness of his heart.

                    But the vaccine has gone through FDA approval (and hopefully not been stovepiped like some other recent drug approvals); the FDA approval process is still the strictest in the world, even on the accellerated track.

                    With a proven effectiveness against 70% of HPV infections, it’s a worthwhile investment.  But it *is* being hyped…

              • One Queer Dude says:

                  According to social issue conservatives, fear of death, not to mention fear of eternal damnation in hell, are the only acceptable means of contraception. 
                  Unfortunately, history and statistics show that they are not very effective.  Condoms, even with only an 85% success rate, are still far more effective in preventing STD’s than exhortations to teenagers to abstain from sex.

          • One Queer Dude says:

              Wasn’t he one of the church leaders who was reassigning the priests in his jurisdiction in N.Y. to other parishes after they were caught diddling with little boys? 
              If so, you just might want to find a more credible source of moral authority……

        • Cuervo71 says:

          I’m surprised that you would mention “pre-adolescent sex” and a Catholic cardinal in the same post.

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          Kids who sign virginity pledges on average have sex sooner and more often than those who don’t.

          So if you want to reduce teenage sex, put then through sex-ed. That statistically is your best bet. Keep in mind, school can make anything boring.

          • parsingreality says:

            those who pledged, we have discovered, are far more likely to become pregnant…why?….not carrying condoms when that “Paradis by the Dashboard Lights” hoves into view….Damn, that was a great song! 

  11. Rational Repub Girl says:

    No where in the above story does it say that Scott McInnis is targeting Bob Shaffer personally to get him out of the race. What I read is that he hopes to avoid a messy primary. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  Seems to me that it is pragmatic and smart for Republicans to avoid a primary this time around.  Your misrepresentation of the story is a transparent Democrat move to fuel an ugly fire.  Not going to work this time.  Republicans won’t be used or motivated by your blatant tactics this time around.

    • Mr. Toodles says:

      But do you really think that CoPols has that much way sway over the republican political process?

    • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

      Smith said the McInnis camp is “working with party activists” to ensure that there will not be a divisive primary for Republicans while the Democratic candidate, presumably Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., sits on the sidelines unscathed like Gov. Bill Ritter did last year.

      We didn’t misrepresent anything, of course. Your naivete would be believable if everyone in the room didn’t know better.

  12. coop says:

    That’s right, Repub Girl.  This site is a very thinly disguised front for democrat activists.  They would love to drum up some big in-fighting between two Republican candidates.

    The fact of the matter is that McInnis is doing what any smart candidate does: he is working influential party members and past delegates early to try and pin down enough support to discourage other would-be contenders.

    Of course Republicans want to avoid a messy primary this go around.  Both parties always want to avoid messy primaries if possible.  This is a non-story, repeated by liberal hacks who are hoping for a round of Republican back-biting.

    • Rizzo says:

      Letting the back room lobbyists take control of the process is the reason the GOP is veering of the Path. We need a healthy conversation about the soul of the party to take us back to the leadership of Straight Arrow Conservatism, or else the morally bankrupt lobbyists will once again abuse the true believers who want to make this a better country! It’s special interest abuse of the grassroots that is killing our Grand Old Party in this state!!!!

      We need real leadership……….leadership like Bob Schaffer!

  13. trueblue says:

    How all the dem kids post during the day (when the rest of us are working) and finally the other side of the story hits this blog late at night after bills are paid and kids are in bed.

    I’m so surprised that some Republicans would prefer to avoid another tough primary season.  Must be a slow news day.  Either that, or Colo Pols might just be the liberal hack shop that we all think they are.

  14. coop says:

    You aren’t really referring to party activists, delegates, and the like as “back room” lobbyists are you?  Your talking points betray your incompetence.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.