If At First You Don't Succeed...

What's the other side?

So what's the other side of the story?  I doubt Schaffer is just an idiot.  These people must bring something to the campaign.  Can anyone fill us in?

---

by: Emma Anne @ Thu May 24, 2007 at 20:43:54 PM UTC

It's to even out AP running for CD-4

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu May 24, 2007 at 20:54:20 PM UTC

Operation Foot-Bullet Continues

The Republican party continues to shoot itself in the foot in Colorado under the influence of Bill Owens.

One of these days, enough will break loose and we'll take the party back.

Until then, its all the same politics from the Country Club Republicans in Denver.  The powers that be resist all attempts at being clued in.

They seem to have forgotten Reagan's magic formula:

Its Sam's Club, not the Country Club, that wins elections.

Aw who am I kidding.  They still don't get it.

Here comes my rant:

They are repeating Rove/Mehlman's tactics that failed so miserably in 06: Get Out The Vote aimed at election day, "final 4 days" to push on phone banks and precinct walks, and they still believe robo calls and mailings will do the trick.  I walked precincts and made calls - it seemed like half the "targeted" people already voted, and most of them were pissed off by our calls because they had already been robo-called.

They ignore the internet.  They ignore that the election is now a couple of weeks, not just the election day - given early voting, mail in ballots, etc.  They concentrate on turning out Republicans instead of selling the issues and convincing more of the independent voters to swing their way (and yes its possible - issues like Immigration polls show support heavily on the side of Enforcement First across all demographics, yet they didn't mention it at all)  Small government, and more liberty has always played well for Republicans, and yet they abandoned it.

They still view campaign grass roots as a THREAT instead of an ally.  They want to control things from the top, issue orders, and straight jacket people into their message.

Putting on jeans and trying to play the part of a farmer when you are a banker isn't going to sell these days (and that means you Bob B - I campaigned for you in the 7th twice and I wrote to you begging you to stay in the 7th, but you didn't listen...)

Sorry guys that doesn't work anymore unless you have a genuine country boy.  Ben Campbell could pull it off because it was genuinely him.  Fred Thompson can pull it off because it is genuinely him.  If you want to run a conservative, have one that is a thinking man, and believes in it, not an opportunist.

And once you have that candidate, They need to get on the net, get nimble, have some principles instead of selling out, and be genuine, not the fakes like Beauprez.  You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

But Dems, no worries.  The Republican Leadership will not listen because they're inside the Echo Chamber of the Country Club set, and view us plebes out here as rabble-rousers, and ignore anything that contradicts their self-comforting same-old same-old.

The only thing you have to worry is us noisemakers online might actually pound this into their skulls by this time next year.

But I wouldn't bet money on it.

---

by: OrdinaryColoradoan @ Thu May 24, 2007 at 20:57:26 PM UTC

I like it

"And once you have that candidate, They need to get on the net, get nimble, have some principles instead of selling out, and be genuine, not the fakes like Beauprez.  You have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk."

Dems should listen too.

---

by: Emma Anne @ Thu May 24, 2007 at 21:13:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The amazing thing is

if you go over to a left-wing blog like Daily Kos you will hear almost the identical set of rants by the netroots folk directed toward inside-the-beltway, conventional-wisdom Dem consultants and their waffling triangulating candidates. 

Of course they are universally condemned by mainstream commentators as kooks and extremists but what they are trying to do is restore the Dem party to what they view as its historic principles--not all that different from the schism you are experiencing. 

---

by: RavenDawg @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 01:17:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well there is a difference

As Republicans, we've lost in the past 2 cycles:

1 Senate seat
2 Congressional Districts with more R than D registered
The State House
The State Senate
The Governor's office

And a lot of it was back-room backstabbing by Owens and his krewe.

So I say we have a legit reason to gripe. Especially given the tone deaf and miserable campaign Beauprez ran - and now the same clowns are packing into the same clown car and they are somehow expecting different results because they changed which clown they have in the back seat.

Their entire philosophy to is peons seems to be "What you going to do, vote for a Democrat?"

Well, no.  But I'm also not going to vote for you either - not vote, no campaign money, not volunteer time.

No thanks, I had enough of that in 06.  Be FOR something more than "The other guys is worse".

---

by: OrdinaryColoradoan @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 19:18:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's hubris

The Republican party had a good run for 10 years up till '06. Those in charge figure that if they just do what they did but a bit harder they'll get it back. They don't realize that the playing ground has changed. And they don't realize that we Dems have figured out how to counter their approach.

One of the reasons control swings back and forth.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:00:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hilarious

Under most circumstances your comprehension of the political environment would be correct, but certainly not when dealing with someone with convictions like Bob Schaffer.

Literally I am laugning while posting this.  You are saying that Bob Schaffer's campaign is under some type of control or influence from Bill Owens???? Seriously?  Maybe you moved here September 2004, so I won't hold anything you've said against you.  Sorry I am even laughing now as I reread your post to post this retort, unbelievable.  Bob Shaffer if he was anything was grassroots oriented, he did not have the money to win in 04 and that was due largely to Bill Owens throwing him under the bus.  Comparing him to a "country club Republican" though speaks on a lack of knowledge on your part of Republicans politics here in CO, in fact if I had to guess I would say you are a Democrat taking a shot at Bob Schaffer.

You have made one good observation and that is the Republicans seemingly lack of comprehension of the internet.

I won't touch on your observations about Beauprez not being a country boy, though maybe not the best media sell, the family is and has been well known for their dairy operation, a very good one at that.

---

by: John Galt @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 04:18:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, come one

Seriously, when's the last time Bob Beauprez did any farming.  Not Bob Beauprez's family -- Bob Beauprez.  He's been on the farm in the past, but not for a really long time.  His "I'm a farmer" act was a lie, plain and simple.

Shaffer is different, though.  I do think he's more honest... and more wrong.

"Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps"
-- Legal filing by Apple Computer

---

by: cdsmith @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 00:46:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both Ways in the barn standing next to Mr. Ed's butt.....

reminded me of that scene from the opening credits to "Green Acres" where Eddie Albert was riding the tractor in his three-piece suit

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 15:34:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I beg to differ

All that has happened with Schaeffer is the party Co-opted him. They got Dick Wadhams back here and it seems the folks in Denver think Wadhams walks on water. He says Schaffer, and the Country Club set pulls out the wallets, and tosses aside the knives they put in his back when they strong armed Schaeffer aside for Pete Coors in his loss in 04.  The are some in the party power hierarchy who are no better than sheep.

Its the same old manipulators that I'm griping about.  Not necessarily Schaffer (who is one of those plain spoken people who beleives in what he says from what I can recall), but the ones pushing the same campaign management.  The people at the top of the State Party who have sold out, and allow Owens and his cronies to leverage them - or Holtzman if they want to be on the other side of the Republican version of Hatfield's and McCoys.

Its stupid, pissy and counter-productive.  And you end up with candidates like Beauprez (good 7th, horrible state) and O'Donnell (another Owens protege who blew a 15 point lead in the summer to lose in a landslide thanks to dishonest scare advertising on Social Security by Polis' bought and paid for 527s).

I saw all that form the inside, and it was ugly.  And whats got me really going ballistic is that it looks like they did not learn a thing from their mistakes and are prepared to commit them all over again, losing yet another Senate seat.

---

by: OrdinaryColoradoan @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 19:29:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm impressed.......

The Pubs are lucky to have someone thinking as you do. 

I have my own issues with Dems, so don't think your party holds all the Jokers.  They too, rely too much on phone banks.  On election day 2004, I got 13 calls encouraging me to be sure to vote.....I'm a precinct chairman!  I learned about the anger of voters over too many calls when I was calling Iowa voters for Howard Dean.  "If I get one more phone call I'm gonna tear it out of the wall!"

I believe people are fed up with the expensive TV ads, glossy mailers, etc.  I figured out how, in my precinct, we could mail letters, hand addressed to our neighbors.  Plenty of older folks sit around and can't contribute money to campaigns, but they can address envelopes.  On a per voter basis, it was very focused and darned cheap. 

 

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 02:19:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you mean Bob Beauprez doesn't actually sound like a member of the cast of "Hee Haw"?

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 15:32:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I said it once, and I'll say it again

The 'Dream Team' will be complete with, who other, than: John Marshall!!!  John, Come on down!!!

---

by: Democracy??? @ Thu May 24, 2007 at 21:06:38 PM UTC

Disturbing

This is really disturbing.  Schaffer's 2004 campaign was as miserable of a campaign as I've ever seen.  There was a complete lack of professionalism to his 2004 effort led by Fiske.  Very sad to see him make same mistakes again as I'm sure he'd make a great U.S. Senator if elected. 

---

by: colorado conservative @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:34:28 AM UTC

no,

Fiske is good. Considered one of our best, actually.

---

by: roll the idiots @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:40:37 AM UTC

Was it the handler ... or the candidate?

I'm mindful of a column by the Coultergeist:

Lawyer Mark Geragos should go into business with political consultant Bob Shrum and defend Sen. Arlen Specter's claim to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They should advertise exclusively on MSNBC. Maybe they could even get Al Gore to endorse them and hire Howard Dean as their spokesman. Our motto: "A HUMILIATING DEFEAT EVERY TIME - OR YOUR MONEY BACK!"

Shrum's losing streak obscures the fact that he is also a swine. Among his charming unifying political campaigns, in 1996, Shrum yanked his dripping snout from the political donation trough just long enough to design the commercial against California's Proposition 209 - which proposed banning racial preferences - that featured Klansman, burning crosses and David Duke. (Conforming to pattern: Shrum lost, Californians voted for the Proposition 54-46 percent, and then liberals tried to get a court to overturn it.)

This year, Shrum racked up his eighth loss in an unblemished 0-8 record of losing Democratic presidential campaigns. He's the embodiment of the Democratic Party ideal: Screw up, keep getting hired or promoted. One more loss and his last name officially becomes a verb, as in "we were ahead by 6 points but we ended up 'shrumming.'"

At least Shrum's client only has to go back to the Senate. Geragos' client Scott Peterson has been sentenced to death.

http://www.jewishwor...

I've talked with Bob, I like him, and he has a lot of street cred [a politician who actually kept his word -- bestill my beating heart!].  But unlike the nekkid politicians who are consumed with the blind ambition we are so familiar with, Schaffer is who he is.  Most of the discussion within the Party had to do with whether Bob was "electable," and  Pete Coors didn't have a record to run from.  Ditto, the contest between Marc Holtzman and "Both-Ways Bob" Beauprez (remember "the Colorado Pledge" and the $20,000+ luxury junket to Israel on a Russian mobster's dime): To Party glitterati, Marc was "just a guy with an RV," and many who supported Both-Ways Bob did so on the basis of electability.  As if he was a catch....

---

by: riogrande @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:19:37 PM UTC

"I've talked with Bob, I like him"

I'm sure he's thrilled to have the support of such an important personage. Maybe Schaffer will make it onto Letterman's "brush with fame" segment someday, recounting how he had actually met and talked with Chorro-chico, an undoubtedly memorable moment for him. ("Bob! Bob! Over hear!" -Schaffer fleetingly shakes your hand as he works a crowd. "Yeah, Bob and I go way back" you repeat for years afterward).

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

---

by: yevrahnevets @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 20:02:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like, you're so important?

How much time is enough?  I've had Tom Tancredo's undivided attention for an hour.  Is that enough?  I've spoken with Beauprez for about two minutes.  I don't think that's enough.

I'm not as full of myself as you obviously seem to be.  All I can claim is that I've talked with certain people long enough to have an impression as to what they are like.

Methinks that oversized condom on your head is way too tight.

---

by: riogrande @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 21:44:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you calling a yarmulke an "oversized condom"?

I suppose that's not anti-semitic either, in your book.  Your credibility, if it ever existed, is in a tailspin.

---

by: Cuervo71 @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 22:06:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A yarmulke!?!?

I missed it completely! The last time I wore a yarmulke was 27 years ago, when I was a guest in a yashiva in Israel (couldn't pass up the opportunity). But ol' Chorro-Chico (which means, by the way, "little trickle," or, alternatively, "little diarrhea"), like a character from a Woody Allen movie, hears that someone is a jew and automatically dresses him up in full Hissidic garb! Oy vey, what a schmuck!

But that raises another question: Do yarmulkes prevent STDs, or just unwanted pregnancies?

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

---

by: yevrahnevets @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 01:37:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, you're a dickhead

A yarmulke would look more like an oversized I.U.D.

---

by: riogrande @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 04:53:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, the enlightened discussions we have here at Coloradopols.

"Thank you for putting your rank political motives on display." - ArapaGOP

---

by: Aristotle @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:00:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The word I'm looking for is....

shvance.

---

by: riogrande @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:05:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In a word, no.

I'm merely calling him a dickhead.

---

by: riogrande @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:06:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Methinks that oversized condom on your head is way too tight"

Sorry, I'm sure I'd be devastated by your brilliant repartee, complete with your dazzling mastery of archaic English, if I had any idea what it means. Since you were (predictably) insecure enough to tell us exactly how much time you claim to have spent with which immpressive public figures of our age, perhaps you could also spare a moment to guide me through the undoubtedly scathing reference to an oversized condom on my head. To which head are we referring? If the lower one, I suppose I should take it as a complement: Thank you for noticing. But if it's oversized, how can it be on too tight? Or is it that my head is so big, that even an oversized condom is too tight? But why am I wearing a condom on my head (assuming we are refering to the one on which can be found my eyes, ears, and nose)? Do I suffer from cranial ejaculations? And who am I protecting, with the use of a condom, from the possible insemination that might result from such ejaculations? Excuse me, I think I need to consult my "Kama Sutra" on this one....

Oh, and as for measures of "importance" (an unflattering pretense for a person to cling to and advertise, which was the actual point of the post to which you so obligingly responded), mine have nothing to do with how much time a person has spent with which public figure, a measure remarkably similar to that of the pathetic people who covet autographs from famous people as some desperate and delusional proof of their own significance. Obviously, your own desperate self-promotion is a slight variation on that theme. But thanks for rising to the bait: You may not be as smart as a trout, but your twice as entertaining!

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

---

by: yevrahnevets @ Fri May 25, 2007 at 22:24:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can you please be logical?????

First, I don't think it is possible to get any politicians attention for an hour even if you tie them down in a chair. Maybe you did but it's hard to believe.

Now lets go to your statement that 2 minutes with BWB was not enough. There were over 1.3 million votes cast for governor in '06. If 2 minutes was just enough - then BWB should by your logic give each voter 2 minutes for a total of 2.6 million minutes.

Lets say they spend 12 hours/day 7 days/week blasting through that 2 minutes/voter. We give them the other 12 hours to sleep, eat, use the bathroom, talk to their staff and family, etc.

12 hours is 720 minutes so they can do this with 360 voters/day. So they would only need 20 years doing this 12/7 to give you your 2 minutes - which according to you is not enough...

Think it through

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 01:16:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

All I had to do was threaten to run against him...

Whether you care to believe it or not is none of my concern.  The venue was the Genesee Chart House, back in 2004; he met with me, my wife, and an aide.  I'll admit to being more than shocked, considering that I was only a lowly committee-person and CD-6 delegate.

"If you can't put it on a bumper sticker, you can't sell it."

---

by: riogrande @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:01:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can I steal that quote?

"I don't think it is possible to get any politicians attention for an hour even if you tie them down in a chair. "

GREAT!

---

by: OrdinaryColoradoan @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 19:33:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Like, you're so important?"

Aside from the grade-school "na-na-na" level of your subject heading (copied above into my subject heading), you are, naturally enough, missing the point. I don't make lame attempts at political name-dropping to try to convince people of my importance. I don't write bombastic posts that ineptly attempt to emulate lofty political discourse to convince people of my importance. I don't make poorly reasoned, self-contradictory arguments, all wrapped up into an obnoxious tone of completely unwarranted intellectual superiority, to convince people of my importance. Those are your foibles, Little-Trickle, not mine, and not, as far as I can tell, anyone else's on this blog. "Being important" isn't particularly an ambition of mine, nor, in and of itself, is it a particularly admirable ambition. That's why calling someone "self-important," a fitting description for you, is considered an insult.

I'll be fair, instead of exaggerating for effect: You write like a moderately intelligent undergrad, both in style and in substance. And, frankly, if that's what you were, or if you were a 63 year old who simply fit that description, and made no pretenses, didn't constantly try to represent yourself as some oracle of wisdom, as some formidable analytical mind, I would say, Great! Let's chat! I would overlook your bombastic excesses, and even, perhaps, your forays into bigotry. But when you combine your mediocrity with such a constant assault of blythe self-promotion, exhalting yourself as if others were in agreement with your inflated self-perception, playing the part of the professor enlightening his intellectually immature students, you really do become exceedingly tedious.

I must admit, you seem quite impervious to the intersubjective reality the rest of us share: You do not allow it to humilliate you, as it would a person less oblivious to feedback. Ignorance, I suppose, is indeed bliss: You seem quite content living in the fantasy you've created for yourself. If it were a more benign, less offensive fantasy, I would probably just have shrugged and smiled and thought nothing more of it. But there's something about the way you present yourself that's like fingernails on a chalkboard, and one can't help but to grimmace and groan in response.

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

---

by: yevrahnevets @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 03:02:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, you do....

Yev: "I don't make poorly reasoned, self-contradictory arguments"

---

by: riogrande @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 05:02:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even if that were true

-a big "if," as everyone on this blog realizes- it's the least of the personal defects listed, and not for the petty purpose named. But nice comeback (*YAWN*). I'm through with you: I've made my point, and you're the only one who hasn't gotten it. Have you noticed the glaring lack of posts coming to your defense, or chastising me for engaging in this exercise? There's a reason for that, Little Trickle: It's called "implicit consensus". Any future responses to you will be limited to dismantling your logical fallacies. I'll let the rest of your hot air speak for itself: I've highlighted it enough that it will stand out from now on like a socially awkward teen-age boy's desparation to get laid (which it more or less is).

"(People) will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives" -John Maynard Keynes.

---

by: yevrahnevets @ Sat May 26, 2007 at 14:32:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]