Schaffer Parties Like It's 1999

The Democrats didn't win recent elections as much as Republicans lost them.

True.  Unfortunately, they lost them because they failed to govern in the manner advertised.  Remember how GW Bush talked about not getting into wars without exit strategies?

Republicans have lost elections because our leaders have not been bold enough in proposing innovative solutions in Washington and have drifted from our long-held claim to the mantle of fiscal responsibility. You can't credibly propose earmark reform, for example, while simultaneously authorizing spending on bridges to nowhere.

The "Seward Folly" (actually, it's Ketchikan) just about sums it up, although the guy who was hitting on pages and the guys who "lost" $8 billion over in Iraq probably didn't help.  At least, Barney Frank only maintained relationships with consenting adults.

We have to reestablish our credibility because Republicans terribly mishandled the ethical lapses of a few Congressmen in their ranks who should have been expeditiously and forcefully removed by their own party.

Again, very true.  I'm harder on corrupt Republicans than I am their Democratic counterparts, because we're supposed to know better.

We have lost elections because Republicans have not effectively communicated to the American people why our sons and daughters are being asked to fight and win a war that many Democrats in Congress and their friends in the press would prefer America lose.

Uh, never mind that there isn't a good reason, and probably never was....

But after just five months of taking control in Colorado and with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running the U.S. Congress, it is clear the activist-Democrat leaders are overreaching.

I don't think they have been nearly bold enough, but that is a matter of opinion....

There's an old saying in golf: You have to play the ball as it lies.  Schaffer is doing what he can with the lie he has, and I don't see any valid non-partisan reason for criticism of his website statement.  It's a far sight better than Bob "Both-Ways" Beauprez' "Colorado Promise" nonsense, isn't it?

If Bob S comes up with some common-sense solutions (IOW, ones that don't sound that they came from Jim Dobson's wet dreams), he has a chance to compete in this purple state.  If he tries to follow Beauprez, the Dems could run Mike Cerbo against him and canter to victory.

Would BS perhaps care to share with us which Democrats in Congress would "prefer America lose" a war?  Is he referring to Udall, the guy he is running against?  This seems to go beyond "red meat" and deep into wingnut territory.

The "purebreds" believe that the problems w/ the R party stem from dilution of conservative principles, giving too much to the center. As a fiscal conservative/social moderate I'm on the other side of the fence (strange that one party has two sides of the fence).

I respect Scaffer for staying true to his principles. At least we know he isn't going to campaign all over the map. Common wisdom would suggest, however, that playing to the center is more logical if you don't have a primary. This will be interesting to watch.

Personally, I would have rather seen Suthers run for the seat, but I'm happy with Schaffer and I will be happy to vote for him.  Plus, Udall isn't the same kind of Democrat as Ritter or Salazar which will help Schaffer if Schaffer can keep Udall from moderating his record.  Like you said, this should be an interesting election to watch...

Good post.

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

Besides the fact that Udall is not DeGette - he's liberal but he's not all that far left. Occasional headlines wherein the far left is attacking Udall - like we saw after the Iraq vote - will only help to confirm to general election independents that Udall is not the handmaid of the far left. No matter how many times the NRSC uses the words "Boulder liberal."

Given that independents have been burned by the far-right of this state, such as Schaffer, they may be a bit gun-shy of his hard-right rhetoric. Couple that with the good governance from the state house, Salazar and Ritter and I think things moderates/independents will be leaning Udall and will have to be convinced otherwise. Schaffer's run to the right will not assuage their concerns.

The good thing for Schaffer is that if he doesn't moderate his stances and Udall does, then Udall could be branded as a Boulder-liberal flip-flopper, a pretty high crime politically these days.  Again, it's going to be an interesting race to watch because so much of either sides success depends on their ability to successfully label the other side first

The logic is probably that he'll get more on-line money out of the base with some red meat like this. They'll probably re-write it into something that isn't a snarling defense of failure sometime later this year.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

The current "booming" Bush economy is a joke once you scratch the faux gold paint off.  The stock market still is not as high as under Clinton, inflation accounted for.  A Sunday George Will (I think) column crowed about the 8 million jobs created under Boosh.  That comes out to about 120,000 a month, well under the 150,000 a year needed to cover population growth...and that Clinton far exceeded.

Reuben's tax the rich, pay down the federal debt was sheer obvious genius. Corporations could compete easier for borrowing money and pay employees instead of bond holders. 

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

http://www.suntimes....

Check it out.

Colorado Pols, do you really intend on taking whacks--worthless, uninteresting whacks, no less--on Schaffer every day???  I mean, its your site...but *yawn*

Point 2.

I read Schaffer's site intro and found it rather tame, middle of the road, pragmatic.  It's all about common sense, government reform, fiscal responsibility--hardly red-meated conservative grist.  Unless I missed something I didn't see the haymaker being brought down on Planned Parenthood or the gay lobby.  If you didn't know any better it would be totally reasonable to think that some squishy RINO wrote the blurb.

Don't get me wrong, Schaffer will make it clear that he stands--and has consistently stood--for the conservative values that Coloradans have demonstrated they agree with.  But that's not the thrust of Schaffer's campaign.  He's going back to basics and that's going to put him back to Washington.

I think Schaffer has a less of a problem with his conservative record than Udall does with his liberal record.  You can go on about Schaffer's rabble-rousing conservatism but you're whistling past Udall's liberal--and potentially dealbreaking--graveyard.

Point 3.

Colorado is a red state.  Colorado is generally a conservative state. Colorado is also inconsistent, competitive, and remarkably indepedent.  Only a state like Colorado would vote overwhelmingly conservative on ballot iniatives in the same year that they hand complete control over state government to the Democrats.

What does that all mean?  It means that Republicans can be assured that generally the voters of Colorado would agree with most of the GOP party platform--but that that alone won't win elections.  Most Coloradans are for limited taxes and smart, efficient governement, traditional moral values, and strong national security.  But the way Washington is spending money, the way that the Iraq is going, and the way that our politicians are the most morally deficient--the sheer lack of efficacy--voters don't see the GOP as standing up for the values they espouse.  So they vote for the other team.

The reason that the beltway Kool Aid drinkers think this race is competitive--and, of course, it absolutely is--is that Colorado is not reliably GOP or reliably conservative.  If you poll voters--as, of course, they do--Coloradans will tell you that they embrace the conservative agenda and live conservative lives.  But that doesn't translate into automatic GOP votes as it does in other more reliably Republican states. 

I don't know how that makes liberals feel.  On the one hand, any claim that Colorado is moving left away from its conservative moorings is fallacious and silly.  On the other hand, liberals can still successfully pursue their agenda by electing Democrats to Congress and the legislature.  If you asked voters what they thought about funding Planned Parenthood, awarding gay rights, and raising taxes--and, funny thing is, they actually already have--Coloradans will tell you that they dont' want it.  But they still vote Democrat and the liberal agenda is still achieved.

Where does that leave Schaffer and Udall?  Probably in the same place it left Schoettler and Owens in '98 and Allard and Strickland in '02--TIGHT.  In the end I'm confident Schaffer wins by a few points but I'm not optimistic enough to think it will be easy.

Nonetheless, the gist of his post, particularly point 2, is well taken. Outside of the phrase "activist Democrat," a term BS is using as an epithet (which is utter nonsense - shouldn't Dems and 'pubs be activists?), I didn't read BS's intro as something more appropriate to a primary than a general election.

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

Anyway, the whole country is moving left on gay rights.  That's just as true in Utah as it is in Vermont--although we're obviously talking degrees here.  Colorado is only part of a national movement every bit as much as it is part of the national movement to the right on abortion.

They've got civil unions in nearly 10 states and it will be several more by the end of the decade.  Colorado--because of its conservatism--won't be one of them.

There is a sea change but it is not exclusive to Colorado.  Colorado--at least on that issue--is moving in concert with the aggregate.

What's more, it lost.  Movement or no movement Colorado just distinguished itself with a surprising no vote.  The "no" folks were outspent 5 to 1, the national gay rights crowd came to Colorado thinking that this was the next frontier for gay rights advancement, and it was an overwhelmingly good year for the left--here and nationally.  And it lost.  And it wasn't even that close.  Anything else is the usual political spin when you lose an election or issue.

The whole red/blue dichotomy has always referred strictly to the POTUS map.  It gets messy when you're talking about legislatures and Congressional delgations and this and that.  The end game has always been how a state votes presidentially and in that respect Colorado is most definitely a red state.

You can whip out your new box of Crayolas and try mixing and matching 52 parts red and 47 blue or light blue and dark red and a little purple.  But that just confuses--and I'd argue that this is the intent of the left when they starting talking purple--the fundamental fact that Colorado is a red state.

Tennessee voted twice for Clinton.  North Carolina has, like Colorado, a legislature dominated by the Democrats.  Texas has had, until real recently, been a VERY Democratic state--and it's the state that gave us Jim Hightower, Molly Ivins, and LBJ.  That's why the ultimate indicator has always been how you vote for POTUS.

What's more, Colorado has a decent GOP registration advantage and has traditionally been a state with a decided GOP tilt even in local elections.  A good year which only paralleled a good national year for a newly centrist (in Colorado, anyway) Democratic Party isn't exactly indicative of a new blue hue.

And let's not forget that Colorado is the same state that elected Tim Wirth and a host of Democratic governors.  Feisty independence is nothing new to Colorado and conservative voters and never found it inconsistent to be conservative and vote Democratic at the same time.

I would argue that the GOP dominance of the early 00s and the current dominance of the Democrats are really both wild swings away from the mean and clear abbherations in typical political trends in the state.  The GOP suffered in 2004 and 2006 from its prior control.  In other words, the GOP--like any hegemony--was an easy target for voter discontent.

If you want to argue that Colorado actually has a liberal underbelly like Oregon, Vermont, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, or New York, I won't stop you.  Lots of deluded California Republicans coax themselves into believing that the glory days of Reaganism demonstrates the underlying conservatism of their state.  They can dream on and so can liberals who see Colorado as the next Great Big Blue State.  Colorado is rightly seen by serious observers as a conservative-leaning state that embraces the wild, western independence of yore.  You can see it however you want.  Or you fly out to blue America some time and see what real blue states look like.

Now while I find it plausible that Dems could hold their majorities, if they were to govern like Democrats in NY or MA they would loose.

While I find it plausible that Republicans could re-gain majorities in a variety of state offices as well as the leg. if they govern like they did, they would promptly lose again.

The thing about state level races is that parties go in and out in cycles the question is how long a party can drag the cycle out.  The federal level is the level to pay attention to, and there it would appear that Colorado is purple with a slight conservative edge.  But that doesn't mean that conservatives can win as easily as Dobby might suggest. 

That's the nice thing about being a border-line swing state.  The winner of this next senate race is going to be the person who runs the best campaign, not the one with the right party affliation

"And it wasn't even that close." Referring to Ref I.

The problem with this argument is the same as the red/blue state position - it's stuck in time. Yes, Ref I lost. 6% is close, though - saying it's not is pure spin. But the point is that time keeps marching on, and it's inevitible - inevitible - that we are going to have civil unions, here and everywhere in the USA, for gays. 2006 just wasn't the year, but what about 2016? Progress can be glacially slow but it's just as unstoppable.

"If you want to argue that Colorado actually has a liberal underbelly like Oregon, Vermont, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, or New York, I won't stop you."

You don't have to - that was never my position, which you should know if you're an academic (meaning either you're not that smart yet, or you're deliberately distorting my case - what would your professors say?) Colorado is purple - not red, not blue. You state the truth about past elections and voter registrations, but insisting on saying it's red like Utah or most of the South just isn't true. It's not going to matter in Shaffer vs Udall. We may very well get Senator Shaffer, but it won't be because of registration advantages for his party, it will be because he stays true to his positions and philosophies while Udall sells his out. (Which is how the race appears to me at the moment.) In other words, it'll be because Shaffer is the straight shooter.

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