Club for Growth PAC Backs Bob Schaffer

CCC

Bob will probably get the CO Christian Coalition next week, bringing sanity and balance to his campaign.

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 13:46:26 PM CDT

Repulsive Republican Radicals strike again

Has Bob said anything about Bush's flawed immigration bill?

He's for family values—20 million illegal immigrants over 300 million Americans, just like Ken Salazar, the Senator from Mexico.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 20:56:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Club

is not squeamish about using a club with plenty of money to back it up.  We would like to believe that is a disadvantage to a campaign but election results say otherwise.  Having the Club for Growth backing is an advantage the same way a junk yard dog is an advantage to a junk yard.

---

by: puddin @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 14:40:42 PM CDT

Ground Hog Day

  There's that smell again.......The same folks who produced the GOP love-fest in C.D. 5 last year (Club for Growth, FOTF) are at it again.  Team Lamborn will be running the Schaffer campaign!

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 15:28:46 PM CDT

This was a surprise why?

They were going to endorse Udall?

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010

---

by: Ralphie @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 16:27:26 PM CDT

I for one am shocked

Tom Tancredo Interview

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 17:17:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not good for Bob

It would be a mistake for Bob and his team to discount the negative feelings in C/S for Club for Growth. 

---

by: colorado conservative @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 17:49:42 PM CDT

CC, how can we overcome this?

We all know Lamborn is going to be contested.  It's just a question of who. If the CFG picks up for Lamborn in 2008 where it left off in 2006, I foresee disastrous consequences for Schaffer.  The only remedy I see for Schaffer is if the CFG announces it will not endorse any candidates in the 5th CD House race. 

One thing Demogirl had right was that Doug Lamborn and his supporters gave dirty politics a bad name. Visit my home page often and decide for yourself. (Demogirl, you inspired me to join Coloradopols. Won't you please come home?)

---

by: CD-5 Line @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 19:06:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not good how?

Do you think there are 100 people in this state who know or care what CFG stands for?

Here's how it works.  CFG endorses.  During the campaign, they buy ads.  People watch the ads.  Regardless of what they tell you in polls, the ads work.  People who watch and believe the ads don't read the fine print at the bottom.  They're just swayed.  How is that a negative?

I'm a bit of an insider too.  But to be an effective insider, you need to quit thinking like an insider.  Only insiders read the stuff at the bottom of the ad.  Only insiders care.  Real People?  Naah.

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010

---

by: Ralphie @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 21:36:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting comments.

I agree in part.  But, at least for a caucus state, 100 delegates make a difference.  And 100 activist delegates from El Paso County and the 5th CD make an even bigger difference. We aren't the red headed step child in the State, but, the single biggest concentration--as best as I know--of activist Republicans, willing to walk the precincts and donate.  If Schaffer doesn't get our full and enthusiastic support, he cannot win the State.  My opinion, any way.  And the association with Pat Toomey isn't a good beginning. 

Use the bonus member elections this year in El Paso County as an example.  In prior years, you had a lock on being elected if you had Chuck Gosnell's and the Christian Coalition of Colorado's endorsement.  This year, it was a skull and crossbones to be endorsed by Gosnell and the Christian Coalition.  Tom Minnerie's wife, as one example, someone I personally like very much, was soundly defeated. Any other year, I would have voted for her.  But, I didn't this time. If Pat Toomey, theoretically, had endorsed any bonus members in El Paso County, we would have lynched them on the spot!

And, here's the point.  We weren't merely voting Crank supporters in, we were voting the Christian Coalition of Colorado and Chuck Gosnell OUT.  They (CCC and Gosnell) were proxies for the CFG and Pat Toomey.  We voted Toomey and the CFG OUT as well.

The political activists are the army of fund raisers Schaffer needs in El Paso County helping him.  We're conflicted with doing so with his endorsement by the CFG.  Toomey and the CFG may do all the negative press in the general election they want, but Schaffer needs us NOW and he's not getting off on a good foot with accepting an endorsement from the CFG.  He's got to figure a way to solve the problem.

SCHAFFER'S BEST SOLUTION?  Not only that the CFG doesn't endorse Doug Lamborn, but, Bob Schaffer has to make it known somehow that he played a roll in getting Toomey to drop the endorsement of Lamborn.  That best solution may not happen, but that's the best one I have. 

One thing Demogirl had right was that Doug Lamborn and his supporters gave dirty politics a bad name. Visit my home page often and decide for yourself. (Demogirl, you inspired me to join Coloradopols. Won't you please come home?)

---

by: CD-5 Line @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 22:24:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

$$$

A senate race for CFG will come with well over a million dollars. It's great for him

---

by: TheDeminator @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 17:57:14 PM CDT

So what?

Regardless, both sides will have plenty of money to throw at this race.  It's the top Senate race in the country. More money alone shouldn't be a deciding factor in what to do in this race. 

I'm with those who shrug their shoulders and say, "So What? Were they going to endorse Udall?".  However, the only caveat there is that the CFG could run some pretty nasty ads late in the campaign cycle that may really hurt Schaffer with those who see him as a "nice guy".  CFG isn't known for adding anything good to a campaign cycle.

---

by: SouthDem @ Mon Sep 01, 2010 at 23:10:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Negative campaigning works

Lamborn won.

---

by: Roger D @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 18:48:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In a 7 person race - barely

But in a 2 person race it's a very different thing.

Tom Tancredo Interview

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 22:30:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

a million? LOL

....aim a wee bit higher. A Senate race in Colorado in 2008 is a 9-11 million dollar proposition.

---

by: GOPpundit @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 20:13:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where is DemoGirl when you need her?

Refresh my memory, why is the Club For Growth endorsement bad news for a candidate?

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 19:21:22 PM CDT

It's only a negative

to those folks who believe the voters will rise up in rebellion against the candidates benefiting from negative advertising.  Won't happen in this world.

---

by: puddin @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 20:11:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Except that they did in 2006

Sorry, but those who forget history are doomed (destined?) to repeat it.  All negative advertising ain't equal, although there are way too many folks on this discussion that seem to think it is.  The best example of things is the 2006 legislative elections.  Both the Dem 527s and Trailhead ran "negative" ads.  But the Trailhead ads were much more CFG-like in terms of their nastyness, and they got beat rather soundly, even more so than should have happened in a Democratic year.

If only CFG would suffer the same fate as Trailhead (i.e., death).

---

by: SouthDem @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 20:23:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

CFG is good at one thing, and one thing only

That is winning primaries. If the seat is so Republican that if Dennis Kucinnich was the Republican nominee he would still win - then they get the general election too.

But their real talent is winning seats that will be Republican regardless. But doing so with candidates so repulsive that they face primary election after election and in many cases they get the seat for 1 term.

I think they are part of what will cause the self-destruction of the wingnut part of the Republican party. If you're too right wing for Colorado Springs then you can't win long term.

Tom Tancredo Interview

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 22:33:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"too right wing for Colorado Springs"

I never thought I'd see the day where a) I'd ever hear or read such a statement, and b) discover that it actually makes some sense. Of course we'll know if that's accurate should Lamborn actually be unseated in a primary here.

"The fact that we Dems can't rebuild the house does not mean you bring back the [Republicans] who burned it down." - DavidThi808

---

by: Aristotle @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 00:22:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And....

The Dem 527's outspend Trailhead at least 3-1.  That can't hurt your odds.

---

by: Moonraker @ Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:56:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So, as far as CFG is concerned, it's all about negative ads?

Is there anything about the group's positions that could hurt Schaffer?

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 08:32:30 AM CDT

Depends on how aggressive they are.

If they go out of their way to air wingnut commercials "supporting" Schaffer, then I'd say "Yes".  CFG is on the radical fringe with their anti-government stance; they could scare away those moderates who might vote for Schaffer if they thought their emergency federal farm aid wasn't being threatened...

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 17:39:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]