It was my reporting in April on a Tea Party rally where J Paul Brown spoke that led to Brian O'Donnell to ask Brown some rather pointed questions during Saturday's debate in Durango. While today's ColoradoPols diary scratches the surface regarding some of the far-out rhetoric Brown engaged in (as did Joe Hanel's article on Sunday in the Herald), those diaries only scratched the surface: what I quoted brown saying back on April 15 in Pagosa Springs was too rich to ignore. For example:
Note: This diary was revised after it's initial publication. I took my opponents' legitimate objections to heart and made some corrections.
************************************************************************************************************************************
Gender politics are a kissing cousin to racial politics. Just scratch the surface on this topic and emotions and anger burst forth. U.S. Senate candidates Ken Buck and Jane Norton are engaged in a battle of the sexes that has not exactly focused on intellectual issues.
Norton fired the opening salvo in this battle when she ran an ad accusing Buck of not being "man enough" to criticize her directly, because an independent political group was running ads doubting her conservative fiscal credentials. Sensitive to his manhood being questioned, Buck's now infamous response was: Vote for me "because I don't wear high heels." Buck went on to point out that his footwear of choice was cowboy boots with bulls**t on them. You get the idea, not exactly the stuff upon which to base your Ph.D. thesis - or your vote.
In his best Insert politically correct impression, Josh Penry addresses the GOP masses via email:
In our own internal polling, for example, Jane Norton claims a lead when a broader sample of voters is polled. More precisely, when asking a wider sample of primary voters (those who voted in a primary in 2006 OR 2008), Jane is winning.
Penry goes on to play the role of pot calling the kettle charlie Black:
Buck's supporters have been playing hardball on good days and downright dirty on others. Most recently a Ken Buck supporter filed a frivolous lawsuit to keep Jane off the ballot altogether. The lawsuit has no merit and no chance in keeping Jane off the ballot, but it's emblematic of the brass-tack tactics the Buck campaign has employed.
Norton's campaign seem to assume that the only information being consumed by Republicans is propaganda disguised as emails. Or perhaps Jane Norton, who is known to become forgetful (Cinamon, Josh, anything else?) forgot about her camp firing the first shot in the use of lawyers.
This week she (Norton) has embraced a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission by a former Owens administration official that alleges Buck colluded with former employer Jerry Morgensen, CEO of Hensel Phelps, to skirt campaign finance rules.
The campaign finance complaint detailing the theory was filed by Charles Grice, like Norton, a former official in the Owens administration. Owens and Grice asupport Norton in her race against Buck.
I certainly understand the necessity of a campaign to administer immediate life saving techniques. It is expected. What I do find odd is my receiving Norton's propaganda.
I have been a very vocal supporter of Ken Buck and have never hid my identity. You would think Penry who has boasted, Norton will not unilaterally disarm, would remove me from his BFF email list. He boldly challenged Buck's campaign via email and proudly sent a copy of the challenge to the Denver Post. Since that boast Norton's numbers have tanked. Not only was she overtaken by Buck but her numbers continue to shrink against Bennet and Romanoff.
Needless to say I will be anxiously awaiting the next email from Baghdad Bob.
As reported in today's Cortez Journal, Montezuma County voted against an increase in the property tax rate for the county hospital. More disturbing, the voters rejected de-Brucing the hospital district as well.
(This is a fascinating post - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past month or so, you've undoubtedly heard about the "Platform for Prosperity" and understand the dynamics that led to its construction. Conservatives were weary of Scott McInnis and the notion that he's a squish bag moderate parading as a true conservative long enough to fool the activists until he is elected. Let's be honest for those that supported Josh Penry's bid for governor, this platform as well as the reality of the Republican nominee for Governor in 2010, is a little hard to swallow. No wonder the 9/12 groups and Tea Parties are up in arms about this recent development. But just how mad are they? The Wall Street Journal Reports,
"To the consternation of Republican leaders, tea-party activists are jumping into primaries for U.S. Senate and other races, promoting their own candidates to challenge Republican front-runners in Kentucky, Florida, Illinois, California and elsewhere."
What I don't understand is all the flack that Jane Norton is getting due to Scott Mcinnis' strong-arm move. Norton and McInnis should not be viewed as the same. Jane is a true conservative and is BY FAR the better choice for the 9/12 groups and Tea Parties than Tom "I have a bankruptcy and steal from charities http://coloradopols.com/showDi... Wiens or Ken "I'm quitting the race, wait I'm still in the race" Buck. Norton is the favorite to win this seat; and if the Tea Parties and 9/12 groups truly want their values represented in the Senate, they should support Norton.
Ok! 9/12 groups and Tea Parties, we hear you! You don't want another John McCain RINO that's not going to embody any of your values, but it seems YOU WANT TO LOSE ANOTHER ELECTION! Yes I said it; your actions are a recipe for disaster. If you want to win back the Senate seat and have someone who embodies what it means to be a Conservative, you're going to have to stop acting like children.
Apparently he's had a change of heart and now endorses President Obama's health insurance reform plan. Which is odd, because just two days before he tweeted that "AARP is betraying Seniors by supporting Obama's sick healthcare plan," asking " Who says AARP is concerned for SRs?"
If there were ever a time in the Republican Party for a Sister Souljah moment, this is it.
With Schultheis and Renfroe serving as the local public face of the party and Rush Limbaugh as the national head of the Republican state, the party has gone completely off the rails. Once known for his death grip on the message, Dick Wadhams seems to have been forcibly retired in all but title as the puppets of industry and the religious right have moved front-and-center.
There's not much Penry can do about Limbaugh, but he is the guy who theoretically controls the message of his party within the State Senate. But instead of showing leadership, he put out a milquetoast response about disagreeing with Schultheis on HIV testing but defending Schultheis's self-annointed position as the spokesperson for Senate Republicans.
Penry is no leader. He should go back to Grand Junction in shame. Saner voices within the Republican Party (they actually do exist) need to stage a coup. Extremists are going to get elected and re-elected. That is just a fact. But they should never be allowed to control the message, because extremism really displeases the 1/3 of Coloradans who are independent, not to mention moderate Republicans and Democrats. Even the extremists know that.
Penry should resign. And if he doesn't, his caucus should make that happen for him before it's too late.
