Former State Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams wasn't unemployed for long. According to a stunning press release sent out this morning, Wadhams has been named Deputy Political Advisor to Governor John Hickenlooper. A press conference has been scheduled for this afternoon, but as the release explains:
The office of Gov. John Hickenlooper today announced that former Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams has been appointed as Deputy Political Advisor to the Governor.
"The Governor feels strongly about his bipartisan credentials," said Alan Salazar, the Governor's chief policy and political director. "There's no better way to show that you don't favor one political party over the other than to hire someone who is truly disliked by both political parties."
Earlier this year Wadhams announced that he would not run for re-election to a third term as State Republican Party Chair. Last Saturday he was formally replaced when Republicans elected Ryan Call to become their new Party Chair.
"I think the Governor was concerned that too many people looked at him as a Democrat," said Wadhams. "He's not a Republican by any means, but my job is about making sure that nobody ever really understands which political party the Governor favors. The Governor has already done a good job of making that unclear, and I'm confident that I can continue to keep those waters murky."
UPDATE: Bartels revises her initial report--Sen. Ted Harvey now says he will indeed resign his Senate seat if elected GOP chairman.
-----
That's the word from Lynn Bartels at the Denver paper's blog: state Sen. Ted Harvey of Highlands Ranch announced today that he will challenge Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams for his well-paid position at party leadership elections in March. Sen. Harvey has worked in recent years to raise his profile among party activists at all levels; from helping his fellow legislators on campaigns, to a prominent role in ousting the Douglas County School Board in 2009.
Harvey is not required to resign his Senate seat should he defeat Wadhams; we could see that working in his favor when it comes time for GOP activists to chart their course due to his hands-on experience. Or, just like they whispered about Wadhams' taking on additional responsibilities while serving as chairman...it could work against him.
Bottom line? We're not as sure that Sen. Harvey represents the kind of risk to Wadhams that other Republican possibilities discussed in recent weeks likely would if they got in the race, but Harvey is going to pose a real challenge. Harvey is a credible enough figure to mount a successful campaign, and he has a couple of things going for him:
For one thing, Harvey is likely to receive the support of most GOP elected officials, which matters because they all have a vote in the decision (remember, it's not just those county chairs and other locally-elected insiders who get to vote on this). The other advantage for Harvey is one that a lot of Republicans we know are seeking above everything else--his name isn't Dick Wadhams.
When we wrote earlier this month about Wadhams' decision to run for re-election, we noted that it was likely that Wadhams would not have announced a bid unless he already knew what the result might be. We've since learned that we were perhaps giving Wadhams too much credit; there's a very strong opinion in high-level GOP circles that Wadhams is running for re-election because he has no place else to go. If that's the case, the Harvey-Wadhams showdown could be a heck of a lot of fun to watch.
"I want to serve as state chairman during the 2012 election cycle because of the extraordinary opportunities Colorado Republicans have to dramatically impact our state and nation," Wadhams said in a lengthy e-mail to state Republicans.
Republicans will pick a party chair in March, but lingering discontent among party faithful could make a bid for another two-year term difficult for Wadhams, who cruised to re-election two years ago with 85 percent of the vote against two little-known challengers...
The only announced candidates opposing Wadhams so far are John Wagner, who ran the hapless campaign of Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Cleve Tidwell, and recent Colorado transplant Bart Baron, who ran for Congress in Michigan. But conservatives and Tea Party supporters have promised to field a challenger up to the task of knocking down Wadhams, a fixture in state politics for decades.
There is Tom Wiens, Luning continues, and late last month there was some talk of Denver GOP attorney Ryan Call taking a shot at the well-paid position. We haven't heard about any more about Call one way or the other, but we still think he would make a formidable chairman of the state Republican party--certainly more so than Wadhams, who, as we've discussed in this space repeatedly, could be the most underperforming (relative to the opportunity) and divisive chairman of the Colorado Republican Party who has ever held the job. The numbers speak for themselves, as we wrote after the November election:
The Chair of the State Republican Party will complete his fourth year in the position in early 2011. Here's how Republicans have fared during his watch:
Treasurer, Attorney General, Secretary of State: 3-for-3
State Senate Control: 0-for-2
State House Control: 1-for-2 (by a one-vote margin)
Those numbers are all the more interesting given the historic Republican advantage that GOP candidates enjoyed in 2010. All things being equal, Wadhams record isn't very good; when you consider that Republicans had a very real natural advantage in 2010, that record looks even worse.
On the other hand, it's just as likely that for all his flaws, Wadhams has the whole thing sewn up backroom-style, and that's why he's willing to announce his intention to "run" to begin with. Wadhams hasn't forecast well in Colorado of late, but we find it hard to believe that he'd run for re-election without having a pretty good idea of the outcome.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's announcement Monday that he will seek a second term as chairman of the committee stunned the political world and left strategists scrambling to assess the impact he could have on the contest.
Steele, in a detailed statement released last night announcing his intentions, sought to claim credit for Republican gains at the ballot box in November and insisted his job was only half done...
...While Steele's stridency to prove his naysayers wrong is without question, his ability to win the race is far less clear. Sources knowledgeable about the alliances of the 168 members of the RNC estimate the chairman's support at roughly 40-50 votes -- roughly half of those he would need to claim a second term.
How Steele plans to build beyond that base -- and whether he can -- remains to be seen but it's hard to see his reelection campaign succeeding, particularly given the forces lined up against him and with other candidates.
The current favorite, in fact, seems to be Wisconsin Republican party chairman Reince Priebus who managed Steele's 2009 RNC campaign. Priebus has been gathering support from committee members formerly loyal to Steele.
The performance of Steele was a recurring topic among Colorado Republicans in advance of last August's Primary, especially after reports of lavish spending emerged in the spring. Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams has tentatively supported Steele both recently and during a summer visit. Other Colorado Republicans have been less supportive, including Rep.-elect Cory Gardner, who tossed Steele to the Tea Party wolves in April.
A recent series of excellent interviews in The Colorado Statesman (which the paper calls "InnerViews") revealed some stark differences between Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak and Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams, including their disagreement over the role of the State Party in "vetting" candidates for public office.
You can read what both Waak and Wadhams said to the Statesman about candidate vetting after the jump, but deciding whether a Party should "vet" candidates probably depends as much on your interpretation of "vetting" as anything else.
There's a difference between looking at a candidate's background, for instance, (which would have helped prevent so many legislative candidates with criminal records and actively trying to prevent a candidate from running. In our view, somebody from the State Party should be doing some sort of background check on candidates while having a conversation with them about what it takes to run a successful campaign (which can help prevent candidates who realize too late that they don't actually want to run). There's absolutely nothing wrong with that approach, and if a Party Chair ends up talking someone out of running with the facts in-hand, that's probably for the best.
The difference, however, is in how far a Chair goes after that discussion. If someone decides that they are going to run for office, no matter what and despite the facts presented, then the Chair should step aside at that point. "Vetting" should be something of a strong advisory role, without delving into anything more complicated.
Remember this day, folks, because in the coming years politicos, reporters, bloggers and everyone with an interest in Colorado politics will point back to this day to mark the moment when the Colorado Republican Party changed completely, and perhaps irrevocably. Whether or not this change will be remembered as something positive or negative may not be known until well after Election Day in November, and maybe not until Winter 2011, when Republicans across the state elect new local and statewide leadership. But make no mistake -- nothing can ever be the same in the Colorado GOP after weeks of events that culminated on Friday.
Because on Friday, Sept. 3, 2010, the State Republican Party told every Republican voter that the caucus and the primary only matter so long as you choose the candidate they want you to choose. Otherwise, your vote means nothing. Incredibly, and inexplicably, the Colorado Republican Party officially declared that a small handful of people will make decisions for you, no matter what the election results say.
In fact, two major changes have occurred: 1) The Republican Party decided that a small committee of people can choose whether or not to support a candidate that Republican voters elected, and 2) Top Republicans have splintered their support in the governor's race in three different directions. Party unity? There's no going back from here.
The Colorado Statesman has an excellent story from Jody Strogoff and Ernest Luning about the events surrounding the Republican efforts to get Gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes off of their ballot. You really need to read the whole thing, but we'll break down a couple of key sections to illustrate our point after the jump.
It's time for another edition of "Worst Week in Colorado," where we ask Colorado Pols readers who it is who had the worst week in Colorado politics.
Previous winners (or losers) include Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and former GOP Gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis. Our nominee this week is the Colorado Republican Party and Establishment in general, for its shamelessly apparent attempts to discredit Gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes and force him out of the race so that they can appoint someone else.
We had no problem with the GOP trying to get Maes out of the race prior to the Primary, or even soon afterwards, but this week the process took on a whole new level of desperate absurdity. If they can't get Maes to agree to any sort of plan to bow out of the race, they could at least try to do it a little quieter while not openly poking in the eye the hundreds of thousands of Republicans who, for whatever reason, did vote for him in the Primary.
Who, or what, else would you nominate for "Worst Week in Colorado" this week?
THURSDAY UPDATE #6: The Wall Street Journal puts Dan Maes' name in lights again, accorded the no-small honor of Quote of the Day:
Enjoy the ride, Mr. Maes. Whatever happens tomorrow, he's writing his poetry and the newspapers are printing it.
THURSDAY UPDATE #5: FOX 31's Eli Stokols Tweets from today's debate:
THURSDAY UPDATE #4: This is all becoming really very silly. Former Senate President, and Republican right-wing standard bearer, John Andrews issued this statement this morning:
This morning I called Dan Maes to withdraw my endorsement and urge him to end his candidacy, for the public good. As a conscientious Republican who earlier voted for Dan, I cannot support a manifestly unfit nominee. He has flunked his job interview with the people of Colorado in the weeks since Scott McInnis faded. The party should cut Maes loose if he does not resign the nomination. I intend to write in a vote for Jane Norton for Governor. [Pols emphasis]
Jane Norton? This makes perfect sense. Try to kick out someone who won the Republican primary in order to replace him with someone who lost a primary election of her own. We've absolutely reached the point where this is causing more harm than good for Republicans, whether or not they can convince Maes to withdraw.
-----
THURSDAY UPDATE #3: There is a Gubernatorial debate scheduled to be taped today at Noon as a joint production between Colorado Public Television (CPT12) and CBS 4. The debate is scheduled to air at 9:00 p.m. tomorrow, which could be a bit odd if Maes did withdraw from the race.
-----
THURSDAY UPDATE #2: Moments ago, Dan Maes posted this defiant-sounding update to his Facebook page. Does this read like a man about to pull out of this race?
THURSDAY UPDATE: The Colorado Statesman'sJody Strogoff confirms much of this story in a detailed must-read report this morning: renewed pressure to withdraw, a few days of expressed leeway by the Secretary of State's office should a vacancy committee be necessary, and a twist you may not have expected: Bob Beauprez waiting in the wings?
Colorado gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes has already overcome a significant cash dearth to win once this election cycle, but now Republican leaders are warning that without a fast injection of cash, his campaign might be doomed.
In a recent e-mail to grassroots Republicans forwarded to POLITICO, the president of Denver's Coalition for a Conservative Majority said Maes's campaign was teetering on the brink due to anemic cash flow.
"Dick Wadhams informed us that the Maes campaign is on the verge of collapse due to lack of campaign funding. If you are a Dan Maes supporter, be aware that his campaign desperately needs donations even more than it needs volunteers to work," wrote coalition president Jack Ott, referencing comments made by state party chair Dick Wadhams at recent meeting.
In a separate e-mail to a conservative listserv, Colorado 9-12 Project leader Lu Busse wrote that Maes "in particular needs money," and suggested that a big cash infusion from grassroots members could help spur rank-and-file establishment Republicans and "big money" players to get off the sidelines.
Busse went on to say that statewide Republican candidates like Maes would likely need a million votes to win, more than double the number of Republicans who turned out to vote in the primary. "Persuading 2.5 times that many to vote for the candidates will not be possible in the next 10 weeks without money for direct mail and other advertising . . . This is not being negative, this is accepting reality and changing our tactics/actions based upon the situation," Busse wrote. [Pols emphasis]
We love that last quote from 9-12 Project Leader Lu Busse that they might want to "change their tactics" to include more fundraising. Whatever gave you that idea? Who gave up the secret that you can't win elections with just "Don't Tread on Me" flags and message boards?
Through the July 28 cutoff period for the last fundraising reports, GOP gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes had less than $24,000 in the bank. We've always said that this is one of the main problems with Republicans kowtowing to the Tea Party and 9-12 groups of the world; sure, they're loud and they show up at events, but taken as a whole, they are more of a hindrance than a help. Republicans like Senate nominee Ken Buck have had to move as far to the right as possible in order to win their support in a Primary, but once the General Election comes, they become a humongous albatross. They insist that Buck and Maes take positions that won't help them much with swing voters, but they don't do squat to help them raise money to appeal to anyone other than the Tea Party. You can see this muddled line of thinking in the quote above, as though it just now became clear that raising money might be helpful.
Of course, even if the Tea Party folks could help raise money, there's no guarantee that Maes would know what to do with it, as a former staffer tells Politico:
"There were just red flags all over the place. It was real clear to me he didn't have any personal money. His wife was running the campaign money," said Ross, who left the campaign in March. "He doesn't know how to manage $5. He won't be able to raise money. He can't raise money because people are finding out what a joke he is."
Okay Polsters, it's time for your nominations for the "Worst Political Week in Colorado."
The last time we ran this post, two weeks ago, Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhamswas declared the winner (or loser).
We'll put a couple of the more obvious selections up for a vote (including Wadhams, the current "champion"), but please chime in with your suggestions. And try to make them creative -- sure, it was a bad week for Andrew Romanoff and Jane Norton, but who else???
Our selection for this week's "Worst Week in Colorado" is Josh Penry, campaign manager for Norton's failed U.S. Senate bid. Not only did his candidate lose (despite being the clear favorite for a long time), but the surprising victory of Dan Maes in the GOP Gubernatorial Primary makes it unlikely that Republicans will be replacing their candidate for Governor with someone else (which, potentially, could have opened the door for Penry to take over as the GOP nominee).
