November 24, 2009 08:14 PM UTC

Who's Afraid of the "Contract on Colorado?"

• 7 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

We want to start by acknowledging the burst of uncharacteristically good politics exhibited in the last few weeks by the Colorado GOP. At least in the gubernatorial race, Republicans went from the certainty of a long and bloody primary battle to a cleared field (sorry, Dan Maes) and the pretense of “unity” around Scott McInnis with remarkable speed.

It was quick, but it was far from clean–from the dubious manner in which Josh Penry withdrew from the race to the absurd theater of Tom Tancredo’s abortive “challenge,” culminating in a platform statement that–until yesterday–was called the “Contract for Colorado.” By far the best-executed part of the whole business was the tightly coordinated rollout of these talking points by the Denver Post’s editorial staff and columnists, that is until somebody panicked about the name “Contract for Colorado” and ordered it changed at the last minute. You have to admit that the lead-up to McInnis’ press conference in the Post over the past week, and yesterday’s massive front-page headline “United GOP targets Ritter,” was fine political art on display.

But today there’s a problem: a problem that they should have anticipated at some point during the meticulous planning for McInnis’ coronation. What happens when actual reporters start asking questions about the plan? We’ve been hard on the Post’s Jessica Fender from time to time, and she certainly did accomodate the “GOP unity” meme with some of her reporting last week, but right under the noses of her giddy bosses she delivers the goods today:

The battle began Monday morning when GOP gubernatorial front-runner Scott McInnis – flanked by legislators, the previous governor and former rivals – made pledges on everything from job growth to health care reform in the party’s newly renamed “Platform for Prosperity.”

McInnis used much of his speech, given at the headquarters of RK Mechanical Inc. in Denver, to attack Ritter’s policies, which McInnis blamed for job losses in the state.

But the former congressman and likely GOP nominee left some questions unanswered, such as how he would fund a $1 billion transportation deficit in Colorado while reversing a car-registration-fee hike, implementing strict spending limits and keeping taxes low. All are campaign promises.

He declined to name a specific cut or reduction that he would make to the state budget. [Pols emphasis]

Instead, McInnis criticized one of the cuts Ritter put in place last spring: the closure of a unit for medically needy adults in the Grand Junction Regional Center…

Fender goes on to report that several items in the “Contract for Colorado” “Platform for Prosperity” are already law passed by Democrats, while others pledge opposition to things that nobody expects to happen (single-payer health care). The only thing missing from the Contract Platform is “we support free oxygen.”

But the bottom line is this, not buried at the bottom for a change–whatever you call it, it’s not based in reality. They won’t back it up by telling you what they will cut to pay for their cuts. And when pressed, McInnis criticizes budget cuts he doesn’t like instead of providing alternatives. This is, if you recall, exactly where Josh Penry’s message started to veer off course over the summer. Sorry guys, but at least some of Colorado’s political reporters are going to ask follow-up questions that you might want to be prepared to answer.

As we’ve said, we thought the Achilles’ heel in this plan was the wedge-issue immigration and abortion planks that Penry and Tancredo demanded. But unless McInnis’ answers on the nuts and bolts of governing get a lot better, none of it will hold together under scrutiny.

UPDATE: Then there’s “McLobbyist”–liberal activist group Progress Now’s angle follows.

Call for Republican leaders to put the people of Colorado over Scott “McLobbyist” McInnis’ lobbying clients

Call for McInnis to add disclosure pledge to Republican platform

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, November 23, 2009

CONTACT: Michael Huttner 303-931-4547

Denver–At a Republican “Unity” press conference this morning, ProgressNow Colorado criticized the so-called “Contract for Colorado” and called on Republican leaders to put the people of Colorado over the clients of Scott McInnis. ProgressNow launched a statewide petition calling for Republicans to add a disclosure pledge to the GOP’s contract, to raise awareness of the conflicts of interest between McInnis lobbyist clients and the interest of the people of Colorado.

“Scott McInnis has a long history of placing special interests and his lobbying clients before the people of Colorado,” said Michael Huttner, Founder and CEO of ProgressNow Colorado, the state’s largest online advocacy organization. “The people of this state deserve a clear and firm commitment in the GOP’s so-called ‘contract’ that Scott ‘McLobbyist’ McInnis will not let his lobbying interests influence his judgment.”

Newly researched records reveal that clients have paid at least a million dollars for McInnis’ lobbying services, and that was only through the end of 2008. View federal lobbying records at http://soprweb.senate.gov/inde…

“We are calling the public to sign our petition to raise awareness about collusion between lobbyist McInnis and the clients who pay his bills,” Huttner noted.

ProgressNow Colorado launched a petition to its members statewide, asking them to join their request for Republicans to add a “lobbying transparency pledge” to their platform. The petition can be found at:

http://progressnowcolorado.org…

“McInnis has even lobbied for a foreign oil company, which was penalized with the largest drilling fine in Colorado history for contaminating land and water–in the very district that McInnis once represented,” said Huttner.

Records reveal that McInnis lobbied for EnCana, a foreign oil company that was assessed the largest drilling fine in Colorado history after causing gas to contaminate land and water in Western Colorado–part of McInnis’ district in Congress. (Christian Science Monitor, February 5, 2009)  McInnis claimed he would not lobby when he left Congress, yet he has been a federal lobbyist ever since. (Denver Post, March 13, 2005)

“McInnis’ long history of putting the interests of his lobbying clients over local interests goes back to even while he was in Congress,” stated Huttner.

Last week it was reported that McInnis, as a Congressman, helped undermine rail service to his district, benefitting the corporate interests of billionaire oilman and railroad baron Phil Anschutz–another of McInnis lobbying clients. (“McInnis steadfast? Not thus far,” DP, November 15, 2009.)  

“We also want to know whether McInnis is currently lobbying for any individual who may have helped push McInnis’ primary opponents out, through threats of an ‘independent’ expenditure on McInnis’ behalf,” stated Huttner.

# # #