December 10, 2009 09:05 PM UTC

"McInnis Disunity" Fallout Continues

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Today it’s back to Pinon Canyon, as the Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels reports:

Republicans opposed to the military’s Piñon Canyon expansion project are disappointed that property rights weren’t addressed when party leaders unveiled a new platform and rallied around gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis.

Some ranchers and landowners in southeastern Colorado who worry that the Army is going to take their land said they can’t back McInnis, a former congressman, because he supports the expansion.

“As it stands today, I don’t think McInnis could get 25 percent of the Republican votes in southeast Colorado,” said Grady Grissom, a rancher from Las Animas County. [Pols emphasis]

Grissom is part of the Piñon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition, which criticized McInnis in a news release this week. The group’s website says, “Scott McInnis is a big disappointment.”

But McInnis’ position on the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site has earned him plenty of support elsewhere, particularly in El Paso County, home to Fort Carson and the largest GOP stronghold in the state, with 127,156 registered Republicans…

State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry dropped out of the governor’s race last month, but the Grand Junction Republican had sided with ranchers. Two weeks before exiting the race, Penry ripped McInnis’ stance on Piñon Canyon at campaign events in Trinidad and Walsenburg, according to The Pueblo Chieftain.

“McInnis said (the issue) was not about private-property rights, and people who oppose the expansion are anti-military,” Penry said at the time. “That is irresponsible and reckless.”

After Penry bailed, he endorsed McInnis and helped draft the state GOP’s “Platform for Prosperity.”

Piñon Canyon expansion opponents such as Grissom are disappointed that the platform contained no mention of Piñon Canyon or property rights.

Readers haven’t always agreed with our assessment that Scott McInnis‘ pro-Army position on Pinon Canyon is potentially disastrous, and we understand that it was intended to curry favor with Fort Carson-area primary voters. We think that Republicans regardless of location are very sensitive–more than they’re given credit for–to the private property rights issue at stake here: and now that McInnis is free of primary competition for El Paso County’s military vote, siding with the Army over the ranchers of southeast Colorado could prove much more harmful than helpful.

Josh Penry would say “told you so” if he was contractually allowed to do so.