President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 28, 2010 08:12 PM UTC

Good God Man, STOP TALKING!!!

  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE:: From MSNBC, here’s how a smart Republican candidate handles this question:

“While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position,” said Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio in a statement Tuesday, adding that the law could “unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens.”

Another Floridian, former governor Jeb Bush, agreed with Rubio’s assessment in an interview with POLITICO, saying that the Arizona law is not “the proper approach” to solving the problem of illegal immigration.

Republican Meg Whitman, the front-runner in California’s gubernatorial primary, declined to say whether the law is “racist” – as some critics allege – but told The Associated Press that Arizona’s law does not offer the most effective strategy.  “I think there’s just better ways to solve this problem,” she said.


Republican Gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis seems hell-bent on derailing his own campaign. On Monday, McInnis told a radio show that his charitable giving included killing an elk and giving the meat to the needy — an absurd statement meant to show that he was a big contributor to charities.

McInnis went on the Peter Boyles show and basically announced that he doesn’t want Hispanics to vote for him. Click here for the audio of McInnis endorsing Arizona’s controversial new immigration law that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

We won’t get into the many, many problems with Arizona’s law that would be a nightmare for Colorado (but for just one example, consider the fact that we are already letting people out of prison early — where would we house all these new “criminals” while they wait for deportation?) The bigger question here is why McInnis would so boldly stand behind a law that is incredibly unpopular among Hispanics, who just so happen to represent a sizable chunk of voters in Colorado.

Democrat John Hickenlooper didn’t have a natural base of Hispanic supporters that were already in his corner…but he probably does now. McInnis made this issue very, very easy for Hickenlooper, who can now say just about anything in response to a question about the law and still sound like the more moderate candidate.

People that agree with McInnis are likely to already support him anyway, so there’s not a big upside to such a strong declaration. McInnis says in the interview that a poll in Arizona shows people favor the new law, but even if that’s true, this isn’t Arizona. Because Colorado is not a border state, voters don’t have the same level of interest in illegal immigration as a political issue.

Maybe it would be best if McInnis’ campaign just locked him in a closet for the next five months. No more talking.


33 thoughts on “Good God Man, STOP TALKING!!!

    1. Jeb Bush.  Karl Rove doesn’t think it’s such a great idea either.  McCain is using it as an excuse to sound even more befuddled than usual. And McInnis just seems like he’s going for being an even more laughable loser candidate than Beauprez.

  1. I wonder if McGoo and the GOP have decided that rousing their base with this issue will increase their turnout more than the reaction/turnout from the Dems and Hispanics?

    What do you think?

    1. Can’t think of any other reason for not just making noises about how it’s the federal government’s fault that Arizona is so frustrated, never mind it’s Republican legislators who have dug in to stop any legislation that could do anythng about it.  Also think it’s a really bad calculation.

  2. This is meant to shore up his support in the primary.  Maybe he really means it too but most of his talk is tough guy talk to impress the Tea Party fringe.  It looks like a strategy for appealing to moderates for the general is on hold until he gets past Maes.  Until then it is double down on crazy.

    1. It’s in a story about how GOP candidates aren’t “embracing” the law (the way McInnis has). Here’s the full quote and Hotline’s introduction:

      Few front-running candidates have embraced the new law, opting instead to highlight the frustration that led to the legislation’s passage without saying flat-out they support the measure.

      “The Arizona law is a natural reaction of states trying to solve a problem that the federal government has basically ignored for 30 years. Year in and year out, states have been forced to shoulder the increased costs associated with illegal immigration,” ex-CO LG Jane Norton (R) said. “If I’m elected as US Senator, I will stand up for the rights of states like Arizona to protect their citizens from illegal immigration.”

      1. I read that bit in context and it still sounds like she suppords Arizona’s right to do exactly what they did.

        I also think that it dismisses the vast sums of money Bush spent beefing up border security (theater).

      2. She’s the example of a front-running candidate who is highlighting the frustration thereby legitimizing it and proclaiming that if she is elected, she’ll protect AZ and other state’s “rights” to do things like this.  

      3. but the quote certainly looks like Norton endorses state sovereignty regarding civil rights and might support the nullification of Brown versus the Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court ruling.  Wouldn’t it be fun if one of these supporters of this law was asked if they supported legal immigrants wearing an arm band to distinguish them from illegals.  The reasoning would be if they wore an arm band with something like the Star of David on it then the police would know who not to profile.  Folks like Norton would probably miss the reference but it would be fun to hear their answer.

      4. and try to get some decent federal immigration legislation passed?  I think it’s much more likely she’d be assimilated without putting up much of a fuss.

  3. McInnis coming out in favor of the AZ law may very be a counter to Maes in a tougher than expected primary fight. It’s gonna be hard to retract.

    But he will when the business part of the Republican base (esp. the homebuilding industry) is faced with losing their cheap illegal labor and he does a 180 like Owens did in 2006.

    See my diary “Who’s land is this anyway?” posted today.

    It’s going to be a pleasure watching McInnis twist slowly in the wind…….

  4. Immigration is actually a wedge issue for Republicans.  Establishment Republicans want cheap labor.  The Southern/Christian wing of the Republican party hates brown people.

    Democrats are relatively united around immigration, because the potential conflict between unions and non-immigrant minorities and those who identify with immigrant populations in the Democratic party hasn’t really emerged.  Unions have largely taken a pro-immigrant stance, fearing undocumented status per se that creates a black market for labor that ignores labor laws and lowers the bar for everyone else, more than immigration itself.

    Scott McInnis can’t hope to win over the Democratic party base (e.g. Hispanics in Colorado) and he need not fear losing big business support, although it may be helpful for him to get pre-primary support from the Southern/Christian wing of the Republican party that is probably the stronger faction in the intra-Republican caucus/electoral process right now.

    The real general election target of his rhetoric on immigration is the xenophobic unaffiliated voter, and anti-immigration positions turn out to be popular and a key issue for a lot of those unaffiliated voters who will end up voting.  A dirty ugly campaign generally may also tend to keep unaffiliated voters who don’t care about immigration away from the polls.

  5. Immigration is a big issue to people all over the country. American’s are getting pushed out of jobs and wasting tax money on illegals.

    Something needs to be done, and at least McInnis and the state of Arizona have the back bone to say something.  The democrats sit around while this country becomes a sanctuary for anyone in Mexico who wants to cross the border. It is ILLEGAL.  

    1. It’s a very small issue to most everyone else. And to a lot of the people it is a large issue to, there is an element of racism to it.

      Keep in mind that Saint Ronald Reagan proposed and pushed through comprehensive immigration reform including amnesty. That’s not the approach the tea partiers are looking for.

    2. Then address the reasons people cross the border without papers:

      1) the Mexican economy is rigged toward the wealthy in ways today’s businessmen could only dream.

      2) employers here in the U.S. want cheap labor that they can bully without fear of retribution, and many of them don’t care if the person they hire is illegally in the country.

      3) faking ID is relatively easy because our ID system is antiquated.

      4) Drugs are illegal and profitable, and grow well in warm climates like those south of the border; legalize some of them and you cut the legs out from under the criminal gangs running drugs.

      Building a 10′ fence is just asking for someone to build an 11′ ladder, and arresting U.S. citizens for not having “proper paperwork” because some policeman had a “reasonable suspicion” that they were here illegally is about as Unconstitutional and Unamerican as any idea I’ve had the misfortune of seeing in the past decade.  “Papers, please?”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

36 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!