DeMint Coming to Colorado for Buck

From Eli Stokols at KDVR:

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a Tea Party idol and aspiring conservative kingmaker, is coming to Colorado next week to rally supporters on behalf of Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck.

Buck’s campaign confirmed Wednesday that plans have been finalized for a rally that will take place next Thursday, July 8, with the final details still being worked out.

“We’re thrilled to have Sen. DeMint visit Colorado,” said Buck’s spokesman, Owen Loftus. “Sen. DeMint is a respected grassroots leader, who if fighting the establishment to fix Washington. Ken is honored to have his endorsement and support.”

DeMint endorsed Buck in April, calling him “an authentic conservative.” It was the latest in a series of moves by DeMint to buck the Republican Party establishment by siding with insurgent candidates over GOP incumbents.

77 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. H-man says:

    In Kentucky, Cornyn endorses Grayson, a couple days later DeMint endorses Paul.  Paul wins big.

    In Colorado, Cornyn does a fundraiser for Norton (in Norton’s down home style at the Cherry Creek Country Club). DeMint will do a rally with actual non-millionaires in attendance.  Buck will win big.

    Ya think the NRSC is a little slow at picking up on things?

    • RedGreen says:

      in California, though, is it?

    • Republican 36 says:

      for the Republican Party. Senator DeMint is obviously leading a revolution against the so called establishment in the Republican party but will this leave the party even more split. A DeMint type conservative may play well with the voters on budget/tax issues but I don’t think South Carolina type sentiment on other issues will attract voters.

      Its impossible to predict how this will all turnout but the Republican Party may be even more split and may drive away middle of the road voters more than they have.

      • H-man says:

        In a “normal” year I would agree with you.  This year the choice will be more Obama/ Bennet (how is that working for you?) vs. Stop spending so much money, at least that is how I see it.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          that Palin/Old Fart are not at the helm right now.

          Obama has done a great job holding things together.  You don’t find him down on the ranch shooting skeet and cutting brush much.  I wish all our elected representatives worked as hard at their jobs as Obama.  The kind of scorched earth land that he inherited and the absolute refusal of the minority party to participate in providing leadership and solutions to our common problems is a real wake up call at how horrible Republicans are at governing.  We could do a lot worse than having intelligent people working hard to find pragmatic resolutions to the problems of our times.

          Bennet is turning into another liberal senate lion willing to cast tough votes to move the country forward.  I like the man.  I like his experiences and I like his qualifications.  I think he’ll make a big difference on the Senate Education Committee working to improve our educational systems in the 21st century.  He is just going to improve with additional experience.

          Thanks for asking.

          • bjwilson83 says:

            Is that supposed to be news?

          • H-man says:

            You’re kidding me, right?

            Obama has done a great Job?

            Bennet is another liberal senate lion willing to cast tough votes?

            Lions, don’t need the white house to take out someone who also never ran for office in a primary.

          • bigmichael says:

            I’m not sure whether this was a facetious or what you really think of Bennet.  I’m assuming that the “another” liberal lion is Ted Kennedy, a personal louse and one of the many (Republican and Democrat) prime examples of why we need term limits for these jobs.  Tough votes?  That has got to be your progressive sense of humor!  Bennett has proven to be nothing more than a safe vote for the progressive agenda — which for those that think we can afford another page and a half added to the bill of rights of promises and guarantees — is probably a good thing.  For the rest of us, he’s little more than a rubber stamp for anything the administration tells him to do.  He seems more suited to being one of our current president’s many (and I mean MANY) Czars, a job that is by definition meant for those who do their boss’s bidding.  In this case, we need a Senator.  It’s comical that you describe the minority parties objections to the progressive agenda as a “wake-up call”.  There simply has to be room at the table for dissenting opinion.  Did you say the same of the minority when it was your opinion in the minority?  I think not!

          • COSkier07 says:

            as in waiting a month to react to the oil spill?  

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              immediately to the situation.  There have been numerous presentations of when the administration knew and what they did.  The original mistakes of deregulating were done under the auspices of the apostles of deregulated capitalism.

              Liars are the norm of the Republican Party which used to take pride in their integrity so it is no surprise that you don’t know what you are talking about.

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              in uniform.  Bad results don’t mean that good people didn’t give their all.  You owe an apology to the men and women in the United States Coast Guard who conducted searches for the missing drillers and to this day are doing everything they can to protect our shores.  Not only are you a blatant partisan liar but you insult those who serve which is exactly what a traitor does.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          stop spending so much money on tax breaks for the wealthy and wasteful wars when the previous president was in power?  You didn’t protest at all when the spigot was turned on for the rich and revenue turned off for government but know you are a holier than thou we can’t afford deficits hawk?  How convenient.

          Do you really believe that the Republicans who sat silent when Bush broke the bank promising that things would trickle down from the rich onto the rest and created this god awful mess are capable of addressing the real issues of unemployment and sustainable economies.

          It was Clinton that had the country on the path towards a surplus and Republicans that ran the country into the ground.  The real issue this election is between people who work hard to improve our country and people who sit back, do nothing but obstruct any real progress and then feel entitled to power because the current changes aren’t happening fast enough.  I’m betting the American people have longer memories then you give them credit for.

          • bigmichael says:

            just turning around and cutting checks back to people that pay it is a better way to spend it than most of the alternatives.  Unfortunately, the math gets worse with all the spending  as the deficit gets bigger.  However, you’re right about not being as  concerned with Bush.  It’s probably because nowadays with every six months that go by we keep adding to the list of “rights” people have or businesses that are too big to fail.  I don’t necessarily “distrust” either party or the motives any more than the other, but I definitely don’t trust the government spending solutions whatsoever.  At this point, it seems like doing nothing is better than the doing something, if we have to do anything.

            • Gilpin Guy says:

              if you are so concerned about the deficit is why you didn’t insist on a war tax to pay for the invasions.  All you angst about deficits right now doesn’t jibe with your willingness to sit on your wallet when million dollar cruise missles were being deployed.  You wanted to believe it was going to be a free war with lots of revenge and you couldn’t have been more wrong.  If you were so wrong about the cost and results from these invasions then why in the world should anyone give you any credence that you have now found fiscal responsibility and your screw the poor policies will help the nation?

              • bigmichael says:

                that not many conservatives probably have the guts to answer (See one of BJ’s quotes about being lulled).   The fact being that as they were satisfied with the situation in the economy for themselves during those  years, they were unfazed by the high money cost of war, hopeful that the mortgage lending cancer would not spread, but none too worried.  The quick and massive move to the opposite has made them aware now no doubt.  And so, it is only history and the examples that abound that give credence to the yang for your yen.  I hope the poor and rich alike may benefit if things get better, but put no one above any other.

      • bjwilson83 says:

        Just because Dems have hardcore socialists and blue dogs in their party, it didn’t stop them from winning. In fact, it increased their base. If conservatives get involved the Republican Party will have a bigger tent.  

            • Republican 36 says:

              A Republican conservative today isn’t anything like a Ronald Reagan conservative in 1980. That’s why I posed the question. Just wondered how today’s conservatives define themselves.

              • RedGreen says:

                a Republican conservative until Bush’s approval ratings plummeted, either. Fickle.

              • bjwilson83 says:

                Fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and defense hawks. I think with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan some conservatives today have grown tired of war and want to stop spending blood and treasure policing the world. Many in this group rose to prominence with the Ron Paul campaign. While social issues are certainly important today, the vast amount of government spending under Obama has vaulted fiscal issues to the front of most people’s minds. So I expect fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party people) to play the largest role in this election. Interestingly, the drastic growth in government has forged an alliance between fiscal conservatives and libertarians. I think libertarians are becoming a part of today’s conservative movement.

                • Gilpin Guy says:

                  I liked it.  It was good writing.

                  I do have to point out that the deficit under the last year of George (What me worry) Bush was over one trillion dollars so Obama hasn’t increased the deficit over Bush by all that much.  The difference is that the Obama Administration has had to cover for the failures of American businesses and the mighty trickle down theory that promised if we just deregulated everything and engaged in wealthy welfare everything would be beautiful was a complete bust and ruined our economy.

                  The drastic growth in government that you are so contemptuous of is counterbalanced by the ridiculous post above by COSkier7 whining about the Obama administration not doing enough about the BP oil spill.

                  Either government has a role in our society or we are ruled by the corporations and greedy CEO’s.  I personally think CEO’s have no motivation to serve the public interest.  The Wall Street bankers who are predominately registered Republicans took the money and screwed the public the first chance they could.  They aren’t the answer either.  American business wasn’t over regulated during the Bush years and they still flopped.  Saying all government is bad isn’t providing any new solutions to hugely complex problems that can’t be solved by more deregulation and blind faith that corporations will do the right thing naturally.

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    Well certainly Bush was no fiscal conservative either – the Ron Paul revolution formed while he was president. However, the stimulus was the wrong approach to fixing the recession (as we are seeing now, with the economy continuing to be depressed), and it was far and above anything Bush ever did. At least TARP was a loan that was or is being repaid.

                    As far as regulation, I do agree that something had to be done to fix the excessive risk taking that lead to the inevitable collapse. Keep in mind though that Bush wanted to regulate Fannie and Freddie but liberals denied there was a problem. After providing a minimum of common sense rules, the administration needs to pursue a pro-growth policy so that businesses will feel comfortable hiring again. Currently the hostility toward Wall Street is smothering a recovery.  

        • Conservatives have owned the Republican Party since the mid-1980s in some parts of the country, and since the early 1990s in most of the rest.  Unfortunately, it turns out those conservatives weren’t really conservative enough to attract a wider audience, so now the GOP has to go back and make sure their conservatives are really conservative enough to open up the big tent to the truly conservatives who’ve been left out.

          Keep working at it, please – pretty soon you’ll appeal to so many people you’ll be able to sleep one in your big tent, without gear.

          • bigmichael says:

            when the conservatives quit wasting their time dragging the bottom drumming up support for anti-abortion laws or against gay marriage.  Then, the liberal progressives wake up to find that they are guaranteed the right to health insurance, but they have less income with which to pay for it.  They then realize that all of the wind mill factories are delivering huge blades with gigantic diesel semi’s, solar panels are being manufactured in carbon spewing Chinese factories by workers making $.30 per hour and imported, and everyone is driving electric cars that rely on an incredible number of coal burning power plants.  They’ll all get in one big tent and it won’t matter anymore that gay marriage is allowed because the stupid government won’t let you pay for health insurance with carbon credits.

            • ajb says:

              Now tell us what it means.

              • bigmichael says:

                have undermined conservative effectiveness as an alternative to the liberal progressives.  However, once the disastrous economic conditions brought by the debt financed spending take full effect, the social conservative and liberal progressive foolishness will be less relevant and there will be a gathering against.

                • ajb says:

                  I almost agree with you. I think that we would probably disagree regarding the Stimulus bill. I think that it, combined with TARP, saved us from full-blown depression. But I agree with the idea that ideas important to the left/right fringes become irrelevant when everything goes to hell in a handbasket.

                  • bigmichael says:

                    because history tells us from the early 1930’s that massive intervention is more likely to prolong the agony than not.  I’m not discounting the short term effects, but given how many times over each dollar of what we spent for these that will need to be collected from the economy to pay for them, I’m certain we could have survived without both.  Ultimately, my point is that when the fruitless endeavors of the progressive agenda actually punish the very people that think they’ll benefit (unintended consequence of extra economic intervention) they will stumble into the same tent with the conservatives that will have forgotten about the social issues!

                    • ajb says:

                      I think you don’t understand how bad the great depression truly was and how close we came to another one.

                    • bigmichael says:

                      know.  However, I find the notion that these were essential to survival to be contrary to economic fundamentals.  Painful and crushing to many no doubt, I find it as likely that we will now suffer through the same more slowly and longer.  More so, of course, because Bush could do no more than fight wars and give tax breaks.  My grandparents told stories (not pleasant) about depression years, but it was the survival that they remember.  I do give credence to the Keynesian ideas of momentum, but sometimes digging the hole deeper just to collect water only makes the bottom farther down when the whole thing fills up.

                    • bigmichael says:

                      Keynesian idea of the stimulus as a momentum changer may have had some economic merit, I find that the core elements of it were wonky and over-wrought with porky pet projects that were too far down the road to be effective in that regard.

                • Gilpin Guy says:

                  who embraced Reaganism, unregulated capitalism and the “government is bad” narrative have proven to be absolute failures.  Unregulated capitalism is the underlying mistake that allowed BP to cut costs and create a gigantic environmental and economic disaster.

                  The failure of the “business can do it better” conservatives to properly regulate Wall Street or deep sea drilling is a thousand times worse on our country than the entire social conservative movement obsessing about the unborn or preventing homosexuals from saying their oaths in public.  Unregulated capitalism and the magic invisible hand are 18th century concepts that are being steamrolled by multi-national corporations and just trying to ignore the James Dobson crowd isn’t going to correct this colossal failure.  Corporations are just as inefficient as government without any commitment to protecting the public good.

                  • bigmichael says:

                    either one of the examples you site developed somewhat as the result of unforeseen consequences of prior intervention.  The problem is, politicians are too prone to over-regulation, corruption, or stupidity.  History of our little world speaks for itself,  GG.  You trust these guys in the extreme with the public good more than the evil corporations.  It always sounds like it will work….

                    • Gilpin Guy says:

                      but I think it is a silly argument to say that corporations are evil or better than government.  There is a partnership here where government looks out for the broader good and provides infrastructure and a skilled workforce to support a robust private industry.  The Gulf Oil spill is a prime example of an under regulated activity that costs both the public and private sectors dearly.  The goal in Colorado should be to facilitate responsible drilling with proper safeguards for the things we hold in common (air, water and noise).  Unregulated capitalism also sounds good to those who abhor regulations but like communism it falls apart because human greed will never be eradicated.

                • Republican 36 says:

                  government deficit financing or the private credit binge that began in the 1990’s?

                  How do you think we should solve the debt problems public and private?

                  • bigmichael says:

                    stop spending when I run out of available credit because I’m spending in excess of what I’m brining in.  I then either cut-back on what I’m spending and guaranteeing, fail, or go and get a second job or hope for a big raise.  Works about the same either way.  Deficit of budget, paid by debt.  We can’t keep giving tax breaks, fighting wars, promising the moon and I don’t want to get a second job.  I can usually see it coming either way, but I don’t think we’re thinking clearly right now.  Clinton wound up with a raise, doesn’t look like Obama’s boss is feeling generous.

                    • Republican 36 says:

                      but the politicians need to own-up to what’s coming. To solve the annual deficit problem plus reduce the overall public debt will take a combination of tax increases and budget reductions. Hard medicine to swallow. None of the candidates for U.S. Senate are addressing this.

                    • Gilpin Guy says:

                      You conflate individual spending with national spending and assume that there is a one to one relationship.

                      The problem with extrapolating from the individual to the national is that the nation outlives the individual and national goals and visions need to be on a longer time span.

                      You say that you have to stop spending when you don’t have any money and your credit cards are maxed out and that is the proper thing to do.  This sounds great to a white bourgeois American who always has plenty of food to eat and fresh water to drink.  Would you think borrowing or stealing was OK if you had to send your child to bed hungry night after night?  My wife works for the food bank in Gilpin County and she gave a food box to a single mother with one child who had subsisted on Ramen Noodles and Saltine Crackers for two weeks.  I still don’t understand how people who consider themselves Pro-Life accept hunger in America as OK because of their economic belief that you must be lazy if you aren’t rich.  In the long term how will this malnourished child fare in school and grow up to be a productive taxpaying adult?

                      At the national level, what happens when corporations who don’t want to pay for employee health insurance out source entire industries to foreign countries and leave entire areas of the country out of work?  Since the corporations have bailed on America who is going to help those who are left behind learn new skills or provide for even the most meager of necessities.  Not Republicans that’s for sure.  There is also the need to reinvest in education and infrastructure so that down ares today can experience a rebirth tomorrow.  What is the Republican plan to help the poor or are you just focused on maintain the luxurious lifestyles of those who can afford it?

                    • bigmichael says:

                      being simplistic, as I did not intend to write an essay!   Perhaps you missed that part of what I said would also stop my spending — failure.   You assume that I go to bed at night and do not dwell on its possibility for my family and others.  You assume that I have ignored that woman’s plight?  Would you think better of me if I used less bourgeois example?  You would think more of me if you knew I had less?

                      Will this child be better off in a community less able to provide?  Shall we provide equality of opportunity, or hope to level outcomes?  Would corporations simply fail if they could not out-source?  Has any politician, anywhere, ever  been very good at defining the “public good”?  Are we going to be better off if we all have a guarantee of basic health insurance but no chance at anything better?  I hope so!

  2. Say Hey Kid says:

    Last week it looked like Buck vs. Bennet.

    Now I see a dead heat between Romanoff and Bennet with momentum on Romanoff’s side.  

    Clinton is not a sentimental man and would not be involved unless he smelled blood. He could have repaid the Hillary endorsement with a campaign donation and would not have gotten out front unless he saw a good chance of Romanoff actually winning

    Buck had momentum but if Norton goes on TV attacking Buck it could be a very nasty and close race.  Norton has blown through a lot of cash and may have a hard time raising enough for a last blast on TV.

  3. Canines says:

    Why, DeMint Tea, of course!

  4. 6thCDwatcher says:

    To either Norton, Buck or Romanoff….while Norton is being (wrongly in my view) written off, she is the stronger general election candidate against Romanoff or Bennett.  I think the uniqueness of having the potential to be Colorado’s first female US Senator will get her an extra three or four percent of the women’s vote—which puts her over the top in a heavily-motivated Republican turnout year.

    • Voyageur says:

      and if Bennet is toast to Romanoff, why is he up 17 points over Romanoff in the polls?

      • Ralphie says:

        Why’d you have to go get all facty and shit?

      • RedGreen says:

        Don’t you know that poll has been thoroughly discredited because … because … well, because Romanoff supporters say it must be wrong.

          • Voyageur says:

            Obviously, an endorsement from a former president is worth 17 points, just like that.  After all, when Bill Clinton endorsed Hillary, she marched to the nomination and won the general election in a landslide.   There ain’t nothing like an endorsement from a former president to lock in the voters.  

              What planet did you say you live on, again?

            • Say Hey Kid says:

              It energized the Romanoff Campaign, got great press and brought in a lot of money.  Bill Clinton does not get involved unless he thinks he can make a difference between winning and losing. If Clinton campaigns in person Romanoff is the Democratic nominee for US Senate.  

              • Voyageur says:

                And you are either a pathetic shill or a total idiot.

                  Or both.

                • Voyageur says:

                  You’re probably just very green and new to the game of politics.  In the real world, third party endorsements make very little difference.  Obama’s meant a lot — but only because he came here and did a very successful fund-raiser for Bennet.   That gave bennet cash and a list of supporters.

                     Clinton obviously means less than Obama to begin with — in a state where Ds went for Obama over Hillary by 2-1 (sigh — my wife and I were hillary fans.) plus he’s an ex president out of office at least ten years.  But most important, he’s indicated that this little endorsement is it.  There’s be no fundraising visit for AR.   You might get a 1 point bump in the polls, though I doubt it.   And you’ll never know, because such a difference is way inside the margin of error of sampling.

                      As a man who was responsible for over 2,000 (yes, 2K) endorsements over 31 years, I know the relatively modest impact they have.

                  • Say Hey Kid says:

                    Look what happened to poor Blanche Lincoln when Bill Clinton came to the rescue.  

                    Bennet’s campaign is boring.  If Clinton comes to town for Romanoff he will win the nomination.  

                    • OuiserBoudreaux says:

                      I thought Santa Claus wasn’t coming to town this Summer?  All the reindeer must stand up for themselves this round.

                    • Ralphie says:

                      He said so.

                      End of discussion.

                    • Canines says:

                      (One can even picture Bruce & the E Street Band playing this updated version.)

                    • Voyageur says:

                      in Arkansas.  He was governor there and everything.  Hell, his ex mistresses alone could probably swing 10 points in a Democratic primary.

                        So, here you have a pro forma letter to a backer of his wife’s presidential run — in a state where Obama beat Hillary 2-1 — and there will be no riding to the sound of the guns.   He’s already said so.

                        Here’s the thing.  If you want to be an effective shill, you kind of need a credible story line.  I’ll bet you $100 Romanoff does not pick up 17 points in the next Denver Post poll.  Come on, kid, put your money where your mouth is.  I need a good laugh and could use your C-note.

                • Ralphie says:

                  Never assume “shill” when “idiot” is available as an explanaion.

                  Occam’s razor, you know?

    • Colorado Pols says:

      Norton is the stronger Republican candidate in theory, but she has been anything but to this point in the race.

      • Voyageur says:

        and so far, it’s working!  

      • bjwilson83 says:

        What, just because she’s a woman? Buck has a far stronger command of the issues and is palatable in a general election.

        • RedGreen says:

          Well, no, because she’s been elected statewide and, at least until last quarter, held a commanding fundraising advantage.

          She also didn’t have the kind of recent high-profile baggage (which admittedly is both a plus and a minus depending on the audience) that Buck has had with his IRS raid.

          Up until this campaign, she had a reputation for being easy on the stump with a good command of some difficult issues, particularly health care.

          As Pols says, things haven’t worked out exactly as planned, but there’s a reason the establishment senators turned to her, she looked great on paper.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            I think part of it was she had no idea what a competitive race required. And her supporters had no idea if she could do it.

            • RedGreen says:

              She had a previous race, not previous races (she was appointed to her House seat), but nonetheless she won statewide. Sure, it was for Bill Owens’ second term, but she ran statewide, met a lot of people, banked a lot of favors, and then wielded what little power she had statewide for four years. The point is, David, it looks good on paper. In reality, the story can change.

              • DavidThi808 says:

                And I had no idea who the Lt. Gov was on either ticket. I’m sure she campaigned but Owens could have had Fidel Castro as his Lt Gov and he was going to win re-election. I don’t view that as a race she had to work at.

                • RedGreen says:

                  David, your household sounds like the very definition of low-information voters, what with the proud ignorance, the choices made based on the sound of candidate names, and the ones who base decisions on the first thing that pops up in Google right before filling out the ballot. And yet you rise to the top as a front page editor … what a country!

                  • Voyageur says:

                    And yet you rise to the top as a front page editor .

                      I’m not sure that’s rising all that high!

                    Still, it’s great to hang with the likes of you all.

                  • DavidThi808 says:

                    First off, very very few people take the LtGov into account when voting because the Gov is the one that will have a major impact.

                    Second, I’ve followed politics forever (my family not so much). I went door to door for both Hart and Wirth way back. Even many who follow politics find who the Lt Gov is uninteresting.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.