CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




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
July 27, 2010 12:35 PM UTC

Big Ben Goss steps aside, making way for Tancredo Candidacy.

  • by: Barron X

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)


In a move widely anticipated, Big Ben Goss, Gubernatorial Candidate of the American Constitution Party, formally withdrew his candidacy effective 11:59 PM, Monday, 26 July 2010.  




Ben explicitly refuted speculation that he was forced out:

As the whirlwind of activity and political maneuvering has swirled about me, I wish to extend my great thanks to the members of the committee for providing every protection and consideration regarding my place as the gubernatorial nominee for the American Constitution Party (ACP).  

To the members of the media, to the members of our party, and to the citizens of the state of Colorado I desire to be expressly clear and completely understood;

at no time have I been coerced, pressured or otherwise enticed to withdraw from my candidacy.

He detailed his noble motives for embarking on this run for office:

As I have considered the state of our State and the state of our Nation, my concern has continually been drawn to the future which my children, indeed all our children, may yet reasonably expect … we should be asking ourselves “Will my children (and my children’s children) enjoy a better future than I currently enjoy today?”

his selfless reasons for stepping down:

As our Federal Government overreaches its defined role and seeks to intervene in the minute and private aspects of our daily lives, it is incumbent upon us all to find the most qualified and verifiably committed people to serve as the guarantors of our Liberties already defined by our Constitutions; State and Federal.  As the Committee is well aware, former Congressman Thomas Tancredo has submitted his expressed interest in assuming the role of gubernatorial nominee for the ACP.

and his recognition of the potential of Congressman Tancredo’s candidacy:

In this era of “Tumble Down Economics” being driven by an out-of-control Federal Government and a stumbling State Government, I believe that it is of paramount importance that I be willing to surrender my own self-interest, and my own candidacy, to the greater good that can be accomplished by acceding to the expressed desire of Congressman Tancredo to become the gubernatorial nominee of the American Constitution Party.

This document deserves to be read in full at the link above.  It is artful, sincere and uplifting.

For more of the thoughtful deliberations of this man, the soul of the American Constitution Party, see and

You’re a better man than I am, Big Ben Goss.



71 thoughts on “Big Ben Goss steps aside, making way for Tancredo Candidacy.

  1. reading about what a selfless and thoughtful post this was from the Barron.  To think that just a short week ago we were wondering if conservatives could be any further from the governors mansion and today we know that yes they can.  A season of golden opportunities for conservatives has literally gone in the Tank.  You have to wonder where they go after this train wreck clears the tracks.  It looks like down to me.  Conservatives are literally the Party of No.  No ideas and no leaders.  

    1. As the ACP vacancy committee moves forward, we know the Conservative message and principles will be delivered for Colorado.

      As Barron X points out it’s about the Principles needed to guide our historical American experiment back to sustainable track.

      The Democratic Tumble Down Economic plan keyed off strong arm regulation, taxing, and spending has scared-off private investment. As I’ve said before and as you know, the private formation of capital is required to create jobs and payroll. Unsustainable government band-aids won’t cut it and the myth of government “creating” payroll is laughable.

      The 4,400 new government positions created by Democrats in Colorado pale in comparison to the 100-150k jobs lost.  Colorado payrol is where it was before Bill Owens.

      1. like it wasn’t a factor in our economic performance.  Thank God Barack Obama was at the helm instead of Sarah Palin otherwise we would have gone down like the Titanic.  It was Democrats who have had to deal with the disaster of Reaganomics and Unregulated Capitalism and steer the state towards a course of responsible regulation and sustainable economies through green technology and innovative lifestyles.  The Drill Baby Drill mindset of Republicans is a stark reminder of their wanton disregard for conservation and sustainable solutions.  Drill Baby Drill is a dead give away to irresponsible stewardship.  Real leaders incorporate all their constituencies with inclusive policies.  Republicans have no real leaders.

          1. The Illegal Alien problem is colorblind & widespread with citizens from Suid-Afrika, Cymry, ‘Rby, Russia, Hangug-ui, HuГЎrГ©n Brasileiro, …. participating.

            Just because the Unmentionable produced a poll showing 60%+ of Coloradans supported the AZ Illegal Alien law doesn’t mean you need to freakout and expose your masked racism.  

            1. You wish that was the case, but these guys always complain about Mexicans. They don’t give a shit about people coming from anywhere else.

              BTW, ‘tad, have you seen this? Time to focus your efforts where they need to be directed!

                    1. and find out how concerned they are about illegal immigrants from Asia, Europe, or Canada.

                      It’s all Latin America, all the time with those guys.

            2. people without tearing our society apart and bankrupting the country then you are part of the problem.  To cling to the fantasy that if you are just mean enough the problem will be solved is something only a dumbass would embrace.


                  * Job may include using hand tools such as knives, hoes, shovels, etc. Duties may include tilling the soil, transplanting, weeding, thinning, picking, cutting, sorting & packing of harvested produce. May set up & operate irrigation equip. Work is performed outside in all weather conditions (Summertime 90+ degree weather) & is physically demanding requiring workers to bend, stoop, lift & carry up to 50 lbs on a regular basis.

                  All this and more, for $8/hr.

                  Have at it.

                2. You have no solutions and you have no policies that will work so all you can do is spew and spittle.  Maybe if we taxed immigrants so that they have to live like the rest of us then we could reduce our deficits and they wouldn’t like living in the US anymore than you do.

                3. that immigrants have taken.  It is 12-20 million jobs that American employers in their insatiable greed have given to illegal immigrants because they don’t pay taxes and won’t complain if they are exploited.  Put the blame where it is due doofus.

                  1. The 12-20 million statistic includes all age groups including children and the elderly.

                    It is interesting that the greedy owners used undocumented immigrants to destroy the unions and now a total nimrod like Libby who hates unions as much as he hates immigrants is crying about lost union jobs and he still has no idea what to do other than vague threats to get “them”.

      2. You, and the GOP & ACP, have sacrificed your chance to get America back on the right track. If the Republicans were so concerned about the little kiddies and their lil kiddies’ futures why are they tearing each other apart instead of solidifying into a game changing force?

        What you’re starting to realize is your party is just as corrupt (if not more) than the Democrats you try to blame for everything that is wrong with America. Even your “pure” splinter groups (Tea Party & ACP) have shown corruption in its leadership.

        It’s pathetic. Physician heal thyself. Then maybe you’ll be ready to fix anything else.

      3. You, and the GOP & ACP, have sacrificed your chance to get America back on the right track. If the Republicans were so concerned about the little kiddies and their lil kiddies’ futures why are they tearing each other apart instead of solidifying into a game changing force?

        What you’re starting to realize is your party is just as corrupt (if not more) than the Democrats you try to blame for everything that is wrong with America. Even your “pure” splinter groups (Tea Party & ACP) have shown corruption in its leadership.

        It’s pathetic. Physician heal thyself. Then maybe you’ll be ready to fix anything else.

        1. those who think there are two kinds of everything, and those who don’t.

          (That’s not mine, but I don’t know who to give the credit to).

          Seriously, though, for the most part, there’s only one kind of person in the world: Those who fall within the range of behaviors and dispositions that human beings fall into, clustered around a normative center. It doesn’t fundamentally matter what religion you profess to adhere to, what nation you live in, what political ideology you profess. The differences among these, that result either from their power over adherents, or the type of people they attract in the first place, is generally marginal rather than exceptional.

          We should never place our hopes on improved human beings, but rather on improved social institutions that better frame the choices made by normal human beings (though helping to improve human beings on the margins is not necessarily impossible, and is certainly desirable).

  2. accepting for the sake of argument that those are accurate adjectives, aren’t worth anything if they are vehicles for an economically illiterate and socially destructive ideology. Good intentions informed by ignorance are as counterproductive to the public interest as bad intentions informed by expert knowledge.

  3. I’ve often wondered, “What makes Barron so crazy?”

    Well, now I know: He posted this at 3:35 in the morning!  

    Perhaps the answer to bat crazy, right-wing conservatives could be as simple as a sleeping pill.

          1. Absolutely, no question at all.

            Deluded at times?  I seriously doubt that.

            Holding of a narrowed or somewhat distorted view — That’s what I’m talkin’ about!  (Hence, the big end of the telescope comment.)

            Sincere thoughts to follow, below:

  4. All across the country political media are carrying the exciting news about Colorado politics, not necessarily for the news value as much as for the entertainment value.  The dog days of summer need Colorado to fill in the void of lack of entertainment other than reporting the summer movies and which “star” is in jail/rehab.

    Go R’s, give it, and give it hard!

  5. in the, well you know where, I think I’ve cracked the mystery as to how Barron can support such loons though he seems so intelligent. Crazy and intelligent aren’t mutually exclusive. Take this for example:

    As I have considered the state of our State and the state of our Nation, my concern has continually been drawn to the future which my children, indeed all our children, may yet reasonably expect … we should be asking ourselves “Will my children (and my children’s children) enjoy a better future than I currently enjoy today?”

    If they’re so concerned about kids, why does the ACP wants to abolish the food and drug administration?  Nothing in the constitution says we can’t have an agency that protects us from poisoning ourselves and our kids.  True, if something gets put out on the market today and next month thousands are dead or damaged we can let the free market take care of it, I suppose.  Once we figure out which product was responsible we can stop buying it, problem solved, right?   The dead and parents of the dead and disabled sure won’t be buying it anymore.  Way to protect out our kids, ACP.

    As far as the constitution goes, they’re concern is quite selective.  They don’t let the fact that the constitution absolutely bans religious meddling either by banning or endorsing or imposing any set of religious practices, leaving all such matters entirely up to the individual conscience, interfere with their religious/alleged family values agenda, for instance. They simply use an alleged devotion to the constitution as cover for their entire agenda, religious and secular.

    Thanks, Tank, for exposing this tiny group to public scrutiny.  We know what a crackpot you are and now we know that that is exactly what makes you a perfect ACP fit. The crazy things you and your ACP friends will be saying and which Rs will shy away from contradicting too forcefully in hopes of retaining as much of the Tea Party vote as they can will no doubt be eye openers for the moderate and independent middle.

    1. Some interpret the constitution very narrowly, and some more broadly. What does the power to regulate commerce among the states mean, for instance? Despite all of the fundamentalist crowing to the contrary, it is open to interpretation.

      And it has been extremely fortunate for the fate and health of our nation that that is so, because otherwise a 223 year old document could not have remained in force and attained the nearly sacred status that it has (facilitating the strength that rule of law has attained in The United States).

      But, like hasidic jews who exaggeratedly adhere to the commandments in the Torah in order to demonstrate the strength of their fealty, constitutional fundamentalists not only try to interpret the constitution as narrowly as possible, but also insist that that is the only possible way to interpret it (an obvious falsehood).

      It’s just as dysfunctional as wearing clothing made to withstand Northeastern European winters in the hot dry climate of Israel, but much more consequential.

      1. imposition of a set of religious values. I see very little in the constitution more clear than the ban on establishment of religion, endorsement of any religion or banning of any set of religious beliefs, rendering only the dictates of the individual conscience supreme in all matters touching on belief or lack thereof in order to ensure religious freedom for all from the majority to the tiniest minority.

        I find the ACP no more or less fundamentalist or pure or in its interpretation of the constitution than the next political party.  It appears to me to be as selective as any other group in cherry picking the constitution to suit its agenda.  I see it as simply a brand of exteme far right ideology dressing itself up in false claims to superior championship of the constitution.  

        1. I have a good friend who’s a staunch libertarian. He says we should go back to the original constitution. When I ask him does that include that 3/5ths of a person part he gets real upset – except that, why is that always brought up!

          Even the most fundamental have exceptions. It’s just they insist only they should determine what the exceptions are.

        2. having just read their platform, that many of its planks are anti-constitional or extra-constitutional (e.g., to repeal the law making it illegal to use force or threat of force to interfere with a woman seeking an abortion). But some of its planks clearly are rationalized as narrow “literal” interpretations of the constitution (narrow they are, but no more literal than other equally literal but broader interpretations). Some examples of the latter are that U.S. senators should be appointed by state legislatures rather than elected by popular vote, that most regulatory and administrative agencies should be abolished, and that the voting rights act of 1965 should be repealed, to name a few.

          In reality, it’s not quite true that all “matters touching on belief or lack thereof” are, or can be, left to individual conscience, since there is no bright line between secular laws (e.g., against murder, etc.) and the religious laws that preceded them. Nor does a functionalist/utilitarian argument quite succeed at creating that bright line (though it takes us a few steps closer to it). But, clearly, if the only or primary justification for a law is a religious argument, or one that is closely tied to religions and not broadly found in non-religion-based functional/utilitarian arguments, that provides a pretty good guideline in how to distinguish between the two.

          By either (or any) analysis, they’re completely nuts, and almost all of their proposals are completely dysfunctional and contrary to the public interest.

          1. In reality, it’s not quite true that all “matters touching on belief or lack thereof” are, or can be, left to individual conscience, since there is no bright line between secular laws (e.g., against murder, etc.) and the religious laws that preceded them

            Just because these prohibitions appear in religious writings doesn’t mean they are Judeo-Christian or religious in  origin. The most important also exist in many belief systems with no relation to the Judeo-Christian, in codes that came long before and among the non-religious. The idea that mankind never thought murder was wrong until the bible said so and that the law therefore stems from our religious belief system is easily shown to be false.

            Laws against murder, theft, etc, far preceded the oldest parts of the bible and may well have preceded organized religion of any kind for all we know.  Certainly atheists are no more crime prone than any one else and the bible belt is notorious for its high divorce and out of wedlock birth rates. There is no proof that laws came first from religion rather than the other way around;  religion as a way of supporting and enforcing the laws that make life orderly.

            Certainly, the constitution doesn’t give any belief group the right to impose anything touching on religion and only on religion.  Which is why anyone who claims to be a constitutional purist and also supports the state imposing religion by mandating prayer in public school or allowing the state to appear to endorse a set of religious beliefs by allowing its employees to lead or bring in outsiders to lead prayers in public schools really isn’t interested in what the constitution mandates. That’s the sort of thing I mean.

            In any case I don’t see any particular regard for the constitution in the ACP’s platform. The name is very misleading.  Perhaps the Forward to the Past when Life was Short and Brutal Party would be more accurate, if a mouthful.  

            1. Nonetheless, and as inconvenient as it may be, there really is no bright line between “religious” and “secular,” though there are many things that are far enough away from the fuzzy boundary that they clearly fall within one domain or the other. My objection was to the overly absolutist phrasing you chose; there are indeed things which fall within that fuzzy boundary.

              Whether your interpretation of the constitution is correct or not, when universal mandatory public education was established, it was established with prayer in school, often sectarian. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled, varioiusly, that students who did not agree with the denominational prayers selected by the school board, they must be permitted to excuse themselves, and that the prayers couldn’t be “sectarian”, but rather only non-denominational Christian! I happen to agree with your interpretation of the first amendment, but it is a modern one.

              If you read the first amendment carefully, and think historically (try to think as people did at the time it was written), you will see that the way we have (wisely) come to interpret it is not necessarily exactly what was intended at the time. The concept of “establishment” of a religion really is ambiguous; it can fall anywhere within a range of possible meanings. And we’re fortunate that that is so, because it gives some rein to emerging sensibilities, framed by well-drafted guidelines. The framers almost certainly hadn’t yet arrived at a realization of how broadly the concept of “non-establishment” could extend (to include any implicit passive endorsement or favoritism), and how socially useful it would be to extend it that far, but they did arrive at a drafting which permitted that development to take place.

              Now, in terms of the political battles over how we define ourself, it might be more useful to try to pretend that that isn’t so, to do what all ideologues do -try to rewrite history to make it more favorable to our position. But I don’t think so; not in the long run. I think reason and goodwill are on our side, and that the more we shine a light on the most rational analyses of the most reliable data, the better off we’ll be in the long run.

              I already conceded that some of the ACP’s positions are completely extra-constitutional or even anti-constitutional.

              1. I believe that the constitution does make school prayer unconstitutional.  And I reject the notion that all or even most of our founding fathers had in  mind only your narrow definition of establishment. I know that George Washington would back me up on this as he objected to the establishment of army Chaplains on the grounds that it was no business of the Government to meddle in the religious life of its soldiers. Alternately, When he spoke about imparting moral and religious values to students it was in the context of an era where  people educated their children privately.  He was simply exhorting parents to educate their children with moral grounding. Personally he was quite uninterested in attending church.

                It was certainly the view even back in the fifties and sixties in every Cook County Public School I attended ( Chicago and two suburbs) that there should be no prayer in school nor  corporal punishment so the ideas of not praying or beating children with paddles are not as new fangled as all that.  Yes there were Christmas decorations, programs etc.  My view is that technically that shouldn’t be allowed in public school either but the force of the majority who entertain the quaint idea that there is a such thing as secular Christ’s Mass is too strong and its an area where I’m sure I’m right but don’t care enough to fight that particular battle.

                Different views on that aren’t modern either as there was much feeling against celebrating Christmas because of the frivolous pagan nature of so many of the customs and it was empathetically not celebrated by many Christians in our earlier years.  Also it wasn’t until some time into the 1800s that Government  closed down entirely for Christmas or that abortion became illegal.  In colonial and early US days abortion was commonly considered permissible prior to quickening, roughly the first trimester and was not illegal.

                Under God became part of the pledge under Eisenhower and it seems to me obvious that a requirement of profession of belief in a deity has no place in our Pledge of Allegiance but once again, don’t care enough to fight that one.

                So I think many have incorrect ideas about the era of our founding and early history and even of the fifties and sixties.  There certainly was no fuss about evolution in the public schools I attended then. We sometimes think that what is considered traditional now must have been the case in the old days.  Often that’s not so.  

                But all that aside, I’m quite sure that those who want to impose certain laws conforming to a particular set of religious values are acting not out of devotion to the constitution but out of devotion to their religious agenda which they will attempt to justify by the constitution.  I do not consider ACP to be a party dedicated to the constitution but clearly dedicated to an agenda which they would like to be able to frame in terms of being strict constitutionalists.  That’s all.  We can fight the other battles another day.

                1. And I agree with most of it, was familiar with most of it, and am of the same inclination and interpretation of what is most useful today, and what is motivating many who don’t agree with us on that matter. But the fact remains that the concept of “establishment” is not unambiguous, and The Establishment Clause is not interpretable in only one way. I’m not going to get drawn into a war of selective historcal references to refute that in the late 18th century the prevailing interpretation of non-establishment was almost certainly not as broad as it is today. The more important point is that it is not amenable to only one interpretation. And my saying so is an argument against my interests.

                  1. I never said it was unambiguous,  but in fact that it was not necessarily to be viewed as narrowly as you seemed to insist, kind of the opposite argument. Also that I didn’t accept all of your assumptions about the era and about what has been “traditional” since, thus the selection of examples you find so messy.  In fact our constitution was born in a very dynamic, radicalized age.  We can argue about all this another day.  I don’t think we are in disagreement that the ACP isn’t any more C than the rest of us.

                2. You’re confused: My definition is broad. I merely recognize that my definition isn’t the only one that is semantically defensible. I’m willing to tolerate a little bit of cognitive dissonance in deference to the complexity of the real world. I’m willing to recognize that the Founding Fathers were neither modern progressives nor modern Tea Party cultists making a fetish out of some caricature of what those historical personages stood for. Not everything has to shore up my positions. There will be some legitimate counterarguments, some legitimate facts that are inconvenient to my positions. I don’t believe in defining them out of existence, but rather in demonstrating why, even acknowledging their presence, they do not prevail.

                    1. I really don’t know what that means, Steve, but never mind. You know what I think would do you a world of good?  A nice tall mojito.  Tried one the other day to please a friend and it was surprisingly refeshing.

                    2. But I’ve always found thoughtful and unfettered exploration of issues and ideas to do me a world of good all on their own. The mojito couldn’t possibly compete, though it certainly might be enjoyable.

                      (here’s your explanation: pruning rose bushes has as much relationship to what you were doing as sputtering has to what I was doing).

            2. World Historically, religion, law, education, and all the rest, were all one big bundle, not seperate institutions as they have become. When you say that these laws preceded and occur outside of the judeo-christian tradition, you’re right. When you say they occurred historically in non-religious contexts, that’s also true to some extent, but you would have to dig hard to find any roots to these laws that are not entwined with religion. The fact is that we have gradually drawn imperfect boundaries among them (between the religious and the secular, for instance), boundaries which are not in every instance perfectly clear and well-defined.

              1. as allowing any group to imposeit’s particular religious views via any organ of government.  For instance it would be unconstitutional to demand that the President be Christian or any other religion. One could make a case for abortion being illegal on the grounds of it constituting murder, a secular consideration, but not on religious grounds, etc. It  would clearly be unconstitutional to impose biblical law, whatever that might be as it it varies throughout the bible and even the ten commandments are not uniform between Catholic, Protestant and Jewish versions.  That’s clear enough for purposes of  maintaining a line as far as I’m concerned. So you probably will not be seeing any laws any time soon preventing you from eating shrimp while wearing a cotten/linen blend.

                1. I don’t quite see how it’s a response to anything I’ve said. Your objection began when I said that not all expressions of religion are left to individual conscience, because not all expressions of religion are seperable from, or enjoy immunity from, secular laws. If you had said “all expressions of religion that in no way violate secular laws not designed to disfavor that religion,” I would have offered no clarification.

                  Here’s an example: If my religion believes in human sacrifice, or even in animal mistreatment, my right to express it, and the government’s prohibition against disfavoring it, is trumped by the secular law. The two zones are not so perfectly mutually exclusive (similar to the recent debate on Free Speech surrounding an anti-nudity rule in Boulder city council meetings). There is an balancing test involved: How much does a given law burden the free expression of religion, and how much does the free expression of religion in some given instance violate a legitimate state interest which outweighs the burden on freedom of religion?

                  In the end, it’s a complex and subtle world we live in. If there’s one thing we all have to develop greater deference to, it’s that fact.

                    1. I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. Nowhere in my posts did I write anything that was incompatable with anything you wrote under the topic heading “But the line is clear in so far”.

                    2. .

                      thought-provoking, intelligent, no ad hominems.

                      If only you two were fighting each other to argue who agrees with me more, it would be perfect.

                      But even in its present form, an edifying read.


                    3. I think Steve and I were just having a little side argument, so to speak, but I think we both agree that the agenda of your American Constitution Party seems relatively unmotivated by superior regard for our constitution.  And anybody besides Steve and I who has read the entire exchange must be really bored, not that  trudging through it all strikes me as a very promising antidote to boredom.  I’m getting pretty sleepy myself. Night Barron.  Night Steve.  Night John Boy.

  6. Barron X, according to a Colorado Independent report, the ACP platform includes some language about

    The ACP would return all federal land …

    Is this accurate? And, if so, what does this mean? If not, what would be more accurate?


    1. .

      as some of my friends here know, I was a candidate representing the ACP in the 2008 General Election in Colorado.  To save you from having to look it up, no, I did not beat Doug Lamborn, but it was pretty close.    

      At the party convention that Summer, I was grilled about my personal beliefs and political positions.  I had to explain why I wanted to run.

      At that time, I explained that I was not 100% on board with the platform.  Some planks were too extreme for me.  I explained at least two areas where I did not agree with the party.

      The question came down to: yes, but will you support the Party Platform while acting as a representative of the party ?  I signed an “oath” to that effect.

      (Actually one of the quirks of my religious beliefs is that I will not swear to anything.  I will only affirm.)


      I confess that I am not an expert on the ACP Platform.  I am going to have to look up both the state party platform and the national party platform before I give you a definitive answer.  

      Off the cuff, I think this item about returning federal land does not include military bases or the Denver Federal Center, for example.  I think it refers to selling off BLM, USDA, FWS and BOR lands, for example, that take up ~90% of Nevada and Alaska: National Forests, grazing lands, watersheds.

      The state party, in some respects, acts like a sort of closely held or family owned corporation.  Just this year, there have been two major changes to the bylaws that appear to strengthen the control of the Executive Committee over the rest of the party.  As a party, we have no intention of watering down our principles in order to broaden our appeal.  Our appeal is accordingly narrow, as is our right.  

      I think there is some difference between the positions of Congressman Tancredo and the Party.  It was my impression that these differences had been explored and discussed, point by point, in the weeks leading up to now.  From what I understand of statements issued by Mr. Tancredo’s staff, there were negotiations sorting out the extent to which Mr. Tancredo would have to toe the Party line, in exchange for being allowed to represent the Party as our candidate.  

      However, there is just the slightest hint in statements coming from the Party leadership yesterday and today that those negotiations are not completely done.  

      I do not believe Congressman Tancredo would sign the exact same statement that I signed; I believe that he would insist on the addition of certain caveats and exceptions.  

      So, the ACP is at a crossroads.  For the time that I have been a member, we have disregarded the lack of resonance in the general population, happy and content to abide by our principles and remain on the fringe.  

      The prospect of a Tancredo candidacy, and the exposure and money and everything else attendant, has some members wondering if it might be worth it to allow Tom to run as Tom.  I don’t think that was settled, as of this morning, the last time I talked to a Board member.  


      1. Not having read the platform, it is not clear to me whether this plank is about “returning” federal lands to its original inhabitants or “selling” federal lands to the highest bidder, or what?

        I assume it is only a plank at the national level?

        We in Colorado forever relinquished any claims to lands in federal ownership as a condition of statehood. Thus, to advocate that we in Colorado have any claim (individual or state-level) to these lands would be contrary to the Colorado Constitution.

        1. Until some time in the mid-to-late 19th century, federal lands (those not yet homesteaded, sold, or otherwise transferred to individuals or states) were considered to be meant to be dispersed and not held onto by the federal government. That philosophy changed at a certain point (I forget the case off hand in which the court ruled that the federal government wasn’t obligated to transfer all lands it held). Then we entered an era of increasing “reservations” of federal land for various purposes. I think the ACP’s position is that the transition to a new paradigm, in which the federal government could withdraw or reserve land, and could hold land in the public trust, was “illegitimate,” in a sort of semi-consistent commitment to any form of regression to some imagined idyllic past, whether constitutional, social, or religious.

          (My recap of Public Land Law is a bit vague, unfortunately, but I just can’t be bothered to crack the book and find the specifics right now! Sorry.)

  7. I am certain that he would never, ever accept a position in the Tancredo Administration. For that would be unseemly back-door politicking.

    Big Ben, we hardly knew ye!

    1. .

      Does anybody, including Tom, expect that ?

      OTOH, I think it would be a magnanimous – and smart – move for Tom to bring Big Ben into his existing campaign staff.  But that was not negotiated in advance.  I did suggest exactly that a couple of days ago.


      1. There’s a certain symmetry there.

        But look: if Tom is not even expecting a Tancredo Administration, why the hell is he running?????

        1. .

          I think he will toss the ACP aside like the butt of a smoked cigarette once he gets all the mileage he can out of this candidacy.

          All he really wants, I think, is to get Scott and Dan to drop out.  If the GOP then conducts some sort of open and transparent process in which they get a replacement candidate, I think Tom withdraws.

          Just guessing, but I’ll bet the ACP Executive Committee is trying to get him to commit to campaign hard through 2 November.  I sense that is the one remaining issue yet to be negotiated.


  8. work gets in the way.

    Here’s the problem I have.

    So, Ben reaching out to Tom is completely consistent with our conviction of the need to shake things up.

    You portray ACP as a needed alternative to the current system — a party of principles.  Yet you permit Tancredo to co-opt your message of principle for his own disingenuous stage play.  To What?  “Shake things up.”

    Great game plan.

    UBL wants to shake things up, and he’s got a huge organization.  Probably not reaching out to him though?

    Charlie Manson wanted to shake things up.

    The tea grabbers claim to be upset because Obama is shaking up the sacred order.

    There may be a whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on right now, but to what end?  Any group of fools can shake?  I’m interested in seeing what can be built given where we’re at, not in who can do some more demolition.

    You might have had me at some point, but Tancredo as candidate and spokesmodel?  Climb on board the ship of fools!

    PS.  Will Jenna be staying home with Big Ben now so Jackie Tancredo can shake it up on that slate?.

    1. .

      We certainly would like to shake some things up where he is concerned.  We have not been able to track him down yet.  If we do, you’ll hear about it.  

      We have philosophical differences with Charlie Manson.

      The World is fairly well ordered, under the jackboot of Leviathan International Banking.  Both major parties serve this master.  

      This New Order does not serve peace or justice.  

      Isn’t it better to shake up an evil status quo, than to Let it be ?


      Yeah, what’s up with Jenna ?  

      There was a total rebuild of the website 2 days ago.  All my links went dead at the same time, and when I refreshed the homepage, Jenna was dropped off.  


      1. That’s a hard one for me to answer bro.  I really do believe that if you’re gonna shake everything apart, that before you begin you owe a debt of having a very clear and comprehensive plan as to what’s going to be rebuilt and how.

        Maybe if things started a just little smaller, and a slightly more focused, say like at the root of all evil:  Campaign Finance.

        Oh, and not to forget, I’m thankful you all have philosopical differences.  

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

86 readers online now


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