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
January 14, 2011 10:32 PM UTC

GOP Hardcores Promise "Tea Party" a Fight

  • by: Colorado Pols

A fascinating post this week from former GOP Senate President John Andrews, writing for his Backbone America blog–remember all that talk after the election about bipartisan cooperation in the legislature, common-ground solutions, and working together?

According to a group of key GOP legislators, screw that.

The following report came to me [January 6th] from a friend at the Capitol:

Today Colorado Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp and six other legislators from both the Senate and House met for 90 minutes with 25 leaders of Tea Party and 912 groups from across the state. The groups represented thousands of grassroots activists from Greeley to Pueblo, eastern plains to Grand Junction.

They agreed to forge a strategic partnership to advance a “small government agenda” with three policy themes – taxation, regulation and immigration. Leaders of the groups pledged to get their members involved in the legislative process including hearings and advocacy, and legislative leaders pledged to work with the leaders to build local membership and better awareness of state issues.

Participating with Kopp were Senators Ted Harvey, Scott Renfroe, Kevin Lundberg, and Kent Lambert, along with Reps. Libby Szabo and Chris Holbert. Speaker Frank McNulty and other members of House leadership were in DC, hence unavailable to attend. [Pols emphasis]

We noted a couple of days ago that Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp wasn’t on board with House Speaker Frank McNulty’s lip service to a bipartisan approach, and neither were a number of freshman GOP legislators–like Libby Szabo–who had campaigned hard on the very issues that McNulty abandoned them on immediately after the election. Added to the the growing intracaucus angst is the fact that McNulty was intimately involved with the strategy for their campaigns, including the specific issues like the FASTER registration fee hikes that McNulty quickly declared off-limits after becoming Speaker-designate.

All of which would lead one to believe that McNulty is not in on this little “strategic partnership”–except that Andrews sure makes it sound like it was just a scheduling problem, doesn’t he?

With that in mind, the question is easy: despite McNulty’s remarks about bipartisanship, and not challenging FASTER or the new oil and gas rules, does he really want to be associated with a “strategic partnership” with the hard right to push for a “small government agenda?” Or is Andrews simply making excuses to cover for McNulty’s unwillingness to kiss the “Tea Party’s” ring? It’s kind of ambiguous, and usually when that happens, it’s intentional.

But we do know somebody who can clear the ambiguity right up.


52 thoughts on “GOP Hardcores Promise “Tea Party” a Fight

      1. But they were in DC for Cory Gardner’s swearing-in, weren’t they? A dis on Gardner too?

        I dunno. It looks to me like cover, but I do see your point.

        1. Perhaps not. Can’t imagine Andrews was unaware of the reason for the trip, but why not mention that fact? Ignorant schlubs like myself (not to mention the tea partiers) probably aren’t that tuned in and could interpret it like BC and I did.

        1. for 2nd amendment remedies for dealing with their problems so yeah it makes sense that politicians who want to govern from the center and take into account what’s best for the broad majority should fear and avoid their mentally ill base.

          1. The only Black GOP official in Arizona is outa here:

            Now, the only black Republican official in the state of Arizona, a district party chairman named Anthony Miller, announced he was resigning in the wake of the shootings because of “constant verbal attacks,” including being called a “boy” and having someone form their hand in the shape of a gun and point it at him.

            “I wasn’t going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday,” Miller said. “I love the Republican Party, but I don’t want to take a bullet for anyone.”

            What has Miller done to be concerned about threats you ask? Well, he simply supported Sen. John McCain over the preferred Tea Party candidate.


    1. the Frank McNulty I know and love is a corporate guy through and through. Small governments can’t afford to give, oh say…ad valorem tax credits to a giant O&G industry…now can they?

  1. You’re saying a REPUBLICAN may be dealing out of both sides of the deck? Be still my heart.


    How about it, Mr. Speaker? What’s your view of this “strategic partnership?”

  2. Lots of us view tea partiers as inexperienced or naive– and I suspect it’s a view held most virulently among frustrated mainstream Republicans.

    In that light, this dispatch from Andrews fascinates. Did the state lawmakers at this meeting tell the Glenn Becksters that the Colorado governor’s office and state senate are controlled by Democrats and that the state already has slashed the government to its skimpy frame? Who do the tea partiers think is going to be trying to “grow government” in the next two years?

    Regulations will not be lifted by the one-seat-majority House alone.

    No SB 1070 has a chance of passing.

    This meeting just smacks of pro forma theater to make these poor tea party people feel like their energies haven’t been wasted.


    Weird to say but it must suck more than it usually does to be a Republican.

  3. .

    “… met for 90 minutes with 25 leaders of Tea Party and 912 groups from across the state.”

    I followed the link, but could not find a list of those T-Party leaders.

    I seriously doubt that they represent the footsoldiers of the movement.  More likely that they represent the Armey’s and the Koch’s who have worked to subvert the T-Party to their own purposes.  


    1. Armey, Koch etc were in on the birth of the movement and the foot soldiers’ only agenda is hating various people, ethnic groups and vague talking point ideas.  

      It certainly isn’t at all a populist movement as they are completely unconcerned with the little guy, the vet, the unemployed, the unemployed who are also uninsured, the 9/11 responders.  They are unconcerned  about regulation to prevent Wall Street from  screwing us again, with standing up for the little guy against the big corporate interests, legislation to encourage companies to keep jobs here. They never existed before  the threat of a (what’s the world coming to?) black President.

      Army, Koch and your sweet little foot soldiers are perfect for each other. It’s a movement nurtured by the cynical and for the scared, grumpy, hateful and ignorant.  How you fit in is a mystery. You may be an annoyingly pious, self righteous prig but I believe you to be well meaning and harmless unless you’re writing checks to these people.  

    2. But then again, that’s redundant. The footsoldiers ARE the leaders in the Tea Party movement. It’s something that hero-worshipping lefties have a hard time understanding.

        1. What, you’re only a legitimate conservative if you’re ACP? I’ve been a conservative since 1983, so would think that I am a legitimate, longstanding conservative.

          1. What happened in 1983?

            Did a lightning bolt strike you? Did Ronald Reagan – wait, he wasn’t really much of a conservative, what with signing a bill allowing abortion and some other heresies – or, maybe, William F. Buckley speak to you in your dreams?

            I just find it a little bit funny how people seem to mark a particular point in time as the occasion for “seeing the [political] light.”

            1. He’s told us here before that that was the year . . . get this . . . that he was born.

              (Which just says to me, you can’t hold being a Republican against someone, because they were born that way.)

              On a personal note, that’s why no one should ever respond directly to anything that guy writes.  It’s like arguing with a lamp post.

                1. that puppies are cute and lovable.  That when you swat them on the nose, they’re capable of learning the lesson.  And, sometimes puppies grow up to become something useful.

                  1. On two counts. One, yappy little dog playing with laser pointer =/= adorable puppy who caught a rabbit. The resemblance is passing at best, while you swipe the actual metaphors others use. Two, your remark was forgettable and absurd in the context of that conversation, while mine was witty and on point, and got instant recognition as such.

                    1. The ways in which the metaphors were used was identical, and you had obviously read mine first since it was a direct reply to you. On the second point, your hubris speaks for itself.

              1. … because no one is born with any philosophy. Also, virtually no one under the voting age would have one well formed enough to mean much of anything. (There’s no shortage of adults who fit that description, but at least they’ve had a chance to get the life experiences and time necessary to do that.)

                1. You mean comments like this?

                  Face it, Beej, the exact same policies the Tea Party claims are destroying the nation were just fine when they were Republican policies — from massive deficit spending to an individual mandate for health care to “deem and pass.” The only difference is that Democrats might get credit for whatever benefits come from those policies this time, and that’s just unacceptable.

                    1. The real reminder is that BJ is one of the “it’s fine when I do it” crowd.

                      Who knew?  The “blood libel” comment should’ve been a dead giveaway.  While Palin wasn’t the first to mis-use the term, she was arguably the  most (in)famous.  With all the coverage, why use it again?  Either because you’re a troll, or because you’re so wrapped up in how right you are that you don’t even listen to why people on your own side are upset.

                      To recap:  Whenever a person does it, they’re right and fuck everyone else.  See?  BJ thinks I’m right.  After all, I’m me and I thought it.(Now who’s god-like?  Bwahahahaha!)

  4. Hasn’t John Andrews done enough damage to the Republican Party and the State of Colorado dating from when he ran for Governor?

    A classic example of a true pseudo-intellectual – the kind that Spiro Agnew used to ridicule.

    His only claim to having an audience is the ridiculously inane column he writes for the Denver Post.  It has been clear for some time that the only reason that the Post carries his column is so it doesn’t have to make room for an actual intellectual conservative.

    1. still hasn’t stopped spinning from the other day when Pols used the word “wittily” in the same sentence with “John Andrews” referring to one of his columns??

      (It’s gotta either be that, or tonight’s mojitos.)

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

61 readers online now


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