BREAKING: Wadhams Abandons GOP Chair Race

UPDATE: Stokols:

Wadhams had announced last month that he would be seeking another term, but told FOX 31 that he decided over the weekend to pull out of the race…

“I was going to win,” Wadhams said. “I’ve made a lot of phone calls. My support is very strong. I just decided this is the right time to go do something else.”

Incoming Tweets from FOX 31’s Eli Stokols, we’ll update shortly:


117 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. ProgressiveCowgirl says:

    Funny how people see conspiracy in it when you conspire to essentially invalidate their primary votes to cover for your own inability to properly vet candidates, eh?

    • Aristotle says:

      Two major election cycles, two major statewide defeats. You can’t buy that kind of overrated reputation and general ineptitude at once very often.

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        Hey Dan Maes, this gig pays salary plus mileage!!

        (And, besides, we Democrats are really going to need someone of your caliber to help if Wadhams isn’t playing.)

      • RedGreen says:

        Hickenritter, “the appointed senator,” Boulderliberalmarkudall and Colorado’s nine electoral votes. He lost them all.

        • Ignatius O'Reilly says:

          Does that mean Waak won them all for Dems? I don’t think so. (Did she win any for the Dems? I don’t think so either.)

          No matter the party, the chairman can’t do much about top of the ticket races, and, thanks to the rise of Gill/Stryker/Bridges/Polis cartels, not much about the bottom of the ticket either.

          • ClubTwitty says:

            Like any failed conservative, it was the dastardly lib-ruls that done him in!

          • Republican 36 says:

            As much as people want to attribute over arching power and influence to the state chairman or chairwomman, they don’t have much influence. Mr. Wadham’s hand was dealt to him before he ever decided to return to Colorado after the Allen/Webb race in Virginia. The Colorado Republican Party was already dominated by the extreme right-wing of the party and there was nothing he could do about that.

            Mr. Wadhams’ farewell statement reflects not only his frustration with who mans the barricades for the Republican Party but the reality of how out of touch they are with what kind of electoral combination(s) it requires to win political campaigns in Colorado, especially statewide campaigns.

      • nancycronk says:

        I have had so many laughs from his name, I’m thinking of sending his mother flowers.

        Oh wait, I forgot my last name. Never mind.

  2. Middle of the Road says:

    Isn’t that usually what losers say?

  3. Ellie says:

    I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying “uniting conservatives” is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state.

    … the ability of Colorado Republicans to win and retain the votes of hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated swing voters in 2012 will be severely undermined.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      where did you read that second statement? I didn’t see that at the linked article.

      • RedGreen says:

        Wadhams sent to the GOP central committee this afternoon.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          And can I ask you, do think that’s true, Republicans ability to retain or win hundreds of thousands of votes will be undermined? What do you think he means by that?

          And more importantly, do you think it’s true?

          • Ellie says:

            the answer is a definite yes.  As the Republican party narrows it’s base to a totally ultra conservative agenda, the independent voter is less & less likely to go with their candidates.  

          • RedGreen says:

            If the Republicans adopt a No Conservative Left Behind policy and become the party of Ted Harvey, yes, I think they’ll leave hundreds of thousands of unaffiliated votes on the table. I’m pretty sure that’s what Wadhams is warning against.

            Remember, Wadhams ran the Wayne Allard and Bill Owens campaigns during periods of state GOP purity — and successfully branded his candidates as amiable centrists, or at least amiably not hard-right nutcases. It’s hard to picture Harvey adopting that strategy, he’s a take-no-prisoners kind of conservative.

            • kewl says:

              Meanwhile, the Colorado Dems solidified their role as the Party of Amiable Centrists (Hickenlooper, Udall, Salazar) even as the Dems nationally got tarred as the Party of Wild-Eyed Socialists.

              Pretty amazing when you think about it.

              • Meiner49er says:

                Then again, if 2010 is any indication, suppressing the U vote by projecting a choice of two extremes (far right vs. radical socialists) may yet be an effective option for Colorado Republicans, at least outside of the major metro areas where they hold a significant majority.

                Dems cannot be complacent and assume that they get these coveted U voters by default.  Unaffiliateds need some compelling reasons to affiliate, even if only on election day, or they will stay home.

                • BlueCat says:

                  into radical socialists. The fact is, the Dems the right call radical socialist are center left, the ones they call liberal are centrist and the ones they call moderate, like the Blue Dogs, are conservative.  On the right, they call you moderate if you’re old fashioned, rock ribbed conservative, just not full out crazy. The independent center in Colorado simply hasn’t moved quite as far right as the rightie rhetoric.

    • gertie97 says:

      Dick is right to call out the die-hard conservatives who do not get that winning the votes of the unaffiliated is crucial to election success.

      It’s great news for the Democrats, if they play it right. Wadhams understands the unaffiliateds’ role in state politics; the crazy right does not.

    • Craig says:

      Dick Wadhams has no one to blame but himself.  He’s one of the major players in the party here in Colorado who put the party on the course which has led it to its current position.  I have no sympathy.  The reality is that in the good old days when the party dominated this state Dick was one of the moderates.  He sold himself to the devil, literally to keep getting jobs.  Now he will have to live with it.  I have nothing to say to you Dick, except that I told you so, and you know it and you went along with and encouraged it.  Now live with it.

  4. Laughing Boy says:

    Here’s one Republican that’s pretty overjoyed.

  5. kewl says:

    Over the years, Dick Wadhams has become one of the Colorado Democrats’ greatest assets.

    His subtlety … His strategic genius … His uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory over and over (see Beauprez, Bob; Coors, Pete; McInnis, Scott; Schaffer, Bob).

    What on earth will we do without him?  

    • DavidThi808 says:

      But it looks like the part is going for ultra right wing and I think that will help us Dems a lot too.

    • RedGreen says:

      Wadhams wasn’t here then, don’t tar him with that.  

      • 20th Maine says:

        Wasn’t there for Beauprez either.

      • kewl says:

        However, there’s a pattern of behavior that can’t be ignored. It goes back a long way, but the Wadhams era perpetuated it:

        A rich white guy is our best candidate. Pay no attention to experience in office, understanding of the issues or ability to communicate. Is he self-funded? Is he one of us? Then he runs.

        Not to get all feminist on your asses, but I wonder how Jane Norton would have done in the general. Or whether the Colorado GOP might have had better luck statewide if it had run the local equivalent of Sarah Palin.

        Yes, I know, ew, but you get my point. The Republicans have a deep bench of smart, principled and experienced Coloradans — from Norma Anderson to Faye Griffin to Amy Stephens — that they have pretty much ignored.  

        • Ignatius O'Reilly says:

          Give me a break. The truth is that Norton ran a lousy primary campaign. And Buck ran an awful general campaign.

          As for Anderson, Griffin, Stephens, etc., they are just the latest in a long line of “principled and experienced” Martha Ezzard Republicans who have one thing in common with Martha Ezzard — they can not get their party’s nomination. Ezzard switched parties and got her ass kicked as a Dem, too.

          That is not the fault of the state party chairman. That is the fault of the state Republican primary voters.

          Can you imagine the GOP nominating a pro-choice candidate for statewide office (as the Dems nominated an anti-abortion candidate for governor — Ritter). Ain’t going to happen. Republican primary voters and the crazy activists who constitute their base care more about being “right” than being victorious.

        • RedGreen says:

          on Wadhams from within his own party was that he shoehorned Norton into the primary, via the NRSC, because party bosses didn’t think Buck or Frazier was strong enough. So your point doesn’t make any sense — Wadhams was the one supposedly foisting the moderate Republicans on an unwilling (primary) electorate.

  6. bjwilson83 says:

    Sounds like sour grapes to me. I never saw a “conspiracy”, just thought that he made zero effort whatsoever to reach out to the Tea Party and other liberty groups.

    • Froward69 says:

      When the only way to win an election in Colorado is to sway enough moderates to vote your way.

      Wadhams was Hampered by the “liberty/tea bagger” groups.  

      • bjwilson83 says:

        Independents. Many of whom are conservative and left the GOP when it sold out to RINOs, spending, and special interests. Thankfully, the Tea Party is holding the GOP accountable once again.

        • Republican 36 says:

          because those who left are RINO’s. They left the GOP because it has become the party of the extreme right.

          • bjwilson83 says:

            It is becoming the party of common sense. It used to be the party of Democrat lite. And as we all saw with McCain, that didn’t work out too well for the GOP.

            • Republican 36 says:

              The right wing extremists took over the Republican Party here in Colorado even before the Tea Party and lost badly in 2004, 2005 (Ref. C), 2006 and 2008. Then in 2010 the Tea Party put Buck and Maes on the ballot and the Republican extremists lost both races, again. And why? Because the so called RINO’s, who haven’t had any say in the Republican Party for at least six years, left the party and began voting for Democrats. And now, what do the extremists want to do? They want to blame the RINO’s for the incompetent Republican candidates that they, the extremists, nominated (e.g. Schaffer, Beauprez, Buck and Maes).

              The bottom line: Extreme right-wing candidates don’t play well in a general election in Colorado. Stop blaming the RINO’s, like me, for the incompetent candidates that people, like you, have nominated. You need to begin taking responsibility for your mistakes.

              • You need to begin taking responsibility for your mistakes.

                Denial: it ain’t just a river in Egypt.

              • bjwilson83 says:

                So you’re just admitting you’re not really a Republican? And yet you even put it in your screen name. Hey, no one’s stopping you. If you don’t believe in anything you don’t have to be a Republican. Just be honest and become an independent, instead of ruining the GOP.

                Tea Party America is hardly “right wing extremist”, so you can just shut down that lie right there. 33% of Coloradans agree with Tea Party values. Maes was only put on the ballot because the RINOs left us with a lack of good choices. I supposes you supported Mr. Plagiarism? Figures. And I voted for Tancredo in the end. Buck was a close race and could have gone either way. In any case, he was a far stronger candidate than Norton and did better than she would have.

                Bottom line: People don’t vote for liars. Stop pretending you are what you aren’t. You need to begin taking responsibility for your hypocrisy, lust for power, and inability to believe in any principles other than getting elected.

                • Republican 36 says:

                  but you haven’t taken responsibility for the Republcian nominees that have been disasterous for the Republican Party over the past six years. The RINO’s did not nominate any of these people, nor did the RINO’s leave you without any choices in the governors race last year.

                  The extreme right wing of the Republican Party took over the nominaitng machinery in Colorado at least six years ago and they, not the RINO’s, have controlled who gets the Republican nomination for most offices in this state. The RINO’s left the Republican Party years ago. To blame the RINO’s for the poor nominees is absurd. If the RINO’s really controlled the Republican Party, people like Maes, Beauprez, Schafer et al. would have never been nominated.  

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    so don’t give me any of that. I only got involved in Colorado politics in the last few years since Obama got elected, so I don’t take responsibility for anything before that. And, if you admit that you are a Republican in name only, then you have no business lecturing Republicans in the first place.

                    If you mean that I was supposed to accept McInnis as the choice of the RINO’s, or think that he would have beat Hickenlooper, you are sadly mistaken. It is precisely the moral weakness of people like McInnis that hurt the party. It is also disingenuous to blame conservative nominees when the reason they can’t get elected is because RINOs attack them so viciously in the primaries. And what about Pete Coors? How come he doesn’t share any of the blame in your fantasy world?

                    • Republican 36 says:

                      As I said before, the RINO’s, I’m one of them, left the party years ago and the field was left to the extreme right wingers who proceeded to nominate people like Bob Schafer (U.S. Senate – 2008) who said: “Republicans believe in a clean environment. Democrats set big forest fires in New Mexico.” Statements like that are just plain whacko. People who see the world from that kind of nonsensical perspective loose elections but the extreme right-wingers continue to nominate them and then, when they are blown out of the water, turnaround and blame the RINO’s, who weren’t even allowed to be part of the nominating process, for the loss. You can certainly blame the RINO’s for contributing to those losses because they voted for the Democratic nominee in the general election but you can’t blame them for who was nominated because they played no role in who was put on the Republican primary ballot.

                      I’m not asking you to take personal responsibility for the Republican election losses. What I’m saying is the extreme right wing as a group captured the Republican Party in Colorado six years ago and since that time has had virtually total control over who is nominated by the party and the result has been an almost unbroken string of defeats in high profile offices. The same group took over the party when it held a 180,000 voter registration lead (the largest lead in real numbers or percentage in the history of Colorado) and in a mere four years turned that into a Democrat registration lead which was unprecedented in Colorado political history. Registered Republicans (RINO’s) left in droves, yet the extreme right-wing just couldn’t accept the fact that many people, including Republicans, simply didn’t believe in their conspiracy theories and other rubbish like Republican St. Sen. John Andrews (the last Republican President of the state senate) belief that we should terminate all funding for public education kindergarten through University. That’s not policy, its insanity and it certainly doesn’t qualify as moral strength. And it continues today. The bottom line is voters in this state don’t buy what the extreme right wing is offering them.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Pete Coors and Dick Wadhams are just not “extreme right wingers”. Beyond that, though, the situation is not as one dimensional as you are suggesting. I grant that there are some people with ideas that are ideological but impractical. But the answer is not to change ideologies. Just give me a strong candidate with a clear conservative message who can translate that into practical solutions and he will win every time. Tim Pawlenty is a good example of such a candidate who won in a blue state.

                    • Republican 36 says:

                      Last year, when he decided to run for President, he began his race to the extreme right wing because no one can win the Republican nomination who is openly pro-choice. No one can win the Republican nomination who suggests a tax increase may be necessay under certain circumstances, including when military action is contemplated (e.g. Iraq). No one can win the Republican nomination who is willing to accept regulation of business and no one can win the Republican nomination who is willing to defend the institutions we have spent the past 250 years building in this nation. Republicans aren’t conservatives in any traditional sense of that word. As Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative of modern times said, his ideal statesman is one who  preserves public institutions coupled with a sense of revising public policy when necessary. Today’s Republican Party in Colorado is dominated by right wing extremists who are simply against all public institutions and are unwilling to compromise. Their minds are dominated by ironclad ideology which disallows them to recognize objective facts that just might suggest a solution different than what their simplistic ideology suggests. Ideology (any ideology) has the merit of simplicity and it is certainly a starting point for public policy analysis but it rarely reflects the full spectrum of the facts that make reality. My problem with the so called modern conservatives is their disdain for objective reality. Once one believes facts don’t matter then very bad mistakes will be made.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      He was pro choice? Do you have a link?

                      As far as the rest of your analysis, you are correct. Conservatives do not believe in big government. You obviously do. You do not agree with the Republican party platform. Why do you call yourself a Republican?

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      although evidence from their actual governing is lacking.  

                      Maybe the Tea Partiers will force their reckless cuts through the House this time.  We’ll see how well the new majority does come election time, especially if the Tea Patriots force more crazy wingers on the electorate.  

                      A volatile electorate is just as likely to bring the wrecking ball in 2010 as they were in 2008, and this time the TP mystique may not be so potent.  At least in a General.  They still have some damage to do within the party though.  The funnest part is that many of the fireworks will be on your side of the aisle for a while.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Of course evidence from their governing is lacking, that is the whole reason for the Tea Party. Yet you then criticize the Tea Party for trying reform the GOP!

                      And I don’t know how you get away with spinning fiscal responsibility into recklessness, that’s just too funny. This from the people who recklessly spent $1 trillion that didn’t exist!

                    • Republican 36 says:

                      Here is another example of what I’m talking about. Bob Schafer said on his campaign website the last time he ran for the U.S. House:

                      Republicans believe in religious freedom. Democrats incinerate religious zealots and their children.

                      Does anyone in their right mind, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative believe that statement; and yet, several years later, he became the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate here in Colorado. How could any party nominate someone who has such bizarre views that are truly disconnected from reality as that.

                      Second, the Colorado Republican Party worships at the altar of TABOR. TABOR is not a conservative proposition. It is based on a profound distrust of the voters. Its proponents did not and do not trust the average voter. They are afraid the voters just might, in their wisdom at various times, elect majorities in both houses of the state legislature that just might support legislative initiatives that would create or expand government agencies and TABOR is designed to stop that.

                      These kinds of philosophical and policy positions have nothing to do with conservative thought and they certainly don’t have anything to do with the will of the people. They are designed to stifle that will and to direct voters attention to ridiculous propositions (“incinerating religious zealots and their children”). The real purpose is to undermine the voters belief in our system of government, without having anything to put in its place, and to assert silly positions because to deal with reality requires, in many instances, government action and, of course, except for the military, government has been branded as something that must be destroyed in the eyes of those who control the Republican Party.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Nobody likes a bloated bureaucracy running their lives; deal with it. People all around the world from the Egypt to the U.S. will rebel against authoritarian regimes. People saw the failure of big government in the Carter years, and they are seeing it again with Obama.

                    • MADCO says:

                      What abotu the gov’t expansion during the Reagan years? Not to mention the expansion of the deficit.

                      You should get some facts. No requirement, not an order. Just an observation.

                      The four most recent Republic presidents before 2000 could not get nominated by the R party of today.

                      Tax increases, strengthening of Social Security, cut and run in Lebanon, secret, illegal, arms deals with terrorists, advocacy for the public safety net, creation of the EPA, acknowledgement of Roe v Wade as settled law of the land and on and on and on.

                      You should get some facts. At a minimum you should understand the Reagan Democrats

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Get a new narrative.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Obama negotiated a secret, illegal arms deal with Iran.

                      Or raised taxes “because it’s good for the country.”

                      Or increased the Social Security tax because “it’s the right thing to do”.

                      Or perhaps if Obama just gets re-elected by a wide electoral margin.

                    • MADCO says:


                      What exactly do modern post-Ike, post-Reagan conservatives want believe is the proper role of gov’t?

                      What should be publicly funded?

                      And how should the money be collected?

                    • Republican 36 says:

                      The so called conservatives never answer that question because to admit something, anything, should be funded by the government then requires them to admit there must be a revenue stream and, maybe, just maybe the revenue they suggest isn’t sufficient and that means they are advocating for a tax increase. Under present Republican ideology that is never allowed.

                      Just wait and see what happens to Speaker McNulty who has stood against the repeal of FASTER. He’ll be primaried next year because a Republican is never, absolutely never, allowed to admit additional revenue is required for public purposes. Its another example of ignoring facts or denying them because they don’t fit into ironclad ideological precepts and, of course, when they don’t simply make-up a new fabricated reality like the quotes from Mr. Schafer quoted above. When you’re a modern day “conservative” simply make it up as you go.  

                    • MADCO says:

                      subject, we’d have a small chance of getting somewhere.

                      Until we do, there will be no chance of getting anywhere.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Those functions should be funded up to the amount of revenue the government takes in, and no more. The money is obviously collected through taxes, I don’t know where else you would get it. It doesn’t grow on trees. But the taxes should be kept low so as not to squash the economy. In fact, history has shown that lower taxes = more revenue.

                    • MADCO says:

                      role of the government …in the Constitution

                      So – eliminate anything not mentioned in the Constitution?

                      – Social Security

                      – Interstate Highway System?

                      – Medicare?

                      – standing military?

                      – Federal Reserve?

                      – income tax?

                      – national parks and forests?

                      – EPA?

                      and on and on

                      …funded up to the amount of revenue the government takes in…

                      No deficit spending.  Ok. But that wasn’t the question.  

                      What’s the right level of funding? (And since in your vision funding = spending, what level of spending?)

                      How low?

                      3% of GDP?

                      10%?  33%? 50% ?

                      How did you determine that level? And how do you know our revenue is high enough now?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Sounds good to me. Currently it’s at 25%.


                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Spending should never exceed revenues.

                    • MADCO says:

                      So you think Udall is correct?

                      Based upon what?

                      JiCYWW- I am no more likely to agree or disagree whether Udall, Hatch, Laffer or Stockman said it.

                      Why is 20% the right number?

                      And “never”, as in never, ever, Constitutional amendment never?  Or just “never” as in, we should do whatever we can to keep it balanced, but if and when we really have to miss, we can.

                      And currenty Federal spending is not at 25% of GDP.



                      and trending down- depending on what the current budget debate ends up producing. (Which is for the budget we shouldda had  last Fall. 2012 is the next budget)


                      20% is just Federal spending, right?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      20% is the historical average. If you get much higher than that, you cannot raise taxes high enough to cover it unless you totally trash your GDP.

                      I don’t see any reason why it would ever make sense to spend what we don’t have.

                      Actually, if you had looked at my source, you would see that it is 24.7%

                      Yes, 20% is federal spending, but of course TABOR type stae budget-balancing laws should be passed in all 50 states if possible. Otherwise you get California.

                    • MADCO says:

                       You did not address the role of gov’t question and

                      if you had looked at my source, you would see that it is 23.8, trending down.

                      There is little magic about 20%.

                      What is the corresponding ratio for other strong, 1st world economies?

                      And my link is to a superior source of actual , you know, what’s the word…. data.


                      Look at it now – do you see the period where federal spending was close to 50% of GDP?

                      Do you still think it was a bad idea?

                      And do you know what the national debt as a percentage of GDP after that period?  Would you care to look it up – or do you need some help ?

                      Looked at another way, was the debt as a percentage of GDP higher then or last year?  What was the number in either time?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      The entire world was in chaos. I don’t think we want that again. And the spending ended as soon as the war ended. The important thing to look at is the debt. Once it gets above 90% of GDP, bad things happen.

                    • MADCO says:

                      And instead of bad things happening, the next two decades were two of the most productive any economy anywhere has ever accomplished.

                      Meanwhile, vets got the GI Bill, VA home loans and a Veterans Administration that was much better resourced to deal with the services needed.

                      Look – the debt is too big. And we should make it smaller.  But it’s a non-partisan debt.

                      Eisenhower increased spending. JFK cut taxes. LBJ & Nixon spent like mad, giving the resulting recession to Carter.

                      Reagan cut taxes, increased spending, raised taxes and net net, increased the debt.  Bush Sr. raised taxes – and your party ate him alive.  Clinton shrunk gov’t and gave the US the last balanced budget we had.  Bush Jr ran up the spending and cut taxes. Just like Obama.

                      Now, here’s the really hard part.

                      Sometimes, real world events require extreme measures.  Apparently even you acknolwedge that running deficits to lead the world through the 40’s was a good thing. A necessary thing.

                      Was Viet Nam necessary? Should we have debt financed the Nixon build up?

                      What about the Reagan defense build up which helped end the cold war?

                      Iraq?  Afghanistan? Saving the banking industry?

                      When the debt gets big enough, the only sane and responsible thing to do is pay it down.  We can grow out of some of it.  We can inflate away some of it.  But just like my grandparents and parents in their era, we should pay it down.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      We have long held that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the crushing debt and deficit we now face. Bush certainly had his problems with government spending. But our current president has increased spending more than all the previous presidents combined. It’s a bit hypocritical to say you support paying down the debt when the president you just worked so hard to elect blew the lid off of it.

                    • MADCO says:

                      We jsut agreed that in a crisis, to avert chaos like WW2, deficit spending can make sense.

                      In 2008 the banking industry collapsed.  We can argue another day about why and how, but the calendar and and the events are not disputed.

                      Saving the banks started at the time of the collapse- and was continued in 09 and last year.   The banking collapse gave us the Bush recession of 08/09, to which the response was the stimulus and other spending.

                      I think we can agree that spending should be reduced. But  I am even more confident that we would disagree about where to cut.

                      If I thought that any other candidate in the last election cycle would have exited or committed to exit  Iraq  and Afghanistan while successfully steering a middle course to stabilize the nation, I might have been interested. There were none.

                      Hey, I know, let’s impose some surtax to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the  telephone surtax originally imposed to pay or the Spanish American War.  Then let’s all buy US bonds.  While we decide where to cut spending.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      The reason the banking industry collapsed was because of house Dems who refused to responsibly regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Bush wanted. It is the House Democrat recession, not the Bush recession.

                      It is precisely because of the wrong-headed response of stimulus and other spending that we are in such bad shape today. Not to mention suffocating the economy through new taxes and regulations on businesses. This is all due to Obama (and of course, House Dems).

                      If you agree that spending should be cut, that is a major reversal but one I welcome. I didn’t think you would ever agree with the Tea Party on that. I think Rand Paul has the right approach – cuts need to be made across the board, including defense spending.

                      John McCain certainly would not have bankrupted us. This means that you are saying your vote for Obama was essentially an anti-war vote, but Obama has not got us out of Iraq or Afghanistan; in fact he has done nothing but continue the Bush policies that liberals claimed to despise.

                      * Sigh *. You still don’t get it. Raising taxes is not the solution.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Who said the era of WW2 was chaos that we would not want repeated?  I guess you think we should have told the free world to just be patient, we’d like to help but just can’t afford it

                      Ssicher, weil man eher sprechen wГјrde der Deutsch jetzt du arschhut.

                      McCain would have invaded Iran.

                      Across the board spending cuts are childish and irresponsible. Which may be all Congressman like Rand and Ron Paul can think of rather than lead their peers into a reasoned, responsible approach. Sometimes I think the country would be better off if either of those districts would have elected Ru.  At least then we’d know to expect childishness and irresponsibility.

                      I’ve never not said spending should be cut.

                      Just don’t cut anything that I can’t afford. Don’t go eliminating the mortgage interest deduction now that I just bought a house. Don’t go eliminating my health insurance now that I am uninsurable and couldn’t afford the market offers anyway.

                      I know- let’s eliminate federally guaranteed student loans. Or the tax deductibility of student loan interest.  And let’s cut other higher ed funding.   And highway subsidies. ANd the FAA.

                      So- in a nutshell, you want to eliminate every function of gov’t not named in the Constitution ,  cut the budget across the board to get back to 20% of GDP and  then amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget always.

                      Can’t help but recall that when I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, it was against all enemies,  foreign and domestic.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      You want WW3? Sorry, but I think you’re in the minority on that one.

                      Lol, fiscal responsibility is not childish and irresponsible. What is childish and irresponsible is spending the way Obama has. And dumping all of the pain on on segment of society is irresponsible as well.

                      Yeah sure, you don’t want your ox to get gored while the rest of suffer. There’s plenty of stuff I’d love to have the government give me at the expense of others, but that is mean spirited and selfish. We’re going to have to have shared sacrifice so no one person gets hit too hard.

                      The only domestic enemies are those who are seeking to collapse the United States economy and bankrupt the nation.  

                    • MADCO says:

                      ANd I am perfectly happy to earn everything anyone gives me.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Clinton reduced federal civilian workforce?

                      And Reagan and both Bushes increased the federal civilian workforce?

                      Next thing you’ll try and tell me the most beloved team in all of baseball hasn’t won the deal since 1908.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Too bad Obama isn’t more like him.

  7. Dick Wadhams was a good Chairman for the GOP – he inherited a State GOP that was riddled in DEBT and managed to raise them out of it in expedient time – a capability that few could offer

    As far as the farm team, I’ve noted names before, but the BEST two for this job would be Larry Carillo of Larimer County and Dave Kerber of Arapahoe County – if either of those guys run and wins, then we (as Democrats) should be concerned

    Larimer County, to me, as a former statewide GOP candidate, is the best ran GOP county, under Carillo’s leadership — Dave Kerber, on the other hand, is simply a phenomenal leader – he ran a solid campaign for State House in 2008 and he brings a tremendous understanding to the table

    Scott Starin of Boulder and John Wagner would also make excellent Chairmen

    I found Boulder County, under Scott Starin, to be extremely well run – one of the best, organization-wise, for the GOP in Colorado — John Wagner, on the other hand, is a great strategist and very sharp (take my word for it)

    Lastly – as I’ve said before – Don Ytterberg of JeffCo, Richard Elsner of Park, and Janell Reid of Lincoln are also excellent picks

    Again – if any of the above are elected, as a Democrat, I would be concerned – in running for State Treasurer as a Republican, I was always impressed with the organizational abilities and intelligence of the people named above

    Final note –

    For the Colorado GOP to succeed right now, they need a Chair that understands how campaigns for State Rep and State Senate are run and how the State GOP can better help those local races — as the Colorado Democrats have proudly displayed – if you can win locally, you can win it Statewide

    My biggest criticism of Dick Wadhams would be that the State GOP could’ve done more for the local races, which often fought for attention on the GOP radar in Colorado — however, given the cards that Wadhams was dealt with, I’m still impressed (even as a Democrat), for how quickly he took care of campaign debts and left the slate clean for the GOP to make a comeback

    Again, I’m a proud Democrat, but I want the best for Colorado — the best for Colorado would be two, strong State Parties that are ran by leaders who are intelligent and honest — and quite frankly, the Colorado GOP needs an injection of honesty – I’ll just leave that there…

  8. pistol says:

    Wadhams actually is a skilled campaigner, with a strong national presence, but the running of Schaffer’s campaign while maintaining the chair raised quite a few questions, even with the executive committee’s permission.

    Kerber’s tenure with Arapahoe County did not evidence “strong” leadership skills; certainly does not bode for a credible state chair run.

    Wadhams has been seeking a presidential campaign for a LONG time and best bet is Romney’s, particularly as his staff has just been gutted.

  9. Gray in the mountains says:

    Ali might even return. He says he loves you.

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            remains unanswered, . . .”why?”

            • In writing the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (and successfully fighting for its implementation), Doug Bruce has proven to be one of America’s finest fiscal conservatives – I’m very Blessed to be mentored by him

              What more is there to say?

              You can hate Doug Bruce all you want, but few politicians put their money where their mouth is – Doug Bruce has passed and successfully defended more fiscal conservative initiatives in his lifetime than most Think Tank organizations have over their entire existence… there’s a reason why he’s both vilified and respected…

              • Despite many complaints of the fact that I was pro-gay, pro-immigrant, and pro-Muslim, Douglas Bruce very ardently supported me for State Treasurer, standing up to ‘conservatives’ who felt he should be towing a bigoted line

                Granted, I didn’t win – but it proved to me that Doug’s politics have nothing to do with gay, immigrant, and/or Muslim intersection – it’s something I wish other Republicans stood for… but nonetheless, it also led to my defection… and for what it is worth, Douglas Bruce supported me in becoming a Democrat – he said he was behind me either way, but he always looks out for my best interests – it’s what makes him “family”

              • MADCO says:

                But I don’t know him either.

                But why is it that TABOR has been proposed in other states and been defeated everytime?

                Could it be that Colorado beamed off into space when on the 9th try we finally said yes to TABOR?

                With the “ratchet” gone, it’s better. But, it does make the legislature sort of useless.  Why don’t they start meeting every other year? Or even every fourth year?  Do we really need new seat belt laws every year?

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.