Tim Reichert is the Most Boring Candidate in Colorado

Republicans in the new seventh congressional district seem to be pinning their 2022 hopes on an economist named Tim Reichert as the likely challenger to State Sen. Brittany Pettersen (D-Lakewood) in the battle for the seat being vacated by the retiring Rep. Ed Perlmutter. There are other Republicans in the CO-07 field, including Laurel Imer and Erik Aadland, but Reichert stands out because he seems willing to spend his own money financing a congressional bid (while Imer and Aadland are struggling to attract support).

Like most everyone else in Colorado politics, we don’t know much about Reichert other than the fact that he wrote his campaign a personal check for $500,000. Earlier this week, Reichert was a guest on The Dan Caplis Show on KHOW radio; we decided to listen in on the interview in order to get more acquainted with Reichert. What we heard was the equivalent of an NPR radio host reading from a college economics textbook.


REICHERT: As I was saying into your microphone a moment ago…my first introduction to the economy was an introduction to inflation. My dad would take me to the grocery store. He taught me how to reach deep into the canned good shelves to find this can of beans, or corn, or whatever it was we were looking for, that had been priced, say, two weeks or three weeks prior. And that blew my mind as a kid, right? I mean, the fact that my father’s wage could be lessened by 2% or 3%, you know, in a matter of 3-4 weeks is an amazing thing.


If you’re still awake, here’s Reichert explaining his professional background:


REICHERT: So, I went into industry. I was a partner at Ernst & Young for a time. I led their economics practice for a chunk of the midwest, and later went into investment banking — an advisory firm — I was there for about five years. I started my own firm in 2011, built that up to about 50, 55 economists in five offices here and one in Israel, and sold it in 2018. And, you know, when COVID hit…I have had this, it’s more than a research interest, it’s really sort of a labor of love studying the erosion of the middle class in this country. And I took my COVID year to write a book on — a manuscript, it’s not yet published — a manuscript on the causes of the decline of the middle class. And I kind of chronicled how this happened. How we’ve gotten to this place that the Founding Fathers were so concerned we might land in.


There is a part later in the interview in which Reichert says, quite seriously, “People don’t realize this, but we had six homestead acts in our history.” Fascinating stuff!

Reichert had better be prepared to self-fund the hell out of this campaign. It’s going to be very, very expensive to make him seem at all interesting to the average voter.


22 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. RepealAndReplace says:

    Why on earth would the Party of Loren Hanks, Dr. Chaps, Mr. TABOR, Daryl “the Unicorn” Glenn, Q-bert, and Lori (In-)Saine want to settle for something this bland?

  2. MichaelBowman says:

    a manuscript on the causes of the decline of the middle class

    You don't need a manuscript, you need five words, a blank sheet of paper and a crayon:  Ronald Reagan Trickle Down Economics

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      "Voodoo economic" for short

    • JohnInDenver says:

      Pew Research thoughtfully breaks it down, carefully defining what "middle class" is and then examining who fits into that economic definition.

      The hollowing of the American middle class has proceeded steadily for more than four decades. Since 1971, each decade has ended with a smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at the beginning of the decade, and no single decade stands out as having triggered or hastened the decline in the middle.

      Based on the definition used in this report, the share of American adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2015.

      In other words, all of my adult life has been a slow decline of the size of the middle class.

  3. Diogenesdemar says:

    Someone “boring” enough to talk about policies and their effects (. . . and not breathtakingly ridiculous MSU, like “gazpacho police” and “Fort Pelosi”) ( . . . even if he’s not 100% right or wrong)???

    Please, dear god, give me thousands more Republican candidates, equally as boring, just like him!

    (Sideshow Boebert, Hanks, et al, are anything but “boring” — you really want any more, even one more, at all like these cretins ???)

  4. 2Jung2Die says:

    More thoughtful than blowing up a Xerox machine, sure. Otherwise, as Mad Magazine would say, "Blech!" Oh boy, he mentioned inflation like every GOP candidate because it's all Brandon's fault, and backed it up with the price of a can of peas instead of mentioning the billions and trillions involved in housing or corporate profiteering. And I'll speak for the Founding Fathers – they were more concerned with survival and conquest and possibly being invaded and establishing a form of government than they were about the state of whatever in 2022. 

  5. JohnInDenver says:

    I must admit, I’m a bit stunned by the notion that the Founding Fathers thought ANYTHING about the “middle class.”

    My US History classes and my American Public Address courses (taken AND taught) didn’t include any indication of awareness of “middle class” during the 1776-1800 era.  During the westward expansion up to the Civil War, politicians talked about pioneers and the expansion of the election franchise to a broader set of property owners, but I don’t recall linking it to income or a sense of “social class,”  let alone a specific mention of “middle class.” Trying to recollect, and the earliest I can come up with the concept being used in politics is Teddy Roosevelt, especially as he pursued a graduated income tax and wanted to distinguish “the rich” who would pay from the rest of us.

    • MichaelBowman says:

      The Founding Fathers were content with a two-class system, and a country being governed by white-only, male landowners.

      It’s (almost) like something evolved. 

    • 2Jung2Die says:

      I thought this passage from good ol' Howard Zinn could be a good refresher on the days of the Founders if you have a couple minutes. In short, inequality was rampant, complaints about concentrations of wealth could just as well have come from Bernie Sanders, and lower class rebellion was not uncommon. I liked this part:

      Four days after the reading (of the Declaration of Independence), the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the Common for a military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes; the poor had to serve. This led to rioting, and shouting: "Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may."

  6. Sunmusing says:

    we have to disabuse ourselves of any notion that the republican party/cult has anyone fit to be in our government….Colorado is no stranger to republican fuckery…they are still at it…Tina Peters is the tip of the iceberg…we must assume that the entire republican party/cult in Colorado, are insurrectionists, and are willing to lie, cheat and steal their way into congress…Lauren Boebert should be hit with the 14th Amendment…hard…and with conviction…

  7. kwtree says:

    Obviously, I’d rather be represented in Congress  by Senator Pettersen. She gets constituent needs like mental and physical health, housing, and fairness more than any Republican would.

    But at least her likely opponent isn’t  an insane conspiracist or an ignorant pink Ken doll with good hair. This guy may give Pettersen a real battle for the seat, if he successfully appeals to unaffiliated voters. His example of inflation as rise in the cost of a can of beans is a decent explanation.

  8. Denise Spencer says:

    The right wing republican bank owned property running against a democratic bank owned property….. We all lose in their game of monopoly. None get my vote.

  9. JRRWIRED says:

    Tim Reichet will get obliterated in the general election, if he can make it past the primaries.  He’s against women taking the pill, and attributes its implementation as the source of practically all of society’s ills.


    Highlights from the article:

    – Women less likely to get married and increased likelihood of participating in sex trade

    – “…contraception inevitably leads to more divorce.”

    – “Women today rarely specialize in the home, or in the family, but, rather, in marketable labor.”

    – “Contraception also increases the incidence of infidelity.”

    – “…contraception creates a demand for abortion.”

    Somebody please stick a fork in this guy.   

    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

      Reichert is "pro-life," according to a mailed campaign piece that I think I recycled earlier today. 

      Of course, in these times, one is truly not "pro-life" unless one also opposes contraception, along with opposing abortion.

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.