Although indicted Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’s campaign for Colorado Secretary of State is getting most of the attention, particularly since Peters won top line on the June 28th primary ballot with 60% of the state assembly delegate vote, fellow Republican and former Jefferson County Clerk Pam Anderson’s own campaign has stayed relatively quiet through the high tide of party activist blowtorching. Anderson qualified for the ballot via petitions days before the assembly, and we’ve heard nothing from Anderson regarding the voting controversy plaguing the GOP gubernatorial race among others coming out of the assembly.
Anderson is running ostensibly as a candidate who “both sides can trust,” being a registered Republican who has a record of defending the integrity of elections from fellow Republicans like former Secretary of State Scott Gessler–who went on to become part of former President Donald Trump’s legal team seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election and now serves among many other clients as Clerk Peters’ attorney. In a state that has migrated steadily leftward over the last 15+ years, Anderson knows that a Republican running as a Republican statewide in Colorado has a major disadvantage–especially a Republican running to run Colorado’s elections immediately after Trump’s attempt to steal one. If she can just survive until June 28th, Anderson believes she can come out of the closet (as it were) and fully embrace triangulation against her own party.
Unfortunately for Pam Anderson, she still has to run in the Republican primary. And at this moment, there is no metric by which she can be considered the favorite. After the party faithful overwhelmingly showed their support for Clerk Peters and by extension the “Big Lie” last weekend, Anderson is putting her conciliatory message on the shelf:
And what’s that “more work” Pam Anderson says needs doing to our elections, you ask?
Forget what you’ve heard about the old Pam Anderson–the new Pam Anderson is going to “crack down” (her words) on “ballot harvesting,” fight nefarious federal voting rights legislation and anything else those rascally Democrats come up with, and “expand post election audits” which sure reads like approval of the failed “Fraudit” circus in Arizona! How any of this is supposed to “insulate the office from undue partisan influence” is tough to figure, since these are all nakedly partisan Republican talking points.
It’s very simple: Anderson saw what happened last weekend and knew she had to appease the election conspiracist majority of the Republican Party in order to shore up support for the primary. The problem is that this new red meat-slinging Pam Anderson is so at odds with the old Pam Anderson that it doesn’t seem authentic. The timing implies weakness not strength, and she’s inflicting damage that can’t be undone to her post-primary image.
But it was bound to happen. Otherwise, Anderson is running in a party that no longer exists.
And, anybody on the outside could have seen this coming a mile away. It's the only hope she has of surviving the primary.
Disappointing and disturbing as it is that a moderate Republican who has had bipartisan goodwill in the past is doing this, whether she wants to or feels she has to.
Shorter Pols: Pam Anderson likes blue shirts. Mike Lindell likes Blue Shirts. Therefore Pam Anderson is just like Mike Lindell!
We know, we know. "Intended audience" Because it is absolutely impossible for something someone said that is aimed at their "intended audience" to come back and bite them in the ass later when their "intended audience" changes.
Particularly when the "intended audience" are a bunch of election "truthers" and insurrectionist sympathizers.
Etch A Sketch it
Easier said than done. But I don’t even think she will survive the primary.
Mr. Fladen’s “intended audience” want a real bomb thrower to feed their rage. Peters is the perfect poster child for them. Maybe enough moderate independent voters could tip the scales in this primary. But I’m doubting that at the moment. Especially when the candidates for the two top-of-the-ticket races are either crazy or feckless. That could dampen their desire to vote in the Republican primary.
I certainly hope so because even if you liked these people you have to recognize they are unqualified for the job.
I wonder: does anybody really like Ron Hanks?
Even his dog hates Hanks.
At least six years ago, John Keyser had a dog that like Keyser.
And a big dog at that!
Ron is the proxy for the group. They like hanging out screaming about losing its a fun time for them. Ron is always there. Thus; Ron is the group, Ron is fun.
I'm wondering if there is an announced trial date for Tina Peters' misdemeanor AND felony charges. If they have been announced, I've forgotten.
Next court appearances is on May 24. The full trial will be after the primary but before the election I believe.
The trial is supposed to take place with 6 months of the date of her arraignment BUT she has the right to waive the six-month speedy trial deadline and ask for a continuance. She is supposed to only get a continuance for "good cause" but that is an elastic term.
Unfortunately, I would not count on this case going to trial before November.
Sorry to see this, but it's given us a few things that will be tough for her to walk back should she survive the primary and need to compete for unaffiliated votes. And I wonder if it will even help her in the primary, since why vote "big lie-light" when you can get the real MyPillow deal?
It is sad to see….I liked the old, competent Clerk Anderson. The unelectable – in – today's – Republican- environment one. (Sigh)
Yep, she just crossed my line with a simple list of bullet points, and gave me plenty of reason to cough "bulls#!t" like the court scene from Animal House if she claims innocence from "undue partisan influence."
Pam Anderson is doing what she needs to do to be a viable candidate. I'm still voting for her in the primary, and then for Jena Griswold in the general.
Anything to stop that nut case from Grand Junction.
Which nut case from Grand Junction? There are so many of them.
HR1 does less for election law than Colorado's current laws do. Pure pandering.
Plus, 100% of present GOP members voted against HR1 in the House, so for this and other reasons Pam's line about partisan influence rings hollow.