President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 13, 2007 01:07 AM UTC

Everybody Loves Wadhams

  • 63 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Well, everybody in the press, that is.

Political consultant Dick Wadhams, who will likely be approved as the next Republican Party Chair in Colorado, is showing why he is the right choice to lead the GOP. It was Wadhams who led the conservative misinformation machine on HB-1072 which ultimately pressured Gov. Bill Ritter to veto the bill. It was Wadhams who patrolled the state capitol charming reporters into offering up innacurate facts in their stories about the bill – information that became gospel to many in the misinformed media.

Wadhams is well-known for his tireless courting of the press and for developing personal relationships with reporters that he plays like puppets. Like Jeri Clausing of The Denver Post, for example:

“This is a huge victory for the Republican minority and the people of Colorado,” Wadhams said.

“The Democratic majority in both houses absolutely fell in line when labor asked them to and they passed a bill so out of the mainstream even the Democratic governor had to veto it,” he said.

And this bill was just the first round in what promises to be an arsenal of ammunition for Republicans trying to get the Democrats on the record as often and as publicly as possible. Also moving through the legislature are bills that would allow gay workers to sue for employment discrimination, abolish the death penalty, and raise the caps on awards on wrongful-death lawsuits.

So while Ritter is trying to bridge partisan divides, Wadhams expects to see a lot more public battles like those that sunk the union-shop bill.

The strategy, he said, is to “illuminate the fundamental public policy difference between Republicans and Democrats.”

If the coverage of HB-1072 is an indication that reporters in Colorado will just dance to the strings that Wadhams pulls, the GOP is going to enjoy a quick recovery.

Tweet
Share

Comments

63 thoughts on “Everybody Loves Wadhams”

  1. Your quotes lambasting Ritter are just cannon balls for Wadhams and the GOP for the next election.  If you keep it up, all the bux and troops you helped Dems with will be all for naught.  Just leave us alone, please.  Take a vacation in Miami or something, or maybe give Pete Maysmith a call and hang out with him until the next election is over.  With friends like you, who needs enemies?

    1. Adams had nothing to do with the lies coming out of Wadhams mouth. Don’t blame the AFL for trying to help the workers of this state. Wadhams and the GOP screwed the working class citizen once again to score political points.

      Macaca-DICK-Wadhams should go back to DC, or hang his hat up. Colorado doesn’t want his divisive politics of hatred again. The GOP should be ashamed for recruiting such a digusting person to lead their party, but I guess they don’t care who they step on to regain power.

      As they say, we differ on the means to the same end, and it’s clear that the GOP is willing to use every ditry trick in the book.

      1. This isn’t about helping workers, it’s about increasing unions’ dues and political clout, regardless of how much 1072 would hurt workers, which would be a lot.

        1. No proof was put forward that by eliminating a beaucratic 2nd vote on the voluntary formation of a union job would hurt business or increase dues for any union. In fact, it would eliminate the long negotiations that business hate.

          Where do you find your talking points? Has Wadhams been handing them out at the Capitol?

    2. The unions, rabid Dems and ColoradoPols can’t comprehend that Ritter vetoed 1072 because business leaders who are smarter than them convinced the governor that he had to veto the bill.

      All the media coverage over the weekend, except for the Rocky’s editorial Saturday, featured Ritter’s comments that he believed in the bill, but his letter to the generall assembly said up front that he did not. He realized that it would kill economic development in the state.

      So when he said in a press conference that he believed in the bill, he was either lying or double talking or both. Probably both.

      The Al Lewis column in Sunday’s Post made the same mistake, showing how a left-wing columnist who is a union member can distort the governor’s message and show the writer’s ignorance of labor economics, business and politics in one sentence.

      Typical for the media in general and the Post in particular.

      On balance, the newspaper reporters are the ones who are coming out looking like the union’s lap dogs.

      As for Wadhams, he may be over playing his hand, which is weak to begin with. Unless he controls his personal Repulsive Republican Radical impulses as well as those of his candidates’, in 2009 he’ll be where he is today-in the minority.

      1. “Wadhams may be over playing his hand,” who is the same person that is whispering in the years of Republican leadership to paint the picture you just belowed out. It’s radical and divisive politics like this that Wadhams was run out of Colorado the first time.

        How can you stand by a guy like that?

        1. Let’s get serious guys.

          The Dems and unions were shoving 1072 down the state’s throat, taking no prisioners.

          Suddenly, the Repubs fought back, and the wimps on the left couldn’t take what they bullied.

          Cry. Cry. Cry.

          Poor babies.

      3. (which I would dispute)but they didn’t convince him it was a bad bill.  They convinced him they didn’t have enough access to possibly make an impact on the bill.  They convinced him labor wouldn’t talk to them, and, from what I hear, that was true.  The Gov never said a word about vetoing the the bill because it gave labor an advantage or because it would hurt economic development because those things aren’t true. 

        So many people are still playing the old win/lose game when I think Gov Ritter is trying to change the rules.

        The problem is people like Dick Wadamacaca.  He doesn’t care how public policy is made.  He wants to win at any cost.  And, the people who hire him know that.  You want to clean up politics?  Don’t hire Wadamacaca.

        1. I think it’s still on the home page of this blog.

          He said it was a bad bill that would hurt economic development and the Colorado economy.

          It was very well written, easy to comprehend.

  2. Dick Wadhams is simply brilliant and the GOP’s awesome performance in defense of Colorado’s pro-growth reputation shows quite clearly how effective Wadhams will be.  Wadhams knows how to gitrdone and is bad news for the Democrats.  Whether it’s promoting a pro-growth agenda or protecting traditional Colorado values, or simply advancing the electoral prospects of Republicans, it is a VERY good thing that Wadhams is running the show.

      1. When Colorado stays red, the Republican wins the Senate race, and we, at the very least, make up ground in the state legislature.  Worst case scenario we lose the Senate race, stay red as GOP presidents NEVER lose here, and the legislature is status quo.  Chances are sunny it will be a lot better than that and Wadhams will deserve a lot of credit.

          1. I know ALL about the demographics and I must be looking at different data than you are.  If I were to buy a plane to fly over Denver with a banner attached I would have it read one thing: CALIFORNICATION DOES NOT MEAN LIBERALIZATION.  I love my wife dearly, but I wouldn’t waste this chance on her.

            Here’s the thing…

            First of all the much-hyped Californication has died down considerably since the peak of economic growth in the late 90s.  Second of all, and this is most important, for every California liberal who moved to Boulder or Denver there were conservative Orange County families who moved to the suburbs or the Springs (like James Dobson et al).  There was a golden Denver Post piece written on this in the late 90s which noted this.

            Second, the best argument for the blueing of Colorado is the Hispanic vote.  But we all know that this is the least reliable of minority groups for the Dems.  Latinos voted overwhelmingly against Ref. I but for Bill Ritter.  That means that we have a socially conservative cohort who is still voting Democrat.  Do you really think that will last?

            You also have the birthrate dichotomy.  Republicans have about three kids per momma (Christian conservatives even more!!) while hippie-mommas are having less than two per.  That is a long term change which will likely take a while to fully take effect–but it points to a more red, not blue, Colorado.

            If you look at registration numbers in Colorado and other trends, it shows what most of us know deep down: Colorado is not becoming more or less conservative than it was 15 years ago.  Rather, we are ever-indepedent (though Republican-leaning) and good candidates from either party can still win despite the state’s conservative tilt. 

            1. Well, I’ve been writing about demographics for 30 years or so myself, and I think the unaffiliateds are going socialist on us.

              It’s an entitlement world among the baby boomers and their grandkids, who are beginning to vote. Sorry about that.

              The are owed, pure and simple, and, the kids, especially, are not big social issues folks, not even all of the conservatives among them. Believe me, I talk to a bunch of them every day, from all over the country.

              It’s not just the Californians who are turning the state blue but also the folks from the East and Midwest. Are Orange County conservatives more conservative or more liberal than Colorado conservatives? I’d say more liberal.

              This doesn’t mean the Dems can’t blow it. The first month of Dem rule in Congress and the state legislature will bring back the Repubs unless the Dems get off their high horses and kick their socialist ways.

              1. You’re looking at one election and declaring the state lost.  Maybe our leaders are going socialist, but the citizens are not.  Watch the business lobby put up a right-to-work iniatiative and just see how wildly it succeeds. 

                What about the kids?  Studies show that kids today are generally more conservative on just about every issue across the board except for gay rights.  On that young people today–and I consider myself to be a young person–favor gay marriage and rest of it.  But on abortion to war, youth are astonishingly conservative.  They are also, by a large margin, more intensely religious.

                What about the newcomers?  The newcomers came in much more robust droves in the 1990s than they are coming now.  And the state went from a purple haze to a ruby red at the turn of the century.  Now it’s back to it’s center-right purple haze where we’re all a bunch of curmudgeonly conservatives who find Democrats fetching.

                I think there is a natural glitch in the conservative character.  We are necessarily weary of any sort of change–kids must be bad, growth must be bad, immigration must be bad–all of it must be bad because it’s going to shift our demographics leftwards.

                What I’m telling you is that most changes in Colorado are likely to tilt us even more right.  The Latinos will come around to the Republican Party once they get off the public dole, the old people are still more likely to vote Republican than not, the kids are alright, and the Californians–if terrible drivers–vote with a lot more sanity than you would imagine.

                You’re right that people are tragically inclined to the me-first socialist impulse that we see in Europe.  You can thank the Boomers and their Great Society for that one.  But today’s kids volunteer more, are apt to give more charity, and are more religious than past generations.  For you that’s good and bad.  It means that shortly there’ll be no abortions.  But it also means that you’re likely to see a more tax-cutting bunch of future leaders and voters.

                In Colorado we are still a red state.  Our Democrat governor just vetoed junk legislation.  We’ll have a chance at another vote in 2008.  Not much has changed and the people of Colorado are still the same.  They care about the same things and they are still, fundamentally, conservative. Don’t panic yet.  When Hillary wins here, we can pull the emergency lever together.  Until then, be glad you are in Colorado, not California.

                2. In a liberal or socialistic (not the same thing) society, people are giving up behaviors or monies to, they believe, make a better society. 

                  It’s exactly the opposite of what you claim.

            2. When you cite a “fact” that “Republicans have about three kids per momma while hippie-mommas are having less than two per.” you should cite your source.  I challenge what you wrote and since you have self-identified as CU professor, it becomes important for us to know what is being taught…cite that source, please. 

              2. http://www.nytimes.c…

                http://www.opinionjo…

                (This one shows the 3:1 stat)

                What’s more, we know that religious parents have more kids than liberal parents.  Boulder and Seattle have more dogs than children while Denver and it’s suburbs have more children.  The question is not whether or not conservatives are bigger baby-makers; the question is what that means for politics over the next 30 years…

              1. Maybe I am. 

                But I can tell you that studies show that kids vote with their parents nearly 80% of the time.  So you’ve got 20% a side that waffles a bit, but it’s nothing that will change the fundmamental idea that there will be more Republicans than Democrats in the future because of current demographic trends.  If you accept the data I provided that note the baby gap, which you should, then you have to accept the corellary that there are more Republicans being born today than there are Democrats.  Do you think that more Republican babies will grow up to switch teams more so than Democrat babies–so much so that they’ll make up the 3:1 difference?

                You can call me names all you want, Fidel, but it doesn’t change what the data clearly shows…

                Assuming that some Republican babies become Dems and some Dem babies become Republicans, there are more GOPers being born today than Dems.  Period.

                1. That is probably correct. I remember reading once that 88% of the world’s population remain the religion they were raised with. Who says parents don’t influence their kids?

                    1. Making all those new Republicans sure will be fun, but then you have rear them and from time to time deal with your ulcer because Junior registered with the Greens!

                    2. One son is a D, one is an R. 

                      (I couldn’t be prouder.  I wanted critical thinkers, not clones.  Shh, don’t repeat this:)

                3. studies show ! Studies show ! Studies show 4 out of 5 dentists recommend dentyne to their patients who chew gum, and that’s about all. Then someone calls you out on your “study”, you can’t produce it, you leave, and put up some unsupported nonsense up somewhere else on this blog.

  3. in spreading lies, not challenging the government statements, and trashing the culture. This is why one of my earlier posts on goals for 2007, or as soon as possible, is to break up the monomoply of the air waves and the news press. And, protect the freedom of the internet! Let’s get the Fairness Doctrine into the public debate and strengthen it’s basic premises.

  4. The man with the little penis is not the problem here.  The problem here is that the Governor has no balls.  Can you imagine a Governor saying that even part of the reason for vetoing a bill is because it caused such a divisive fight?  What nonsense.  Now, all the Republicans have to do is cause a fight and the Governor vetos the bill.  We are in for a very long four years with a very inexperienced Governor who has shown with is first action that he has no clothes.  Governor, with all due respect, you have made a mistake.  Even if you were going to veto the bill for whatever reason, giving the Republicans in this state the sense that they can push you around and make you veto a bill is a very bad mistake and one which you will regret for the rest of your political career.  Can you imagine what Dick is going to do now that his first gambit has worked.  If you were going to veto this bill, you should have absolutely destroyed every Republican talking point about the bill and then vetoed it for your own reasons.  The only word I can think of to describe you at this point is pantywaist.

    2. I think you’re misreading the situation here.  Bill Ritter did not just say all that stuff about governing sensibly so that he could get elected.  He meant it.  That means that some Democrats don’t get what they want.

      This veto wasn’t about the GOP making a stink.  It was about the GOP making a stink because the Democratic leadership was using the legislative process to railroad public input to the bill.  If the minority party wants to make a stink over a bill that is advanced, debated, and fairly passed, then I see no indication that Ritter will have a problem with the bill.

      Whether the bill is any good or not (and I’ll admit I’m predisposed to think that it is good), it’s the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears to pretend that the only unusual thing about this bill was the GOP response.

      1. Write good bills, give people input, compromise, give the governor time to have input as Bush did in Texas and you’ll get your bills signed. Write lousy bills that hurt the state, you’ll get your bills vetoed.

        Write bills for the state, not for your union, business, special interest group or yourself. I know that’s asking a lot, and nobody thinks of the state first, but it would be nice if they did. Maybe some things would get done.

        1. I don’t understand how, in guessing at Ritter’s motivations behind the veto, you manage to ignore his multiple public statements on the matter.  Both in the veto letter and in speaking to journalists later, he has said that he vetoed the bill because of the legislative process.  He’s said multiple times that he supports the concept behind the bill and will sign legislation that does these things.

          This seems to be about your opinion, projected onto the governor.  Everyone already understands that you don’t like the bill.

    3. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out, what Ritter does, what the Democrats do, and what the Republicans do. I can see this working real well for us Democrats and also terrible (and everywhere in between).

      One thing Ritter did, he made it very clear that he is in charge and the Democratic legislature cannot take him for granted. And the legislature seems to be responding to this well, understanding that they need to work together.

      It will be interesting to see what happens if the Democrats try to discuss a bill and the Republicans refuse to talk. If Ritter & the rest of the Dems can get across that that is what is happening and then pass the bill – then the result will end up being real good.

      So we have to wait and see…

  5. If anything proves the bias of ColoradoPols it is this post.  Good lord, why don’t you just cross post this crap at Progress Now and Square State and call it a day.

    Thanks for showing your true colors Coloradopols!

  6. Everybody gets pissed when someone on the other side plays the game of politics well.  Republicans hate Clinton, and Democrats hate Rove, and now they apparently hate Wadhams. 

    You can tell yourself that you hate them because they’re sleazy or underhanded, but I won’t believe you.  The common demoniator is they’re good at what they do.  If they sucked at what they did you wouldn’t be able to care less.

    Come on….

  7. He’s spouting the same old stuff, which is increasingly out of public favor–or even public interest.  Colorado is trending blue, mainly because of (1) the hispanic vote, (2) its basic libertarian tendencies, and (3) its a northern state;  the entire north is trending blue.

  8. I predict that the Dems will come back with another attempt to help out the Unions and Ritter will sign the Bill.  This whole thing has been a big act.  This one ain’t over until the fat lady sings.  Penry should quit patting himself on the back because this is just the first quarter of this game.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

63 readers online now

Newsletter

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