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

52%↑

48%

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

50%

50%

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
May 05, 2007 04:16 PM UTC

"Colorado Goes Blue": Human Events

  • 61 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

A discussable write-up on the Colorado political landscape was published yesterday by the leading conservative journal Human Events. Excerpts include:

If Colorado is any barometer, the Republican Party may lose more ground in the 2008 elections. Colorado Republicans took a beating in 2006. In the Governor’s race Democrat Bill Ritter demolished Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez 56-41%. Beauprez’ vacated House seat flipped to the Democrats as Ed Perlmutter trounced Rick O’Donnell 55-42%. Looking ahead, Republicans in Colorado face multiple challenges in 2008 with a key Senate race for the seat held by retiring Republican Wayne Allard, the Presidential race and a possible ballot initiative to abolish racial preferences in public education, employment and contracting. Many eyes will be trained on Colorado to see if this generally Red state will continue its leftward turn.

Colorado, according to University of Virginia professor Larry J. Sabato, holds the distinction as the state that has “moved most swiftly in recent years from Red to Blue.” Several factors account for this change.

University of Denver Professor Seth Masket explains: “The first is demographics.  A lot of the recent immigration to Colorado is coming from California and other left-leaning states.  More Democrats than Republicans are moving here.” Indeed the advantage in party registration held by Republicans has diminished over time, now down to approximately 150,000 votes. There are also many more wealthy donors for the Democratic Party. Well-heeled (and more liberal) businessmen from telecommunications and high tech industries who have moved to the state ensure that Democratic campaigns are well-funded.

Another factor in the Democrats’ success has been the Republicans’ failure in addressing issues which matter most to Colorado voters. Both at the state and federal level, lack of fiscal discipline by Republicans frittered away their traditional advantage as the party of balanced budgets and small government. Republican Governor Bill Owens raised the ire of voters by abandoning the state’s limit on spending and endorsing a $3-billion tax increase.

However, Colorado Republicans recently may have received a big assist from the new Democratic Governor and the now Democratic controlled legislature. The Democrats have proposed a $1.1-billion property tax increase. Republicans rallied in opposition, with 40 of 41 Republican legislators signing a letter in opposition to the measure. As GOP state chairman Dick Wadhams puts it, this has “galvanized Republicans across the state.”

…As Republicans fumbled their advantage on the issues, Democrats have learned to field better candidates with strong in-state appeal. Colorado political scientist and consultant David Gosser observes: “Local Democrats have run strong candidates on moderate messages, in strategically smart and tactically sound ways.”  Ritter’s resume — former prosecutor, Catholic missionary, and avowed pro-lifer — was a democratic political consultant’s dream in a state with more Republicans than Democrats. 

Indeed, with better candidates, the Democrats have been making considerable headway with Independent voters who comprise about 1/3 the electorate. In 2002, approximately 55% of Independents voted Democratic; in 2006 Ritter captured 66% of the Independent vote.

Republicans may have learned this lesson. Wadhams says that the party will be recruiting more moderate candidates to run in districts which otherwise would certainly remain in Democratic hands…

Faced with minority status in the state legislators and the loss of the Governorship, Republicans may be trying to put this battle between libertarians and social conservatives behind them. Wadhams says that Republicans are determined to “focus on what unites rather than what divides” Republicans and has been urging Republicans to focus their energies on becoming the “principled opposition” to Democratic excesses but also bringing forth their own proposals on education, crime and other bread and butter issues.

2008 will be a hectic political year in Colorado. The Senate race is is shaping up as a battle between Democratic Congressman Marc Udall and, on the Republican side, either Schaffer or Attorney General John Suthers. Masket remarks: “I tend to think the Democrats will have a bit of an advantage going into the general election simply because of the national environment.  However, Udall is considerably more liberal than any of the Democrats who have won statewide lately (e.g.: Sen. Salazar, Gov. Ritter).” Even if Udall is more liberal than these successful Democrats, Sabato cautions Republicans should not to get too excited, given that liberals like Gary Hart and Tim Wirth “prove that a liberal can win here in the right year.”

Republicans cannot take Colorado for granted. Democrats have learned to run successfully with appealing candidates and popular issues. Coupled with growing unrest over the Iraq War, Colorado Republicans have reason to be nervous. Nevertheless, if they return to the principles of fiscal conservatism, lay out policy prescriptions on issues which matter to voters and embrace popular Western values then talk of the demise of the Republican Party in Colorado may be proven premature.

Read the whole article. It was almost good enough to make us want to subscribe to Human Events, but we didn’t know what to do with the free Ann Coulter book. We don’t really want it and there’s not enough leggy pictures of Ann to put it in the guest bathroom.

Tweet
Share

Comments

61 thoughts on ““Colorado Goes Blue”: Human Events”

  1. is swayed by the liberals in Boulder and Denver.
    Besides, by the time the elections come around, the libs will have been in power for a couple years. And since they will have failed miserably in their socialist (social programs at the expense of the working class man) agendas, they will be voted out state wide.
    Count on it all you commie wannabees.

  2. You guys wouldn’t be taken for such partisan hacks if you didn’t make things up, like, “Colorado goes blue.”  Maybe I’ve been reading too many term papers, but I don’t believe that the article every said that Colorado is going blue.

    The article was pretty much spot-on, with one notable exception.  Somebody has to squash this meme that Californians are turning Colorado blue.  The Californiacation was at its paramount in the late 90s–precisely when the GOP was at its pinnacle in Colorado.  The Denver Post did a study on this stuff a while back and determined that for every liberal East Coaster that moved to Boulder, a conservative Orange County family moved to the Springs, the suburbs, or other conservative parts of the state.  The growth in Douglas and El Paso counties was propelled primarily by conservative Californians, not your average Santa Monic, granola-crunching surfer dude and dudette. 

    People are trying to overanalyze Colorado by insinuating some sort of an ideological change.  But states don’t dramatically shift gears–ideologically–in the span of three years.  It just doesn’t happen.  There are two things that has brought down the Colorado GOP: money and the national GOP.  Period.  Unless the GOP here finds a Tim Gill we will have an uphill climb in most elections.  And until the national GOP finds a leader and some backbone it is likewise unlikely that life will be too fun for Republicans here.

    Also, about the social issues, there was an important part in the article when they mentioned social issues turning off libertarians or whatever.  It isn’t so much that the social platform hurt the GOP–in fact, generally speaking, Colorado leans right on moral concerns–the problem is that this agenda was pursued at the expense of kitchen table issues like healthcare and education.  It isn’t that we need to become a bunch of Independence Institued libertarians to win–quite the contrary that would hurt us!–it is that conservatives must advocate for libertarian issues with the same vigor with which we work on social issues.  The great thing about the GOP’s big tent is that it isn’t either or–it’s not either libertarian or conservative.  Referendum I’s defeat and Amendment 43’s approval demonstrate a vibrant, alive, and passionate social conservatism in the state–and it lies at the heart of Republican and Democratic voters alike.  But the GOP must be every bit as strong on individual freedom, property rights, low taxes, and educational reform as it is on the sanctity of marriage and life and the importance of faith in the public square. 

    Uniting the two stalwarts of Colorado conservatism–the growing social conservative cohort and the influential libertarian wing–is essential.  It will take a credibly conservative guy like Bob Schaffer to do it.  The GOP ought not make concessions on core values.  But it does need to articulate them more effectively–and practice what they preach.

    1. It’s the title of the article. Jennifer Rubin must be a partisan hack because she named it “Colorado goes blue.”

      Ease up on the term papers. I hope for your students sake that you’re paying more attention to what they wrote than you did this article.

        1. Do you people ever have anything to say that doesn’t begin with the words “Colorado Pols is biased?” It’s kind of pathetic. Debate the issues or keep your insipid whining to yourself.

          1. right to say ColoradoPols is biased.
            BECAUSE IT IS.
            Fine, we all know that.
            You don’t like hearing it because your name states where you are coming from………the land of liberals, socialist, and up and coming communists.
            If you don’t like reading the truth that the doc writes, don’t read it.
            And don’t call someone else a dumb-ass until you have taken a good long look in your Boulderite mirror.

            Signed
            LIAS

            1. Also, which liberalism leads to socialism? Is it economic liberalism (free trade, open markets etc.)? Or is it Jeffersonian brand liberalism that stresses the importance of the rights of the individual? I just want to know so I can avoid that type of liberalism at all cost.

            2. You’re referring to GOP plurality suburban Jefferson County, troglodyte? Well down the road from any “Boulderites,” last time I checked.

              It would be helpful for all-caps angry types like you to get one fact straight in these little tirades. Just one, like reading a news article before complaining about it, or noting that my handle says “Jeffco” not “Boulder.” For Pete’s sake, you’re just coming off like a drunken lunatic. Hasn’t anybody ever told you that? I find that hard to believe.

            1. the people liberalism makes most angry are fascists and communists. Why? Because rationality, objectivity. and belief in the rights of the individual and not the state are firece antidotes to the lockstep mindset of  totalitarism. drdob is not a dr. and certainly does not have much understanding of political theory.

      3. You’d think the fact that the title of the post is in quaotation marks would have given away the fact that “Colorado Goes Blue” is in fact the title of the article. Apparently not.

    2. I agree that she overestimated the impact of Californians moving here. The reason the Dems are doing better is not because of transplanted liberals. It’s really because of disgruntled Republicans. Sagebrush Rebel Republicans in this state are tired of their party being hijacked by the Colorado Springs crowd, so they’re attracted to moderate Dems.

      Here’s the problem with the big tent: there is an 800 pound gorilla sitting in the middle of it and no one wants to talk about it. There is an inherent contradiction between the libertarian wing of the GOP who wants the government to stay out of everyone’s business and the Dobson crew who want the government to legislate on morality by passing laws that directly interfere with people’s private lives. It’s impossible for the GOP to keep these two together forever (frankly, its a miracle they did it this long). Now the honeymoon is over and the libertarians see Bush isn’t the fiscal conservative he claimed to be and that the only base he cares about can be found in a megachurch on a Sunday morning. The Dems finally wizened up and realized they could exploit this divide. That is why the Dems did really well in the West, and that is why the Dems will continue to do really well in the West.

      1. But your analysis is sound.  The problem for the libertarians is that while the GOP these days may thump a little more Bible than they would like, the Democrats are hardly friends of the free market.  So, you’re completely right that the libertarian/conservative liplock is more a marriage of convenience–but if you’re a libertarian, what alternative do you have?  They hopped aboard the Colorado Promise dreamboat last year and now they’re getting stabbed in the back with tax hikes and union paybacks.  If I’m a free market libertarian–and I do, in fact, deeply believe in the free market–I might just turn a blind eye to to the long-toothed guys in the pews and just rejoice that you’re getting your market reforms and tax cuts. 

        It sounds like Wadhams believes that the magic formula is a social conservative running on a mainly fiscally conservative platform.  Hope it works! 

        1. I don’t know that I agree with this one, it seems a little outdated to me. After all, Clinton was a pretty big free market president (NAFTA, et al.) much to the chagrin of some of his own supporters. Plus, Bush isn’t really the living up to fiscal conservative standards by increasing federal spending (even without defense). Plus, the GOP as a whole got a black eye with the free market crowd by freaking out last summer and insisting we shut down our borders. Remember (and as a good free market lover you’ll know this) free trade is not only the free movement of goods, but labor as well. So at this point the Dems are bigger friends of the free market than the current GOP.

          1. Dr. D describes me to a tee.  I vote checkbook issues first, social issues second.  The open border is not a free-market issue, it’s a national sovereignty issue with financial implications.  If we get a Dem president in 2008, I’m going to hire every illegeal I can find for my contracting business.  If I don’t, I’ll be at a competative disadvantage.  Goodbye $12.00/hr starting wage and health insurance; hello $8.50 and  a map to Denver General Hospital.

        2. Anyone who advocates borrowing 4 billion to build T-Rex, and then advocates borrowing another few billion 7 years later is not a conservative.  Deficit spending through bonding is the most insidious of tax increase.  At least Ritter is looking at raising taxes to build roads, rather than borrowing from 20 years in the future.

          As far as libertarianism goes-the marijuana initiative results indicate that there is a very substantial (though minority) portion of the population that supports individual rights.  I may not agree with what you smoke, but I will fight to the death for your right to smoke it.

          Social Conservatism combined with spending like a drunken sailor is a doomed idealogy.  Conservatism in matters of the purse, but laissez-faire in all other matters is the recipe for Republican success in Colorado.

      2. The California rush to Colorado increased the state’s conservative leanings in the 1990’s.  What’s happening now is that the majority of voters recognize the failings of the Republican Party in this state.  Dobby, the Republican Party is NOT a big tent party.  The extreme social conservatism that dominates the Republican Party (and its selection of candidates) does not match where the majority of voters are (with the possible exception of El Paso County). 

        Also, voters saw a failing record when the state was governed by a Republican Governor and Republican legislature — among many other problems the state’s serious fiscal problem was not solved through Republican leadership.  Plus don’t forget, regardless of political affiliation, people in Colorado mostly DO like the natural environment that surrounds them, and they want reasonable steps taken to preserve that environment for their enjoyment and for the enjoyment of future generations. 

        We now have Democratic leadership which has in a short time begun to address a number of problems – renewable energy, crumbling state resources, skyrocketing incarceration costs, education funding issues, funding for tourism promotion, just to mention a few. 

        1. I know you ended with “just to mention a few”.  But the Dems will only get away with throwing more money at a failed system for so long before the public demands results.  I also feel they’re playing with fire on health care.  Today’s paper had four proposals from groups advocating different approches to funding and providing health care to Colorado.  I’d lay odds that the collectivist proposals are the ones favored by the legislature.  In the coming years those “solutions” will prove to be outragously expensive.  Since the state can’t run a deficit, the new expenses will be paid for with new taxes and employer mandates.  I can’t see either being very popular.

          1. I don’t use the phrase education reform because I believe it means different things to different people.  IMO, what must change is that we need to graduate a much higher percentage of students from high school (graduate them legitimately), and we need to prepare students better for the real world of work including the high tech world.

            In the health care arena, outrageous costs (with medical inflation rising much faster than inflation in general) must be addressed at the same time as trying to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to health insurance.  And there should be a much stronger focus on preventive health care and lifestyle issues that impact on health care costs.

            And finally, remember that taxes will not go up in Colorado unless people vote for an increase.

                1. Nobody believes you can have essential services and not collect taxes to pay for them.  The debate is about what services are essential and how much bureaucracy is neede to deliver those services.  It is far easier to throw stones than to offer solutions.  Got any solutions?

            2. Most of us agree on what the probelems are and the outcomes that we desire.  The difficulty is in the way to get there.  Do you favor vouchers?  Advocate more spending on the current public education structure?  Some other solution?  How about single payer health care?  Health saving accounts?  Mandates on businesses?

              IMO, people will always act (in the long-term) in their own best interest.  Example, a certain number of public school teachers will continue to send their own children to private school while fighting against vouchers. 

              Any solution to today’s critical problems must harness the propensity to act in one’s own self-interest.

          2. That’s simply not true.  The overwhelming majority of kids going to public schools are getting a good, and in many cases a great, education. 

            Your observation about health care are also wrong.  none of the proposals in Saturdays paper were “collectivist”.  The use of such terms is simply bumper sticker politics.  U.S. per capita health care costs are nearly twice what they are in any other industrialized country world wide.  The health system we have now is not sustainable.  We should explore all kinds of ideas before we make changes.

            1. as it was yesterday is failing.  When teachers and administrators put social engineering ahead of academics, it’s a failed system.  What do you call a district that only graduates 50% of the kids, under funded? 

              Any “reforms” to the healhcare system that don’t place the majority of responsibilty on the individual is, by definition, collectivist.  At the least it’s paternalistic.  We can have funding mechanisms that allow everybody to afford healthcare without going to “single payer”, i.e. socialized medicine.

        2. not the Party.  This is why Giuliani pols out at #1.  The social conservatives figured out how to get involved in the caucus, assembly, and convention process to choose the candidates, and the fiscal conservative/libertarian R’s haven’t matched their enthusiasm and level of activity yet.  The hope is as the Dems continually win, these R’s will get more involved in the process. 

          1. The hope is as the Dems continually win, these R’s will get more involved in the process.

            This will happen sooner or later. But it might take decades. The left took control of the national Dems in the 70s and despite Bill Clinton it really took George W to get them to embrace more centrist Dems and, presumably, to get the more centrist Dems enthusiastic about running for office as such.

            It’s funny watching the GOP presidential hopefuls all fall over themselves trying to out-right wing the others. It makes me think of a time, not too long ago, when it was inconceivable that any Dem would dare identify as pro-life. It’s inconceivable now that any ‘pub would take any kind of pro-choice position. (Talk about litmus tests – the hard right social cons have that market cornered.)

              1. when I wrote that. He recently started shifting away from his socially moderate positions regarding marriage equality. He also said something about Saddam “paying the price” for his crimes in hell yesterday which I read as an attempt to butter up the religious cons. But I’m cynical like that…

          1. that not all your GOP brethren, including certain posters on this blog, aren’t going to welcome the Log Cabin Repubs with the same open arms as you, Lauren.

            2. We vehemently disagree on many foundational issues like marriage and the sanctity of life–but there are many gay Republicans who are committed to a safe and secure America as well as low taxes and personal responsibility.  They give me their 80%–I give them mine–and our big, boisterous tent is doing just fine, thank you very much.

              One of my favorite congressmen is David Dreier from Los Angeles.  He’s proof that you can camp with the GOP you can sleep in tent or a cabin and nobody will care.

              1. on an issue I’d bet most would take very personally, yet they’re supposed to feel welcome by your wing? Pardon me if I’m highly skeptical, especially while your namesake still treats homosexuality like an illness and W vows to veto a bill that extends hate crimes protection to gays.

                1. We couldnt pass the EPA in the 70s and apparently women, according to W, arent equal to minority races, religion, or national origin.

                1. I finally get it. It is OK to be gay if you are a Republican, but not OK to be gay if you are a Democrat or anyone else who does not support the Republican power agenda.

                  1. That’s such a broad mischaracterization.  Especially when talking about the LCR’s who are being so true to themselves that they can combine a number of stances.

            3. They need to walk into the tent and announce their intent to participate every day and contribute like every other Republican.  I’ll be their to embrace them and so will scores of others like me and Lauren.  After working shoulder to shoulder with the LCRs, the vast majority of active Republicans will see that our common interests are greater than our occasional differences.  If the LCRs will come our of the shadows for the 2008 elections, I predict that by the time my college-age sons are precinct leaders that we will all know gays in those positions. 

              1. that your vision is spot on. As gays gain greater acceptance into mainstream society then they won’t have to gravitate toward the Democratic Party simply because of the hardcore social cons in the GOP who think they’re amoral simply for being who they are.

                (This may end up resulting in a third party after all – I think the old school fiscal conservatives and libertarians will take back control of the GOP and the social cons will find themselves on the outside. But it may take decades for that to happen.)

                1. I’m only 46 so I’ve got many years ahead of me(God willing!).  The LCRs are going to have to make themselves known in order for my vision to be realized.  I’m not aware of any openly gay activists in Arapahoe County.

      3. The article also missed what may be the most important reason the turn around came so fast, besides the war, Katrina, Bush’s low approval etc. 

        Colorado has a very large and growing proportion of unaffiliated voters.  For many years, they mainly voted Republican, not always because they were all that crazy about some of the far right R candidates but because they were more uncomfortable with Dems they saw as being too liberal.  Many of those voters have now come to feel very uncomfortable with the far right wing that has taken control of the Republican party.  They didn’t like the rubber stamp congress and one party rule that kept failed policy and incompetence in place.  They came over to vote for Dems perceived as moderate in droves.

        The Colorado Indie vote can turn on a dime and it has, leaning almost as strongly towards Dems in the last election as it leaned toward Rs just a few years before.  They aren’t invested in one party or the other so when they want change they are perfectly willing to vote for it RIGHT NOW.  The Rs mistake was taking them for granted.  The Dems better not make that same mistake.

      4. I don’t know how many of you have ever attended a Republican assembly at the state or congressional district level, but the coronation of Tom Tancredo in 2004 (I blew off the last one) was a cross between a tent revival meeting and Orwell’s Two-Minutes Hate.  “G-B! G-B! G-B! G-B!”

        There are a lot of us libertarian Republicans whose skin tends to crawl when we have to deal with the Tom Tancredos and the Marilyn Musgraves.  We hold our noses and “do bid’ness,” but I found that a lot of the rank-and-file simply got up and walked away. As a minor Party official, I don’t have so much invested in the hierarchy that I couldn’t walk away when the disgust level reached a certain point, and I’ve told our grand poobahs as much.  Voters don’t have to go that far. 

    4. The GOP ought not make concessions on core values.

      Exactly what are the GOP’s core values?

      1. Against corruption?
      2. wants balanced budgets?
      3. against gays?
      4. Against interfering in other countries business?
      5. Against interfering in personal business?
      6. against abortion?
      7. All in favor of family values?

      Hmmmmmm.

      As to Colorado turning dem, do not worry about it. It is not. And you are correct about Californians not being dems. Just as many republicans as dems came here (in my WAG). The difference in the last election (and most likely the next election), was  the indies who are increasingly voting against corruption, deficits, hypocrites, do not care about the abortion issue, and are well aware of which party has leaders who support family values (hint, which parties top leaders are philanders and divorces and which one has allmost 100% happily married healty family?). IOW, the indies supported the dems.

      1. Exactly what are the GOP’s core values:

        Let me show the way…

        1.) Government ethics.  The very reason that at the end of the previous Congressional session the GOP passed a landmark ethics bill that would prevent the shady dealings associated with Jack Abramoff.  Our shadowey figures–Chris Cunningham, for example–were booted out of the party why your homeboys on the down low–like William Jefferson and Harry Reid–are still living it up in DC.

        2.) Balanced budgets/freedom of the checkbook.  President Bush passed a remarkable set of tax cuts that would put more money in consumers’ pockets in 2003.  It is these tax cuts–and similar sound, conservative economic policy–that has kept our economy afloat despite 9/11, the war on terror, and the bursting of the technology bubble.  Yet these tax cuts are set to expire in 2010–putting our economy in jeopardy–and it’s the Democrats balking at making these cuts permanent. 

        The budget has been slashed by 50%–yet the Democrats, despite their campaign promises of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility–has bloated the supplemental with juicy chunks of lame-ass pork.  Democrats know nothing of fiscal responsibility and it was foolish of the voters to believe so.

        3.) Human rights, equal opportunity, and the protection of individual freedoms for all Americans.  The GOP is hardly ‘against gays’ anymore than the Democrats are ‘against’ evangelicals.  There is not a single instance of the GOP advocating a policy that deprives gays of Constitutional rights granted to ALL Americans regardless of sexual orientation.  Just because we’re not hot for identity/gender politics doesn’t make us anti-gay.

        4.)Freedom.  Quite simply, the GOP believes that it is in our national interest to have a maniacal, brutal, nuclear dictator removed and replaced with a stable, democratic Iraq that values human rights.  The GOP doesn’t believe in a Chamberlinian policy of allowing rogue dictators to have their way in the world.  Sorry about that.

        5. Personal freedom/individual liberties.  Well, it’s a good thing we elected Democrats to represent Colorado’s interests.  Otherwise, there would be no ‘grown ups’ to tell us where we can smoke, what we should wear for protection while driving or riding a motorcyle, who should be covered for healthcare, who businesses can hire, what schools can teach, and on and on it goes.  The GOP believes that the individual knows better how to run his life and when the government gets involved it’s usually a bad sign.

        6.)Sanctity of Life.  The common good in this country is advanced by a culture of life that values even the most vulnerable among us–whether small or big, young or old.  Abortion indellibly weakens the meaning of life in profound, intracable ways.  Abortion harms women and children alike–in often brutal ways.  No morally serious culture can allow the practice if they care care about human rights for ALL people.

        7.) Traditional moral values.  This country is great, strong, innovative, spirited because of it’s hard-working, family-loving, God-fearing citizens.  The vitality of faith in America is a testament to our spirit and strength and contributes a fantastic amount to our public square.  Faith, family, and freedom are uniquely American–and Colorado–values.  The GOP believes in a country where people are not ashamed to say, “God bless America” and (the horror) actually mean it.  While religious freedom is vigorously safeguarded in America–the morals and values that have been taught from generation to generation are nothing to sneeze at.  The fact that Americans are far more trusting in God and reliant upon their own family and individual self is a threat the big-government socialists on the left who prefer that the Nanny State runs things–effectively crowding out the individual, the family, and God. 

        It is a fine party–the Grand Ol’ Party.  And it also happens to be a winning party when it runs, legislates, and campaigns on the above principles.  But the catch is that the GOP too often tends to throw one or more of the key tenets overboard.  Sometimes we focus too much on the faith and life issues and ignore individual freedoms and low taxes.  Other times we lose sight of the tradtional values that Americans have always cherished–and embrace a runaway, souless free market.  It’s like a puzzle and all pieces must fit together to make America better.

        1. Your first point is such obvious nonsense that it needs no further comment. You might wish people had short memories so they’d buy that, but they don’t.

          Point 2 – when did they slash the budget 50%? Is that more of that new math? Or did budget slashing only happen after they lost both chambers (and thus is merely a political ploy?)

          The GOP is hardly ‘against gays’ anymore than the Democrats are ‘against’ evangelicals.  There is not a single instance of the GOP advocating a policy that deprives gays of Constitutional rights granted to ALL Americans regardless of sexual orientation.  Just because we’re not hot for identity/gender politics doesn’t make us anti-gay.

          Crafty – saying constitutional rights. Although fighting the efforts of 2 people in a committed, loving relationship to enjoy all the rights granted married couples because they happen to be the same sex is a violation of the principle that we should all allowed to pursue life, liberty and happiness, I guess it isn’t denying them their constitutional rights, is it? BTW, fighting marriage equality on specious grounds does make you anti-gay.

          Quite simply, the GOP believes that it is in our national interest to have a maniacal, brutal, nuclear dictator removed and replaced with a stable, democratic Iraq that values human rights.

          Well, he wasn’t “nuclear” – if he was he’d still be around and we’d be fretting about what to do (see Korea, North). And if you think W is delivering a “stable, democratic Iraq that values human rights” then I’ve got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

          Otherwise, there would be no ‘grown ups’ to tell us where we can smoke, what we should wear for protection while driving or riding a motorcyle, who should be covered for healthcare, who businesses can hire, what schools can teach, and on and on it goes.

          Yeah, too bad people won’t just die from second hand smoke anymore. Hmm, someone proposing a helmet law? Nahh, that’s just Dobby scare-mongering. The rest is, ahem, nonsense (who businesses can hire? What are you smoking?)

          Point 6 – why so narrow a definition of the sanctity of life? It’s meaningless to pick and choose like that. If you’re pro-life you better be anti-death penalty too.

          Point 7 – Who did you rip that off from? You certainly didn’t think that up.

            1. I’m watching “The Drug Years” on VH1 (a documentary about drugs in the context of popular culture since the 60s) and when they showed Reagan I was struck by how statemanlike he was (in comparison to any GOP candidate or the current president). No wonder you all kiss his ass and play up to his mantle so much (no matter how far off his vision you are).

    5. Money to a very large degree determines election outcomes.  I agree that money was a contributor to the Republican downfall, but money is just people voting with their wallets, so one needs to examine why money flowed to Democrats and not to Republicans.  It’s not just one guy — Gill — who can be blamed for the exodous of money from the Republican party.

      The Colorado Democrats ran about a dozen uncontested races in 2006 which means that Republicans either did not get their stuff together to challenge D candidates or there are at least a dozen districts where Republicans are lost causes.  I believe the former rather than the latter.

      IMHO, Colorado Republicans are focused on the issues of the Republican strongholds in Douglas and El Paso counties rather than on the issues other areas of the state find important.  Ya gotta ask and listen to voters throughout the state to win campaigns.  Preaching to the choir will not woo independent voters to endorse Republican candidates.

      By and large, Republicans ran negative campaigns — “here’s what’s wrong with my opponent” — rather than positive campaigns — “here’s what I will do if elected.”  That turns voters off in my assessment.  Who wants to elect a guy who’s only qualification for office is that he’s not his opponent?

      Focusing on wedge issues that alienated more voters than they attracted.  Making illegal immigration a central issue in Colorado — a state that’s 20% Hispanic — probably cost Republican candidates more voters than it attracted.  Likewise, focusing on gay marriage actually mobilized opponents to Republicans (e.g., Gill) which did significant harm to Republicans, but, at the end of the day, is really a social side issue in the scheme of things.

  3. extremist wingnuts like Janet “Bestiality” Rowland and her junior sidekick Josh “Me Me Me!” Penry, Colorado will remain a blue state for a long time.

  4. I lay the blame for the demise of the Republican Party (that is how William F. Buckley sees it) at the feet of our imperious leaders (both in Washington and the small cadre that really runs the Party here at home), and I essentially told Renee Nelson exactly that:

    Dear Renee:

      The founder of our Party, whose birthday we celebrate today, exhorted people to “Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT.  Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong.”#  Abraham Lincoln’s wisdom encapsulates my attitude toward our Party, and hopefully, always will.

      Though I am but a humble committeeperson, I am the face of the Republican Party in my precinct, and I take that responsibility seriously.  The only thing I have to sell is my credibility, and I refuse to squander that lightly.  When the topic comes up around the clubhouse, I tell people that it is our job to put forth a slate of candidates of good character who articulate a clear and compelling vision for how our government ought to be run.  And I will be the first to admit that at times, we have failed miserably.  I tell them straight up that, when we fail in that charge, you shouldn’t vote for our candidates.

      As a Republican, I am not loyal to a man or even a Party but rather, to a set of ideals.  Ronald Reagan spoke eloquently of fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, peace through strength, and an unswerving commitment to individual liberty.  Teddy Roosevelt spoke of environmental stewardship long before it was in vogue.  This coherent and internally consistent view of man and his responsibility to his brethren has been at the core of what it has always meant to be a Republican and with Lincoln, I reserve the right to part with our leaders when they go wrong. 

      This commitment to principle has compelled me to withdraw support for our candidates from time to time.  For instance, I refused to support Mark Paschall, on the grounds that I did not find him a man of good character; my fears were finally realized in the last month.  I opposed George Bush on similar grounds and again, my fears were vindicated.  Honest Abe earned the nickname “Spotty Lincoln” for his tireless questioning of James Polk over the bona fides of the provocation justifying entrance into the Mexican-American War; we can only imagine how brutally he would have grilled Colin Powell. And we shouldn’t need to ask what President Reagan would have said about how Bush #43 so shamelessly maxed out this country’s American Express card. 

      Maybe I’m just one of those cats who needs herding or maybe, the leadership of our Party has strayed so far from what it has always meant to be a Republican that they no longer deserve our support.  Frankly, it appears to me that our leaders are acting with total disregard for the people they are supposed to be serving, and that is a certain prescription for disaster.

      As an illustration, when I queried Bob Beauprez about my signature issue — judicial accountability or more precisely, the lack thereof — Bob actually said that that was why people were going after Tom DeLay. The DeLay scandal is especially troubling, insofar as it raises legitimate doubts regarding Bob’s personal character.  Back here in the hinterlands, we call DeLay’s golf junket to Scotland# a bribe; if you honestly don’t understand at the core of your being that what DeLay did was wrong, you probably have Captain Jack Sparrow’s moral compass.  When it was revealed by the Post that Beauprez took a $21,000 bribe from a reputed Russian mobster in the form of a junket to Israel, the `character’ issue was settled.  Bob Beauprez was unfit to be our Governor.

      In a nutshell, that one incident explained why we were thrashed so soundly in November.  Our leaders became infected with a strain of unbridled arrogance so virulent, your average American could no longer stand their presence. Coupled with the scandals involving Bill Frist,# Randy `Duke’ Cunningham,# Ted Stevens and his $315 million `Bridge to Nowhere,”# the bankruptcy bill (brought to you by MBNA),# and quite frankly, too many examples of influence-peddling to mention, it appears that Congress has become little more than a bazaar, and the only way you can get any action out of your Congressman is to pay a Jack Abramoff to tender the requisite bribe.  For average citizens on the outside looking in, who couldn’t get much-needed help because the Republican Congress was so flagrantly on the take, the notion that they have been representing “us” is risible.

      While it took a Mark “Gay Old Pedophile” Foley to bring matters to a head, the Republican Bribe Machine has been hitting us where we live. Easily the most egregious example of corporate corruption overwhelming common sense in the Beauprez Congress is the Medicare prescription drug program — which specifically prohibited the federal government from negotiating price discounts with the drug companies,# which Bob voted for.#  Worse yet, Bob even voted to prevent financially strapped seniors from reimporting prescription drugs from Canada.# According to a study by the Boston University School of Public Health, Bob Beauprez’ vision of Medicare reform would have resulted in $139 billion (a 38% increase) in windfall profits for Big Pharma — stolen right from the pockets of our struggling seniors!# 

      On his website, Bob blustered that he “understood the value of a dollar.”  Given that we have more Medicare participants than Canada has Canadians,# you’d think we’d be able to negotiate prices for common drugs like Plavix (anti-stroke), Lipitor (cholesterol), and Fosamax (osteoporosis) comparable to those paid in Canada.  But under his plan, our seniors must pay $268 for a monthly supply of those three drugs, while their neighbors to the north only pay $175# — it adds up to over a thousand dollars a year, stolen from seniors to pay for corporate jets, bribes for members of Congress, and stock options for top executives.  If it makes sense for Wal-Mart to use its clout to negotiate better prices, why wouldn’t it make sense for our government?  Fact is, Big Pharma was feeding the Republican Bribe Machine, and leaders like Bob invariably put their own provincial interests over that of the people they serve.

    [the original letter was footnoted]

    1. Rio, your post holds a promise of reconcilitation and progress. Are these your words? Who is Renee Nelson? (Pardon my ignorance)
      Quoting A. Lincoln always warms my cuckolds:-)

      IMHO it appears that there remain in the Republican Party, humble that person may be, a glimmer of integrity and hope that perhaps our two party system may still work. I commend you. I am one of those who, because of the “unbridled arrogance so virulent” I couldn’t stand their presence. Very well said!

      You’re spot on. If you’re the face of future Republicanism, I can’t wait to engage you in a conversation for the future of this great country. You make so much more sense than the cheerleading, shallow face of Republicanism we see on Pols too much. (LB not included, but DDHGLQ…..well)

      Thank you for one of the best posts of the year!

      It’s been hijacked.

      2. Renee Nelson is chair of the Jeffco Republican Party.  Back in February, a motion was offered at our Central Committee meeting to expel all Party officials who did not support our candidates.  And yes, that includes me, as I have publicly voiced my disapproval regarding Beauprez and Suthers, both of whom I find to be unethical toads.  The letter continues:

        What Does It Mean To Be a Committeeperson?
          As I have said before, I am `the face of the Republican Party’ in my precinct.  My constituents voice concerns about runaway deficits. About an ill-advised elective war. About the SuperTower.  About illegal immigration.  But our Republican public officials at the highest levels only seem to listen to those who bribe them.  Local pols like Rob Witwer, Dave Auburn, and Jim Congrove [I’m not sanguine about what I’m hearing with respect to Jim, but even I miss a few] try to do the right thing, but Beauprez, Allard, and even Tom Tancredo# seem to be more concerned with what lobbyists want than hoi polloi.  As my wife and I were both state assembly delegates, we tried to voice our concerns both directly and through channels, to no avail; Beauprez would not listen … unless, of course, you could bribe Tom DeLay.

          I’m not sure what the Party wants from me, and I am even less certain that I can give it at this point.  I categorically refuse to fall on my sword for people who don’t give a rat’s ass about me or more importantly, my constituents.  Our leaders seem to have forgotten that loyalty works both ways, or that among truly great men, service to others is invariably a habit.  If our Party continues to produce immoral and/or incompetent candidates like Bob Beauprez, then it cannot expect the support of the electorate … or for that matter, unqualified support from me. 

          If our Party demands unswerving and unquestioning loyalty from every footsoldier and under every circumstance, it should change its name to the Communist Party and be done with it.  For me, I will be forced to make the choice counseled by Lincoln, leaving with my honor and integrity intact.  But I also trust that you have the good sense and appreciation for what made us great as a Party to never ask me to make that terrible choice.  I want my candidate endorsements to mean something.

          Some years ago, the Democratic Party lost a great man because, in his words, “they left him.”  That man, of course, was Ronald Reagan.  Let us not, in a frenzy of pique and anger, commit the same mistake.  Let us resolve to win our dissenters back the old-fashioned way: by earning their support.

          Thank you for your attention to this matter.
        =========================================================
          I will also note for the record that I have never heard back from Ms. Nelson.  In short, I have no idea whether I will be a casualty of their pogrom, or whether there is a future for the Party.  Still, I am not the kind of guy who simply gives up.

    2. Well put.  I greave for the Party I joined in 1980 and lost in 199?.  We may be in the wilderness for a while but I refuse to give up.  Posts like yours encourage me by knowing that I’m not alone.  Thank you.

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

66 readers online now

Newsletter

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