(STILL BREAKING): How Does Cory Gardner for Senate Make Any Sense At All?

They too would like to be your Senator.

And the Republican clown car rolls on…

Okay, so let's get this straight…The Republican Party is going to defeat Sen. Mark Udall with Rep. Cory Gardner? The GOP thinks their best chance in 2014 is running an anti-incumbent message through an incumbent member of Congress — which is now the most disliked group of individuals in the history of public polling?


The current crop of Republican candidates for Senate is, in a word, terrible. All of the candidates have massive flaws, from publicly backing Personhood to supporting the government shutdown. All of the candidates are unappealing to women and Hispanic voters. All of the candidates are from outside the Denver Metro Area — which is where the most voters are concentrated…


Consider this list and where Gardner ends up: You can put a checkmark next to his name and every one of these problematic issues for Republicans in 2014:

X    Personhood supporter
X    Backed government shutdown
X    Opposes immigration reform efforts
X    Opposes in-state tuition for immigrants
X    Has favored "redefining" definition of rape
X    Wants to shut down Departments of Energy and Transportation
X    Has low statewide name ID
X    Is weak with women and Hispanic voters
 X  Opposes civil unions
 X  Talked favorably about Eastern Colorado Secession

The point here isn't to just list the problems with a Cory Gardner campaign for U.S. Senate. The point is to show that there is no major issue where Cory Gardner is any different or better for Republicans in 2014 than any of the existing GOP Senate candidates. Different body, same head (or is it the other way around?)

In fact, you could make an argument that Gardner is potentially worse than the current crop of candidates because: a) his candidacy was born in a smoke-filled backroom in Washington D.C., which nobody ever likes, b) he makes it harder to run an anti-incumbent message against Udall, and c) he's been in the news recently for high-profile Congressional junkets.

We understand that Gardner will probably be a much better fundraiser than any of the current candidates (though it would be hard to do worse when 2014 Republicans have been HISTORICALLY bad), but how is he anything more than a younger version of Ken Buck? (and we mean the 2014 version of Buck, not even the 2010 model).


34 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavidThi808 says:

    Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement. Cory Gardner is a much better candidate than the alternatives. He is very good at selling himself to both the base and those in the middle.

  2. Andrew Carnegie says:

    I think this is the best shot the Republicans have and I would not take him lightly.

    He is in a solid position to go after the middle and that is where this race will be won or lost.

  3. nancycronk says:

    Shhh…. don't talk them out of it. 

  4. DawnPatrol says:

    Whatever his alleged gladhanding skills, Gardner is at core a rotten candidate becuase he is an extremist right-winger and a documented liar, backslider and obfuscator, very likely to be crushed on the Front Range. I welcome his entry. En garde, teabagger!

  5. nancycronk says:

    This is so good I can't stand it. I was hoping Limbaugh would do something stupid so I could plan another War On Women parade, but now this. There is a G-d, and she's brilliant.

  6. Just my 2 cents? 

    Wow, has this race has become so much easier for me – Ken Buck and Mark Udall are two good friends of mine. I got to know Ken Buck well when I ran for State Treasurer – yes, he has some difficult views on politics, but amongst the people I met in the GOP, he had integrity and true loyalty – traits that are VERY difficult to find in the Colorado GOP. Ken Buck's wife, Perry, actively endorsed and told delegates to vote for me at the 2010 State Convention. I didn't make the ballot, but Ken's friendship was one of those things that made the race worth it. I called him "Uncle Buck" throughout much of the campaign. 

    Mark Udall is a candidate I got to know during my runs in 2008 and 2010. I got to know Ken Buck better, but no US Senator has impressed me more than Mark Udall. No Democrat has shown support for gays and immigrants, at more critical times, than Udall has. He has also spoken consistenly with conviction and intelligence, appealing less to emotion (as many of us Democrats often do) and appealling more to Constitutional philosophy. 

    When this race started, it was a tough choice. I love both men and I know they're both good men. It was heartbreaking, for me, to have to see them go up against each other. (It was also heartbreaking, because Owen Hill also supported me in 2010 for State Treasurer, and he's another man who I know will be doing great things for Colorado for a long time).  But now? Wow, has my choice become easier! 

    In running twice, I got know Cory Gardner very well too. Let's not take Gardner lightly – he is well spoken and well researched. He is a LAWYER and trained well in that field, so it's not likely that he's going to say something stupid. Every word he says is carefully measured. Think of the typical politican who is groomed by consultants and you got Gardner. He will NOT deviate from the message and is disciplined. I do think he's the best that the GOP has to offer at this time. However…. Gardner will do the LEAST amount of work possible in order to win – this is his achilles heal. He runs in races that are easy (remember, his first seat was 'appointed'), he hates risks, and he doesn't have a lot of energy. This is first race that Gardner has ever taken on that is of any kind of risk, within his political career. The tough part for Senator Udall is that Gardner will hang ACA around him like a noose and give him pressure on it. Senator Udall MUST have a competent answer for ACA, whether it's a firm defense for why he voted for it, or an explanation on how he will pursue amending it. 

    For our side, we need to take Colorado issues that Gardner is on the wrong side on, and hammer him on it. We should hammer his stance on gays, immigrants, abortion, and marijuana (of which, a majority of Colorado supported the legalization). Gardner is a good candidate, but remember… he has NEVER ran in a race that had a good opponent. Granted, the CD4 primary had good folks (Tom Lucero, Diggs Brown) but that was a primary that catered to Gardner's conservative views…. now he truly has to defend those views statewide and he won't be able to if the right pressure is applied. Again, remember, candidates who are 'groomed' by consultants, and can't think for themselves, will be overwhelmed when they're hammered with issues they don't have an answer for – that's when the platitudes and cliches come out, and that's how you lose races. 

    Lastly, this is really Colorado Old vs Colorado New. Gardner will play up his eastern county roots, talk about growing up on a farm, and do the 'aw-shucks' thing. Mark Udall, on the other hand, is Colorado 2.0 – a man who has scaled every Fourteener and represents the State's newest identity, which is based on recreation and environmentalism. If anything, Mark's environmental record could become the deciding factor for independent voters, and issues like fracking, could be the deciders. Mark's persona of recreation and environmentalism is the NEW Colorado image and it will be victorious.

    After getting to know both men very well, there is no doubt in my mind, from the perspective of integrity and loyalty, that Mark Udall needs to continue on as a Senator in Wash DC.  



    • BlueCat says:

      Honestly Ali, you need to get better at separating the personal stuff from your political decisions. Buck is absolutely terrible on all the issues unless you want a continuation of the disaster that is a today's GOTP policy.

      I love my rightie uncle to pieces but I'd never dream of helping him get elected to anything. And he knows it and is fine with it. He wouldn't vote for me for anything either. It doesn't interfere with our being there for each other on the personal stuff like comforting each other over loss of loved ones. 

      Just say no to voting for any Republican. Period. Politics is a team thing, not a series of individual events. Any contribution to the possibility of a Republican majority in any body at any level is a contribution to more horrible, profoundly damaging policy. I don't care how nice one was to you. Not relevant. You shouldn't be torn. 

    • yameniye says:

      The biggest difference is Gardner has to campaign statewide.  Boulder, Arapahoe, Denver, and Jefferson counties do not have much to do with Cory.  Cory will probably take a few eastern (we gonna be our own contry) counties and a few western counties, but statewide he is going to miss talking the talk of the cities.

  7. Gray in Mountains says:

    Udall willl win though he will have a tougher scrap. And, a good D in CD-4 has a better shot this time. Bowman?

  8. Ralphie says:

    Selcome back Ali.  You're still wrong on everything, but glad to see you back.

  9. yameniye says:

    I cannot wait to see Mark and Cory standing next to each other at a debate!  Maybe Cory will bring his own booster stand.  Although physical characteristics are one of the "please, do not mention" areas of politics, in this case it will make a difference.  There is also research showing tall men (i do not know about women) are elected over short men.

  10. Doriann says:
    lubię pity 2014 i inne programy :D
  11. dwyer says:

    Buck is dealing with lymphoma, a blood disease.  I think his health was a factor in the "switch."  

    I think the republicans have made inroads in areas that the dems carried in 2012……specifically Jefferson county and its school board race and Pueblo with the Giron recall. 

    There are two factors that I think will have the most influence on the Senate race and they are beyond the control of either party, at this point.

    The first factor is the Supreme Court decision on the contraceptive mandate that will be announced in June.  I don't know what SCOTUS will decide nor can I really speculate which decision would help which party the most….I just think it will be very important.

    The second factor is how ACA is impacting each voter.  Both sides can spin the stories and deconstruct the examples being given.  However, ACA is effecting practically everyone.  You can't "spin" a story when someone is paying more for insurance they don't want or need.  I have two friends, life long democrats, who were passionate about Obama, who are now "pissed off." Both had policies canceled; both were told that it was because the polices were not compatible with ACA standards, although what those discrepancies were, was not specified.  The polices available were more expensive and had coverage they did not want or need.  I don't know how common this is.  But the experience of the individual voters will be decisive. 



  12. dwyer says:


    You are right, but if the insurers claim that the policy is not compatible with ACA, the people get pissed at ACA.  I think that insurers should have to spell out what the compabibity problem is.  But, there is evidently no law or regulation requiring that.  Plus, the less impacted demographic is the democratic base – government employees and unions……so democrats are not necessarily hearing from people who are having problems…

  13. SkyLarkVA says:

    What is Mark Udall hiding and why?  His numbers just don't add up.

    Udall has been busy deleting and banning constituents from posting to both his Senate and Re-election campaign Facebook pages.  The numbers of comments that are supposed to be there are significantly less than what is actually there.  Cached versions also tell the tale of deception.

    Even with all the deletions, it's impossible for Udall to eradicate all the negative comments because they just keep coming from more and more disgruntled Coloradans.

    It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when a Senator takes to silencing the concerns of his constituents just to try and get re-elected but Coloradans are starting to catch on to his sneaky subversive tactics.

  14. MichaelBowman says:

    By concered Coloradans do you mean psychopaths?

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.