October 29, 2008 07:59 PM UTC

McInnis (Not Really) Backpedals

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: former Senate president John Andrews, a close ally of both Bob Schaffer and Tom Tancredo, vents his rage at McInnis on Politics West:

Poor timing, poor judgment, or something more Machiavellian, would be the only labels a team-playing Republican could put on former congressman Scott McInnis’s self-glorifying remarks in both Denver dailies this morning, to the effect he would have done better against Mark Udall for US Senate than Bob Schaffer is doing.

The Denver Post, a Democrat-leaning paper, was delighted to put the story on page one.  “McInnis’ admission comes a week before state voters go to the polls and with Schaffer trailing by double digits in several surveys,” Michael Riley wrote with smirking understatement.  “Republicans say it may mark the beginning of a ferocious debate about the direction of the party if next week’s election goes badly.”

To say “may mark” and “if… goes badly” is to slide past the glaring fact that the ex-congressman’s trumpet blast, coming right now, does open the debate and will in some degree make things go worse for the GOP next Tuesday.

The weak and oblique protestations by McInnis in the Post story that this wasn’t meant as a shot at Schaffer are more explicit in the Rocky story.  “McInnis said Tuesday he was simply responding to a question from an online news site about whether he could have beaten Udall if he had stayed in the race…. ‘This wasn’t a “Hey, could you have done a better job than Schaffer?”… Not at all. It was how does this party rebuild after the election and where is it going to go.'”

Sorry, not very convincing.  A seasoned pro like him doesn’t “simply respond” to any media question big or small. Scott McInnis — a friend of mine and usually an ally — is a very smart guy who always engages brain before mouth moves.

Either he wants Schaffer and the ticket to win and just got way off message, or he expects them to go down, maybe even figures it will serve his goals if they do…the goal of a far more centrist Colorado Republican Party after 2008, a party that looks less like Allard, Schaffer, Tancredo, and Owens, and more like…Scott McInnis.

Remember that Andrews, Schaffer, and Tancredo all tie back ideologically to the same Independence Institute hard-right faction of the Colorado GOP. Andrews’ bitter counterattack on McInnis is the clearest indicator yet that a major fight between the conservative and moderate wings of the Colorado Republican Party, with McInnis in a starring role, is inevitable. Original post follows.

—

Former Senate candidate Scott McInnis pulled no punches in his criticism of the Colorado GOP in general, and the backers of imperiled Senate candidate Bob Schaffer in particular, in interviews published by the Colorado Independent and the Denver Post yesterday.

“I would have beat Udall, that wasn’t the issue,” McInnis said. “Frankly I have more difficulties with the right wing of my party then I do with taking on a Democrat. Udall was not the biggest threat I faced in the election. My biggest threat was getting through the primary. Both parties have a pretty radical element to them.”

McInnis, now a lawyer and a lobbyist with the Denver firm Hogan & Hartson, would not get more specific about his rift with the Colorado Republican Party and its chairman and Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams, except to reiterate that the extreme elements of the party are calling the shots…

Not ambiguous. He would have beat Udall, he said, and he said it a week before Schaffer almost certainly loses to Udall by a distressing margin. He explained exactly why he pulled out of the race–kingpins had already rallied around Schaffer. And the bigger problem is GOP runs candidates who (like Schaffer) can’t win over moderate voters. There is absolutely no way to ‘misconstrue’ what he said.

But you can just imagine the nasty, threatening cell phone calls his comments provoked, and sure enough the Grand Junction Sentinel reports today that Scott didn’t, you know, mean any of that stuff:

Former Western Slope Congressman Scott McInnis said an online report wrongly insinuates that he thinks Republican Bob Schaffer is not a good candidate to replace outgoing U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.

McInnis said he did tell The Colorado Independent he could have defeated Democrat Mark Udall if the two were running against each other, but he did not say anything ill of Schaffer or Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams.

“I was not critical of Schaffer. Schaffer, I think, has run a great race. … That (answer) was not a contrast with Bob Schaffer,” McInnis said…

Except it was precisely that contrast he was making, complete with detailed explanations of Schaffer’s ties to the head of the NRSC and stories of meetings in Washington where he was told straight-up “we want Bob as the candidate.” Schaffer hasn’t lost yet but by all analysis he is going to lose next week, the strategy for the state legislature is in neglected disarray because of Dick Wadhams’ single-minded focus on his friend Schaffer’s Senate campaign, and McInnis is in a better position than anyone to tell people how it all fell apart yet again.

Don’t forget that McInnis is not the only person jockeying for position in the post-‘bloodbath’ Colorado GOP. Outgoing Rep. Tom Tancredo is working on an operation both inside the Party and with independent groups for 2010–either for his possible gubernatorial run (Dems salivate), or simply to build an infrastructure to compete with the Dems’ feared “Colorado Model.” The idea of hard-right Tancredo in charge is nothing short of horrifying to moderate Republicans. McInnis needed to do what he did, when he did, in order to secure his future influence over the rebuilding of the Republican Party.

Bottom line: Scott McInnis knew exactly what he was doing, and the timing of his comments signal unmistakably the intra-GOP turmoil coming after the election. Any temporary backpedaling on what he said between now and Election Day is meaningless the day after. McInnis knows who will have targets on their backs a week from today, and it surer than hell won’t be him for pointing out the obvious.