U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
November 07, 2008 07:59 PM UTC

Proppin' Up Penry

  • 49 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

It’s a consensus view that state Sen. Josh Penry hurt himself politically as a primary backer of Amendment 52, which failed Tuesday by a resounding margin. An initiative that would have stripped money from water projects to fund highway projects, Amendment 52 will likely stigmatize its backers in much the same way the toxic Referendum A did to Bob Beauprez and Bob Schaffer.

But Colorado Republicans find themselves with a starkly thin bench for potential statewide candidates looking ahead to 2010. Old hands Scott McInnis, Tom Tancredo and Bob Beauprez are all considering statewide runs–and the Democrats are at this point more or less cheering them on. McInnis represents the only moderate, reasonable sell to swing voters, but his long history with the old-school GOP (and the $40,000 to his wife thing) leaves him personally tainted. All three of these “frontrunners” are easy marks for the ruthless “Colorado Model.”

So despite his problems with Amendment 52, McInnis acolyte Josh Penry is quickly emerging as the new face of the Republican Party–and a likely statewide candidate in ’10. Slightly more moderate (meaning a little more reserved than the average frothing “House Crazy”) and unencumbered by a long paper trail of Democrat opposition research, he could present a more formidable challenge in the near term. His elevation to Senate Minority Leader yesterday is just the beginning of his increased visibility, as the Grand Junction Sentinel hints:

Senate Republicans will put an end to the “endless campaign” and work with Democrats, when necessary, to move Colorado forward, newly christened Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, pledged Thursday.

Penry, whose colleagues elevated him to leadership by acclamation, said his caucus will continue to offer solutions to the state problems and build on the accomplishments of outgoing Senate Minority Leader Andrew McElhany, R-Colorado Springs.

“Republicans have succeeded in shaping a number of the big policies, because we’ve been an idea machine,” Penry said. “We’re going to continue to stay on the offensive with ideas.”

Hopefully for Penry’s sake, less ‘offensive’ ideas than Amendment 52.

Tweet
Share

Comments

49 thoughts on “Proppin’ Up Penry”

  2. Northern Marianas Islands sweatshops; taking away a woman’s right to choose; barring a gay couple’s freedom to marry who they choose; smearing opponents with lies and distortions rather than campaigning on real ideas.

    Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Idea Machine!!!

  3. Maybe 2 percent of Colorado will associate 52 with Penry… Maybe. The left will get a couple of attack ads out of it, but that’s about it. Am. 52 will be a forgotten part of this monster ballot within weeks, if it’s not already. Individuals on this site greatly exaggerate the damage 52 has done to Penry’s political capital, and it’s a case of wishful thinking, in my opinion.

    He’s going to be a formidable opponent, whether in two years or six. And if Ritter doesn’t get his act together in the next six months, Josh Penry very well could be your next governor.

    1. That Penry, with his minimal name recognition, will be able to get more votes in a primary than former big wigs like Tancredo and Beauprez?

      I’m not saying he’s not a smart pol, I’m just syaing that a long, bitter Republican Gubernatorial primary could very well leave Sen. Penry in 3rd place or lower. Especially with the financial backing that the aforementioned candidates could receive.

    2. on your part. Amendment 52 was as bad, if not worse, than Ref A. Penry not only sold out the West Slope but all of Colorado to Big Oil who pumped millions into his pet project for his own personal political gain, at the expense of OUR WATER!

      This will not end well for Penry.  

    3. The Democratic party, led by then AG Salazar, worked overtime to demonize Ref A because it saw a chance to embarass Owens by splitting the Western Slope away from his base. They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. 52 was largely lost in the clutter and died primarily because the oil and gas folks spent $11 million plus arguing that severance tax changes are evil. The flack against 58 also killed 52, which is delicious irony since 52 was financed by the energy industry to muddy the water around 58.

      As to ritter, don’t count him out. Dick Lamm lost a severance tax initiative in 76, re-elected easily in 78.  Way too early to handicap 2010.

      1. I remember in early 1978, we Republicans thought we had Gov. Lamm on the ropes but in the end he won with almost 60% of the vote because we didn’t realize one thing:  The voters trusted him.  I believe the voters trust Gov. Ritter too.

        1. That’s the flaw of mid-term assessments of Govs.  They are a known quantity, their potential opponent is yet unknown. If the 2010 GOP nominee is the survivor of a Beauprez=Holtzman style cat fight, Ritter will have excellent prospects.

                1. by telling the tale about a guy who lost $1,000 and on the Super Bowl, then bet double or nothing on the instant replay.

                  rare indeed is the rematch that changes the original outcome and I’ve seen many.

                  (one exception, McCluskey beat Kefalas in 2004, Kefalas won the 06 rematch.  Kefalas just won the rubbber match this time.)  But rare indeed is the rematch that works out differently since people have already made that decision.

                  1. ran against the same incumbent Democrat three times for the U.S. House of Representatives. He lost the first two but won the third race. Very unusual.

        2. I believe the voters trust Gov. Ritter too.

          Ritter may not be the most politically skilled or sophisticated leader but I’ve seen him speak a couple of times lately and the thing he has going for him is the ability to stand up in front of his fellow citizens and convey convincingly that he is one of us, and that he genuinely believes that his ideas are good for the people of the state, with no bs or pretense.  That ability is not to be underestimated.    

  4. Coloradans deserve reasonable solutions to our state’s transportation problems.

    Instead, we’re left with either nothing, which has been the governor’s plan the past two years, or schemes, including this latest Republican plan that actually drains funds from Colorado water projects into a single pork-barrel project on Interstate 70.

    Yes, politicians who long promoted urban sprawl with the slogan “Drive until you qualify” (for a home loan) are now telling our embattled motorists to “Drive until you die of thirst.”

    Unfortunately, the initiative’s sponsors, Republican state Reps. Cory Gardner of Yuma and Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch, as well as the usually sensible Sen. Josh Penry of Grand Junction, already have turned in their petitions to the Colorado secretary of state. That office has not yet certified whether they met the necessary legal requirements.

    We hope they fall short. But if Initiative 120 does make the ballot, we urge Coloradans to crush this return to the 19th century pork-barrel politics that once disgraced the Colorado legislature’s handling of state highway funds.

          1. In Colorado, the revenue is split evenly between local governments and state programs that include water projects, wildlife conservation and low-income energy assistance.

            Amendment 52 would maintain the current severance tax rate but, even if revenues increase, cap the money going to those state programs at the previous year’s amount, plus inflation.

            The rest of the state’s share would go to highways-especially to relieve congestion on Interstate 70, Colorado’s main east-west artery and the gateway to most of its ski areas.

            Language from the ballot measure:

            giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor.

            That’s it.  Huge new revenue with a cap on what can be given to existing programs, i.e. water projects.

            http://www.denverpost.com/sear…

  5. Now granted, Ritter or Salazar could lose – but that is the question, do either of them blow it enough that they lose what should be an easy win.

    I think Salazar is pretty safe – he’s a junior Senator and therefore is not required to address things on his own.

    Ritter does need to step up and start fixing the major problems we face. If he does, then I think he coasts to a win. If he doesn’t, or comes up with ideas that won’t fly – then he’s in trouble.

    1. issues, like transportation infrastructure, but that may not be possible with the present economic situation, especially if it becomes worse.  In order to address issues like transportation, the voters will have to approve a ballot measure that allows the state to collect additional tax revenues. Politically, that may not be possible if we enter a deep recession.

      1. He needs to make policy decisions that will continue to insulate Colorado from the economic climate outside of the state.

        We’ve been lucky enough to continue growing our economy while the majority of other states have fallen into that deep recession.

        The Governor should be working with the legislature to help people like David, who own businesses in the tech sector. The jobs those companies can create are vital to our state’s economic future.

        They should also work together to try to cut spending where it’s possible. The spending freeze was a good start, but we can’t just freeze everything forever. We should trim the fat where programs aren’t working and make the ones that work do so more efficiently (a little bit out of the President Obama rhetoric handbook, but I think it’s actually possible.)

        The important thing to remember is that it’s not just about politics–it’s about doing what’s right for the state.

        2. For better or worse we’re a global company and we rise and fall with the global economy. So Colorado booming vs in the toilet makes no difference to us.

          But I do think there are things the state can do to help high-tech companies just starting, as they are doing R&D now while the economy sucks, and will start selling as it picks up.

          I also think if we handle energy right, it could be a boon for green energy start-ups in the state.

              1. That was so sensible I had to read it three times to make sure it made sense.

                I think that would be a good start. Maybe Jared Polis could put up some money…

              2. VC funding is a gut call – I don’t think you want a political group doing that. I think they could do more by creating markets:

                1) For green energy, commitments to purchase X amount of Y at price Z from local companies. It can be electricity, bio-fuel, electric cars, etc. But you want to make sure that say 70% of the wages paid to produce it are in Colorado.

                2) Set up more centers like the Boulder Innovation Center. A giant thing start-ups need is good advice. (Crappy advice unfortunately is all too easy to get).

                3) Bring the established companies into the mix. There’s times we could really use advice on something from say the CTO at 3 or 4 of the biggest companies in the state. There are other times it would be a big help to get 15 minutes in front of those same people to show us what we have.

                4) Put on showcases of what Colorado companies have to offer – and make it dirt cheap to participate. If you get enough killer products in there, buyers will show up.

                There’s lots more, and almost all of it is low cost and nice ROI.

              3. Adding 900 policy dickheads and administrative overstaffings will not help; the state would be better off hiring 3000 temporary folks at minimum wage to clean off the highways and nature trails. Once they get tired of working their butts off they’d find real jobs. Of course, you’d have to make them temporary high turnover jobs so Mitch Akerman and those other Union Bosses don’t ColoradoWin’z them.

                On Transportation. Ritter’s budget tries to set up a need for tax increases for transportation, what it really does is piss off people by showing he is not at all committed to transportation.

                p.s Ewegen. Skilled labor (not Union Bosses) will probably benefit more from capital construction (HigherEd and Hiways). Also, if you got your Union loving democrat buddies in the Leg. to reduce the K-12 (administrative and structural) regulations it might lower the cost of administration and put more $s in the classroom. Also, up the rerquirements on Science and Math (ala Penry).

                I know … not on your radar. Your union boss program is to whip out the ratified contract and find reasons to not only block reform, but expand regulations. Maybe you and Merrifield can regulate Charters out of business?

                1. the 900 fte in the new budget are mostly to staff two new prisons and (about 114 fte) courts.  What, you’d live the prisons unguarded because the corrections officers might join a union.   Do you takje stupid lessons or does it just come to you naturally?    

  6. I say bring it on! If Penry is the best Repubs have at this point then Ritter has nothing to worry about.  Penry’s name ID on the Front Range sucks.  He’s living a political pipe dream if he thinks he can garner enough votes along the I-25 corridor from Fort Collins to Pueblo to win a statewide election.  Democratic leadership in the CO State Senate will put Penry in a legislative box this session and he will be lucky to see the light of day, let alone pass any meaningful bills that will help his pitiful statewide name ID efforts.

  7. against a popular moderate incumbent no less, but he is a local GOP standard bearer in a lower profile statewide race like Treasurer, Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor, or an at large seat on an educational board.

    He is also surely looking at CO-3 should the seat be vacated by John Salazar due to an appointment in the Obama administration.

    House minority leader certainly sounds to me like a win for Penry this election cycle.  Defeat on Amendment 52 can be attributed to an unforesseably bad economy, while his concern for transportation spending will look golden in ’09 when the budget calls for a 33% cut in transportation funding.

    Penry’s focus on economic issues (and everyone knows that the biggest part of 52 was to short circuit 58 if it passed), will earn him support from the old guard economic interests that fund the GOP, and will allow him to take a low profile on the social issues that could tarnish him with moderate voters in a statewide run.

    Now that he is minority leaders, he has an opportunity to come up with ideas that will make his party look good.  This is a tall assignment, but if he can pull it off, he may very well be headed to bigger things in the GOP.

  9. Is the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel–the loudest opponent of the original Ref A–complicit in your cockamamie new “Ref A,” too?

    Daily Sentinel endorsement:

    ‘Yes’ on Amendment 52

    State Sen. Josh Penry is upfront about the effect of Amendment 52 on Colorado’s highway needs. “This won’t solve everything,” he told The Daily Sentinel last week. But the measure will provide an estimated $90 million for highways next year, and approximately $300 million over the next five years.

    And it does so without raising taxes.

    That’s something all Coloradans should appreciate at a time when the economy is sluggish and the only booming industry in the state – natural gas development – faces uncertainty from new state regulations.

    Penry and other Republicans who drafted this measure made a point of not increasing the tax burden on the gas industry through Amendment 52. Instead, the amendment depends entirely on anticipated increases in severance tax revenue from growth in gas drilling over the coming decades.

    The measure maintains the basic formula used now to distribute severance tax money. The proportion going to energy-impacted communities will remain the same as it currently is.

    Money now going to the Department of Natural Resources would be capped at its current level, plus a yearly increase for inflation. All severance tax revenue above those caps will spill over to the Department of Transportation under Amendment 52.

    Amendment 52 is a sensible plan to provide additional money to a critical state need – highways – without raising taxes. It deserves a “Yes” vote.

    1. on the majority of the ballot issues.  

      Ref. L-  DS:yes  Voters:no

      Ref. O-  DS:yes  Voters:no

      Ad. 46-  DS:yes  Voters:no

      Ad. 49-  DS:yes  Voters:no

      Ad. 52-  DS:yes  Voters:no

      Ad. 54-  DS:no   Voters:yes

      Ad. 59-  DS:yes  Voters:no

      1A: DS:yes  Voters:no

      2A: DS:yes  Voters:no

      3A-B DS:yes Voters:no

      DS: McCain/Palin  Voters: Obama/Biden

      DS: Schaffer  Voters: Udall

      DS: No Cajones  Voters: John Salazar

      You might want to find a better barometer that the Sentinel to make your argument.

  10. This was a pretty good one, but I think it might be reaching a ‘tiny bit.’  Considering the majority of people who post on this website (who are political insiders) won’t remember what Amendment 52 in two weeks, I doubt the average voter will remember beyond tomorrow.

    It is hilarious that all of a sudden Colorado Pols respects voter intelligence, after their own, Jason Bane (who lost by the way), solicited an ad on facebook that said (paraphrased), If you vote for Jason Bane you will be very very very very very very very very happy.  

    Who needs comics when pols drums up the comedy :D.

    1. When are we going to ask the question of: Gov. Ritter’s odds of re-election: considering he’s bankrupted the state (both of his levies failed: 58 & 59)?  

      ps: the deficit is only going to get worse with the slowing economy.

    2. a politician’s policy positions and failed efforts to harm Colorado?  Did you try to convince Ref.A supporters, Beauprez, Schaffer and Walcher of that?  You’re not fooling anyone else.  And it probably matters little to Penry’s out of state puppet masters.  But hey, you can try to convince Penry that his failures will not be remembered too.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

131 readers online now

Newsletter

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