Yesterday, before Mitt Romney landed in Colorado, his campaign announced their state leadership committee. As we mentioned yesterday, the list reads like a who's who of Colorado’s political establishment. From former Governor Bill Owens to former US Senator Hank Brown, Mitt Romney has the state's establishment old guard backing his candidacy. You can find the full list after the jump.
The fact that Romney has the establishment supporting him is no surprise, but we wonder what impact that might have on his chances in Colorado.
Last cycle Scott McInnis and Jane Norton proved how utterly useless establishment endorsements can be in primary campaigns. That's not to say that highly respected former elected officials like Owens or Allard are not important people, or that their backing means nothing, but that in this brave new world of primaries post-Tea Party, establishment endorsements are just not going to cut it anymore.
Endorsements, in general, can still have a big impact, but not when they are stale and predictable. And moreover, many of these “endorsers” are well past their political prime, lacking the base of more, shall we say, modern Colorado GOP politicos.
When Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton, Ryan Frazier, and Ken Buck throw an endorsement, that friends will mean a helluva’ lot more than what Romney commandeered yesterday.
Where the old guard establishment endorsements do matter for Romney is in the fact that they close off opportunities for more mainstream candidates like Tim Pawlenty to become the establishment's anti-Romney candidate. There is always space for an establishment alternative, much like Romney was to McCain in 2008.
The quicker Romney shuts off those avenues of support, the harder it will be for Pawlenty to compete. T-Paw desperately needs a big fundraising haul by the end of June to prove to his critics that big name politicos and donors see a path to victory for him. Romney's announcement of his leadership committee in Colorado just made that much harder for Pawlenty in this state, as the endorsement of folks like Owen and Allard still matter greatly to big donors.
While establishment endorsements matter little nowadays in primaries, they'll matter a bit more in a Presidential year. That is because in Presidential years voters who pay little attention to politics get involved and big, bold names like Bill Owens giving his imprimatur will stick out to those folks. Current elected officials, or recently retired ones, have big volunteer lists to contribute, but on Romney's leadership list we don't see that. Attorney General John Suthers and Treasurer Walker Stapleton are on the list, yes, but we doubt they have any sort of significant grassroots operations to contribute.
At the end of the day, Romney's leadership list has some big names, but we just don't think it makes a whole hell of a lot of difference. This race will be decided by the grassroots, not the establishment. When a conservative darling like Ken Buck or Cory Gardner endorses, that will be news. Until then we remain unimpressed.
MITT ROMNEY ANNOUNCES SUPPORT OF COLORADO LEADERS
June 20, 2011Boston, MA – Mitt Romney today welcomed the support of respected Colorado leaders who will serve on his leadership committee.
“I am proud to earn the support of so many well respected Colorado leaders,” Mitt Romney said. “I look forward to working with them during my campaign to promote job creation, balance our exploding budgets, and reverse President Obama’s failed policies.”
Announcing his support, Sen. Hank Brown said, “Mitt Romney has the proven record to pull our economy out of this downturn. His extraordinary success in both the private and public sectors will help provide the leadership our country needs to restore our economy and the American spirit.”
Members Of Mitt Romney’s Colorado Leadership Committee:
Senator Hank Brown Is A Former U.S. Senator And Past University Of Colorado President. Brown has served Colorado in the State Senate and the U.S. House Of Representatives. Following his retirement from the U.S. Senate, Brown became the President of the University of Northern Colorado and went on to serve as President of the University of Colorado.
Governor Bill Owens Served As Colorado Governor From 1999 To 2007. During his time as Governor, Owens fought for lower taxes and education reform. Owens has served in the Colorado House of Representatives and the Colorado State Senate. In 1994, Owens was elected Colorado Treasurer.
Senator Wayne Allard Is A Former U.S. Senator First Elected To The U.S. Senate In 1996. Allard was reelected in 2002 and retired in 2009. During his Senate career, Allard was a champion for reducing spending and lower taxes. Allard also served in the U.S. House of Representatives and Colorado State Senate. During his time in the Colorado State Senate, Allard continued his practice as a full time veterinarian.
Attorney General John Suthers Was Appointed In January 2005. After two years in office, Suthers won the Attorney General election in 2006 and won reelection in 2010. Suthers was nominated by President Bush in 2001 to become United States Attorney for the District of Colorado and was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He is also the former head of the Colorado Department of Corrections.
CongressmanBob Beauprez Served In The U.S. House Of Representatives From 2003 To 2007. During his time in the U.S. House, Beauprez served on the Small Business Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. Beauprez is the former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. Prior to his chairmanship, Beauprez worked in banking, land development and the dairy industry. Beauprez now operates a buffalo ranch in the Colorado mountains.
Claudia Beauprez Is A Member Of The University of Colorado Hospital Foundation Board Of Directors. Beauprez has worked in banking, real estate, and the dairy industry. Currently, she helps operate a buffalo ranch in the Colorado mountains. She is the wife of former Congressman Bob Beauprez.
Walker Stapleton Was Sworn In As Colorado Treasurer In January 2011. As Treasurer, Stapleton is in charge of investing Colorado’s tax dollars and oversees the unclaimed property division. Stapleton has a background in business where he served as CEO and CFO of several publicly traded companies.
University Of Colorado Regent-At-Large Steve Bosley Has Served On The University Of Colorado Board Of Regents Since 2004. Bosley is a founding member of the Deming Entrepreneurship Advisory Board in the University Of Colorado Leeds School of Business. In addition to his work with the university, Bosley has over thirty years of experience in the banking industry.
###
http://www.csindy.com/colorado…
Folks, you can embrace a bright and successful future for the party, or you can cling to the vestiges of a dying empire and remain irrelevant for the next decade.
but the moment we get principled up and comers who even have a fair amount of experience, the party slams the door in their faces. They only want to use them for votes and volunteers, in order to support the rigged system they have set up. You wonder why youth support Democrats? Because at least they believe in something. If the GOP wants to be successful, it should not only not be trying to shut these youngsters down, it should be embracing, supporting, and actively recruiting them. You’d think that would be basic common sense. But maybe the “respected analysts” tell you differently. Or maybe, they just feel threatened by newcomers.
There are plenty of young people who have been given plenty of great opportunities. There are dozens who work on congressional staffs, as legislative aides, campaign staffers and even for lobbying firms. But are they “establishment” because they work on the “inside”? Do we need to have labels for everyone, or can we just accept that we’re all on the same team?
I can think of a handful of young folks who have brilliant futures in politics ahead of them in Jeffco and Arapahoe counties alone–and am sure El Paso, Denver and Larimar and all over the state it is the same case. Do they not count because the “establishment” or “old boys” have taken them under their wing? What’s your suggestion, send them to Tea Party boot camp so they can really learn their principles and not be corrupted?
There are groups like American Majority that do great trainings. Sure, there are young people that work within the establishment. But I’m talking about getting young people, en mass, to vote for Republicans. Without some changes in the party that’s not going to happen.
Well, I was 8 years old, and yes I was distributing yard signs with my dad. Sarah Anderson was 2. Sorry were weren’t leading the liberty movement then. We probably would have if anybody would have taken us seriously.
A) What we are sick of is the implicit acceptance of the establishment that politics is a game to be played. That no principle shall be left standing in the way of a tactical move to garner power. They are all upset that we aren’t more worried about increasing their majorities in the House, when we could care less about their personal position. What we care about is the prinicples of those we elect.
B) And yes, though we despise them, we do understand the games these people play. We understand in the much larger “game”, you have to have a solid foundation to build anything of lasting impact. Which is why you have to make sure that unprincipled legislators are primaried, so that when the GOP does retake power it actually means something instead of just being another compromise with liberals.
Gotta give you credit when you’re right. Amy Stephens is acting like a moron. She owes people like Sarah Anderson and other opponents of SB200 WAY more respect than she’s showing them. She keeps antagonizing them and is practically begging for a primary now.
Since next year’s primaries will be super low turnout, as we have no major races with expected primaries outside of state House/Senate races it will be a super low turnout. Not the kind of race you want a group of focused citizens committed to your defeat.
SB200 isn’t necessarily anti-conservative like Obamacare. It’s been proposed and passed by solidly conservative legislatures. Stephens should have told opponents she respectfully disagreed and tried to engage them on the merits of their complaints. Instead, she personally insults them and looks like a fool. Good going, Amy.
Couple questions. Why are Republicans spilling their internecine warfare to a liberal rag? The story being published in the CS “Indy” takes a way quite a bit from the impact. That paper is dying for Republican infighting stories. Sorry to see conservatives giving them that.
Second, I hope you don’t take Chris Nixon seriously. He’s part of “We Are Change” which is a disgusting and despicable group. They are “truthers.” No one pisses me off more than those disgusting truther trolls. We have no place in the conservative movement for such unbearable douchebags.
Nixon himself is notorious for carrying around a bullhorn and generally making every passerby want to punch him in the face. A bullhorn doesn’t make you more influential. It makes you a bigger asshole, especially when you are just shouting into the wind.
I hope you can make a distinction between Sarah Anderson and Chris Nixon. It’s an important one.
It’s particularly telling that Anderson said she wishes it got more media coverage. The “Indy” laps this shit up, and she’s nothing but a media whore, so it makes sense that she had no qualms about talking with them. The fact that she’s dating Matt Arnold is just too hilarious as well. Agree on Stephens too, WTF was she thinking in engaging idiots like this AND talking to the Indy? B. Gardner is wrong about a primary down there costing resources that could otherwise go elsewhere. The people who would donate or volunteer in a primary on Stephens are unlikely to help with other races, so it’s won’t hurt the GOP other than PR-wise possibly.
Not to belittle them or their crowd, but about 75% of what they do is just antagonize and create problems. This Clear the Bench thing had virtually no effect on the retention election, and the next election for those justices is 10 years away or something like that? Hasn’t stopped him from going around with his hand out.
Also to BJ’s point above–wasn’t Walt Klein also the manager for the Ref C campaign?
The Clear the Bench forced Mary Mullarkey to resign. For that, we all owe Matt Arnold an eternal debt of gratitude. I suppose that crowd does cause quite a bit of “trouble” for the establishment – and if that’s how they view it, they deserve it.
Yes, Walt Klein was the manager for the Ref C campaign. Walt Klein is not Ken Buck. He was hired to put together the nuts and bolts of a campaign, not because of any specific policy view.
she was 66 years old, had MS and her husband was dying and she didn’t want to get retained another 10 years, considering she’d have forced retirement at 75 anyway. Don’t get me wrong, even Ritter’s “wise Latina” appointment is only marginally better than her, but facts are facts.
That’s right Klein isn’t Buck, then again John McCain and Charlie and Judy Black aren’t Jane Norton either.
she didn’t want to face a tough retention election. Had their been no pressure, she probably would have kept her job. Otherwise she would have retired earlier.
LOL Judy is a Norton, so that’s pretty close. Klein isn’t part of Buck’s family. I don’t think the only reason the Black’s supported Norton was because they were hired to work on her campaign, if they were even paid anything.
As far as “spilling internecine warfare”, I think it’s because people feel they have no other way to get their point of view out there. When the establishment does nothing but try to shut them up, what else are they to do? I don’t think they feel any great obligation to those who could care less what they think and seek to stop them at every turn. Plus I think younger people care less about the labels of “Republican” vs. “Democrat”. Once upon a time those words meant something, but not so much these days. The parties change their principles in accordance with what will give them the most power. Younger people who at one time would have simply been considered “Republican” are more concerned with conservative principles than labels.
As far as Nixon, etc., sure there are some crazy people out there. There are people who aren’t crazy but whom we simply disagree with. But you don’t build a big tent capable of winning elections by calling those people douchebags and assholes. Instead you try to work with them on the issues you do agree on.
Who’s got the email list where people still open their emails? Who still has the passionate supporters who will set up and recruit for a phone bank?
Mechanics matter and as great at Hank Brown was, and still is, his operational value in a campaign is still very limited. Conservatives want to know what Gardner and Coffman think far more than they are intrigued by Wayne Allard’s sentiments.
“Who’s got the email list where people still open their emails? Who still has the passionate supporters who will set up and recruit for a phone bank?”
NOT the establishment.
Proving me wrong in calling you “establishment”. I think you’re deliberately being obtuse. 🙂
not so much on Romney right now, but McInnis over Maes? Norton over Buck? We’d have two more statewide offices right now if the Tea Party didn’t reject out of hand anyone who held previous office.
This question goes to any Tea Partiers in Colorado: why was Ken Buck (running for US Senate), the DA of a large county “anti-establishment,” whereas Mark Hurlbert (running for state Senate), the popular DA of a small county was “establishment”? The ingenuity of the Tea Party gave a key State Senate seat and a US Senate seat away. Thanks
Sure, Ken had ties to some in the Colorado establishment. But consider the alternative. Norton had support from the national establishment via the McCain camp, lobbyists in the family, etc. She had to raise a lot of money because the grassroots in Colorado (i.e. average citizens) volunteered for and supported Buck. They did not like it that McCain, not very conservative and himself the very definition of establishment, was trying to wade into Colorado politics. Ken Buck consistently embraced Tea Party values, while Norton did not. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that Ken represented the conservative grassroots while Norton was representative of the RINO establishment. (Some people – probably establishment – consider RINO to be a personal insult. I don’t; I just think it’s descriptive.)
and neither McInnis or Norton would have done much worse. Norton probably would have received a few points less than Buck, and McInnis would have been booted of the ticket altogether by the establishment.
Why? Because these Buck-cult members would’ve voted for Bennet instead? What about the tens of thousands who would have either switched their vote from Bennet to Norton or would’ve actually voted in the race?
McInnis would’ve without question have lost in a general b/c of the forged forgery scandal at the time; however, he would’ve also gotten out of the race if he won the primary unlike Mr. Maes.
Buck-cult members?!? I think someone’s just jealous. It boggles my mind why Republicans insist on running candidates people don’t like. Nobody would have voted for Norton besides a few loyal GOPers holding their nose. Had McInnis gotten out, the establishment would have appointed somebody equally bad and he would have lost.
That my party’s nominee lost the election to perhaps the dumbest fucking senator in the country? This is reason that we’ve lost elections the past few years: “Jane Norton’s not really a conservative, she’s actually a liberal!” WTF? Because her brother-in-law helped get Ronald Reagan elected? Because as a member of the Owens administration she had to support Ref C? I liked Buck, but when certain elements of the Tea Party would rather see a Democrat elected instead of someone who only votes conservative 90% of the time it pisses me off.
I’d submit to you that a lot of these Tea Party candidates are more interested in their own careers and joining the “establishment” than about adhering to principles. Did you happen to catch the hissy fit that Ted Harvey and Matt “DipShit” Arnold threw after they got killed in the state chair race? The best part is that out of the five candidates they were also the only two who would not take a salary cut or volunteer for the slot: http://www.coloradostatesman.c…
Or how about Bob McConnell, who after railing against career politicians decides a few months later to seek Al White’s vacant seat? When he didn’t get it he changed to unaffiliated. Or of course Maes who was unemployed or Tim Leonard (the “Tea party” to Hurlbert’s “establishment”) who said he wasn’t a career politician despite running for office twice before.
Norton’s support was lackluster. As I keep explaining to you, Norton would have fared much worse than Buck. Her brother-in-law may have come to power during the Reagan years, but he was part of the long slide away from conservatism in the intervening years. Yes, she supported higher taxes with Ref C. This is not a big deal to you? You’d rather gloss over her big government tendencies? You’re crazy; there was nobody in the Tea Party rooting for Bennet over Buck.
Anybody who ever runs wants to join the “establishment” in the sense that they want to win an “established” political position. The question is whether they want to change it or not. Tea Party candidates do, for the most part. Sure there are some phonies, but they get discovered pretty quickly and booted out.
As far as the rest of your attacks… well I think what they are is clear enough to everyone just how desperate they are.
I like the TP and have been to several events, I like Buck and donated to his campaign. My issue is that the TP goes after legitimate and conservative candidates because they’ve held office, can raise money, are lawyers, etc etc. I’d much rather have an R voting conservative 90% of the time than a Dem voting conservative 0% of the time. You notice how the Dems have won here? They nominate fairly moderate candidates (or the public thinks, anyway) and then work to keep them in line with their agenda once elected.
How exactly do you propose that Norton should’ve split with Owens? Also, those weren’t attacks, they were simply observations about several prominent “true conservatives” who seemed more interested in their own ambitions and pocketbooks than fighting for conservative principles. I’m guessing you’re not fond of Ryan Call?
He didn’t need as much money because he had honest to God support from human beings. And the Tea Party fully supported them. I’m sure they would have supported a more experienced candidate in the governor’s race had one existed (with conservative values and no scandals).
I’m calling BS on the cooked up arguments for nominating moderates (i.e. people who don’t believe anything). That gives you away right there. You do not want to see a conservative agenda enacted in our country.
Ryan Call is an interesting dilemma. I definitely didn’t like Harvey, and Gholston just didn’t pick up much support. It was between Arnold and Call for me, until right up to the election when Call did some shady stuff. Although he said publicly that grassroots activists were the heart of the party, he definitely closed ranks with the establishment behind the scenes to keep said activists out of party leadership (not just me – there were others). That really pissed me off. That said, I do think he is a good strategist. But he got too clever by half and ended up saying what he needed to get elected and selling people out afterward. Not a good way to start out his tenure as party chair.
If Romney is the nominee, I won’t be estatic, but I will vote for him knowing the alternative is worse. What will you do?
“But what will you do when we squash your candidate?” I have voted for the Republican in every race I have ever voted for, except one. I voted for Tom Tancredo on the ACP ticket last time. So my loyalty is not in question. What you ought to be asking yourself is whether the Tea Party will split from the GOP if the candidate is not sufficiently conservative.
BJ–can you point to any actual polls or respected analysts who would say Norton would have done worse than Buck? You can’t, because it’s only true in your head.
It is pretty widely understood that the opposite was true.
Funny you should mention it, because someone who knows what they’re talking about wrote about it today.
http://www.nationaljournal.com…
I’m pretty sure someone like Reid Wilson at National Journal has forgotten more than you know about politics. Say what you will about what’s the “right” thing to do, but don’t make wildly untrue claims about winning actual races, because it kills your credibility.
Suthers got more votes than anyone in CO history, Stapleton and Gessler won big too. The only thing you need to see is how many folks undervoted, but presumably voted for other R’s. Colorado, despite leaning right, doesn’t go too far to either side, so the more centrist (appearing) candidate usually wins out. What fucks Republicans over is when candidates, activists, staffers, etc start turning on each other instead of focusing on beating back liberals.
Look at Romanoff vs. Bennet, the Dems are still a mess right now and probably will be for at least one cycle–let’s not make the same mistake.
Myself. I don’t put as much stock in “respected analysts” as you do. They can be and frequently are wrong. But the polls were showing Buck doing better than Norton against Bennet at the end of the primary. It is only “widely understood” among the establishment, who seeks a rationale to justify their choices.
“I’m pretty sure someone like Reid Wilson at National Journal has forgotten more than you know about politics.”
This is EXACTLY the elitist establishment attitude that turns people off. In fact, my credibility is rock solid, because we did win the primary race. We picked the winner, you the loser. It’s your credibility you need to examine.
First off, I said nothing about who I supported in the primary, but thanks for making things up. It is apparently a pattern in your posts. I liked Buck, but rewriting history does no good, especially when it’s so far fetched.
Secondly, primaries don’t mean shit when it comings to actually governing the country. General elections matter. What’s your record/credibility in elections that would actually put people in a position? Buck lost and you got destroyed in your race for Larimer GOP Chair. So…not so good.
Buck’s general consultant, Walt Klein, actually has a reputation for winning primaries and losing generals. He’s like the Bob Shrum of Colorado politics. But ask him if Norton would have done better and I bet you he’d say yes if he was being honest.
I swear politics is the only profession where EVERYONE thinks they’re an expert. Just because you comment on blogs and read the news does not make you an expert on how actual elections work. You have every right to state your opinion on what is conservative and what’s not, as it’s subjective, but on things where empirical proof exist to prove or disprove allegations, you need to come with facts.
Here’s a clear and concise reason why you’re wrong on the merits:
What voters did the winning statewide GOP candidates (Suthers, Gessler, Stapleton) win, but Ken Buck lost? Suburban women. Where did Norton whip Buck? Suburban women. Buck lost Arapahoe and JeffCo, but Norton whupped his butt there in the primary.
http://data.denverpost.com/ele…
I’m sick of arguing about that race. So I’ll leave it at that.
First off, I said nothing about being an “expert”, but thanks for making things up. It is obviously a pattern in your posts.
Secondly, primary elections determine the long term direction of the party, and in the long run that is more important. We won the primary. Larimer was a big reason why. So yes, I have a bit of experience now. But the fact of the matter is, anyone could have done what I did. Some people have the mistaken notion that if they have the right friends and call themselves smart that they suddenly become “experts” on elections. More often than not, they are wrong. What counts is the man that actually fights the battle by organizing, making calls, knocking on doors, walking in parades. You know, actually campaigning. Give me a few people like that and I’ll beat all the talking heads in the world.
Sure, Norton could have done better with a small slice of GOP women in Denver. But she would have lost the far larger block of conservatives.
That my party’s nominee lost the election to perhaps the dumbest fucking senator in the country? This is reason that we’ve lost elections the past few years: “Jane Norton’s not really a conservative, she’s actually a liberal!” WTF? Because her brother-in-law helped get Ronald Reagan elected? Because as a member of the Owens administration she had to support Ref C? I liked Buck, but when certain elements of the Tea Party would rather see a Democrat elected instead of someone who only votes conservative 90% of the time it pisses me off.
I’d submit to you that a lot of these Tea Party candidates are more interested in their own careers and joining the “establishment” than about adhering to principles. Did you happen to catch the hissy fit that Ted Harvey and Matt “DipShit” Arnold threw after they got killed in the state chair race? The best part is that out of the five candidates they were also the only two who would not take a salary cut or volunteer for the slot: http://www.coloradostatesman.c…
Or how about Bob McConnell, who after railing against career politicians decides a few months later to seek Al White’s vacant seat? When he didn’t get it he changed to unaffiliated. Or of course Maes who was unemployed or Tim Leonard (the “Tea party” to Hurlbert’s “establishment”) who said he wasn’t a career politician despite running for office twice before.
As someone who considers myself as much a part of the “establishment” here in Colorado as the next guy when it is convenient (been working on campaigns for a very very long time, knows most of the players, and has helped candidates at all levels) BUT IN NO WAY WOULD EVER SUPPORT a person who is a member of a religious cult that has decided to wipe it’s ass with the Holy Bible, I’m interested in hearing what people define as “Establishment”…since THAT is the largest criticism used in Colorado Republican politics for OVER a decade at ALL levels (mostly resulting in misinformed in-fighting that has only led to a Democrat majority). Clarification please. Let’s just set the record straight once and for all.
I too have always been annoyed by use of that word as an epithet. I’ve spent many years volunteering for my local Republican county party, knocking on doors and organizing Lincoln Day dinners. Am I establishment? Would someone who has never spent a minute of their time helping the party be a better candidate than me, more deserving of grassroots support?
I think establishment refers to the existing power structure, and some people think anyone in any power structure is bad. Far from it. People who have been fighting the battles are more deserving of leading the war, rather than armchair quarterbacks who have plenty of criticism to offer, but no help. Unless they want to run that is.
BJ seems to want to attack anyone he can deem establishment, so I’d love to hear from him on this. He was full of attacks this weekend, from insulting Chris Christie to misusing the word “establishmentarian” when seemingly making a complaint about the Peak having nice things to say about Ross Kaminsky.
You can’t just dismiss it by telling people not to use the word. Also, it is not a fixed set of people; it changes with time. It is anyone who has been “established” in politics for a while, holding real political power. It usually includes current and former elected officials, big donors, party-affiliated lawyers, etc. People who’s full time job is in politics, as opposed to “grassroots” activists who do not derive their living from politics and as such are more free to say what they want to say and try to change things for the better. It is not that the “establishment” itself is bad, and as you point out there are people who have been fighting the battles from the inside, although they had been few and far between as of late. It is that the CURRENT establishment got off track from conservative values. The party has been trending in the wrong direction since Reagan, and it is high time to clean out those who have compromised their principles to the point of ineffectivity. We need strong, bold leaders with a conservative vision for our country who cannot be easily dismissed as self-serving hypocrites by the left. People like Romney who flip-flop on the issues in order to pander to different groups instead of laying out a consistent conservative vision for America are the very definition of establishment. These people must win by raising money from big donors in order to attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes with lots of television ads since they have no grassroots activists volunteering to walk precincts and make phone calls for them. Same thing happened with Norton.
Hope this helps.
Sure there are some folks who have been in politics too long and vote the same way as a moderate Dem, but it’s this blanket statement “establishment” shit that has cost us dearly.
Why did anyone support Dan Maes–even before McInnis’s implosion? The guy wasn’t qualified for nearly any job period, much less Gov. Then you get guys like Bob McConnell who put their own political ambitions–under the guise of “anti-establishment”–instead of their own party.
Why did Ken Buck lose? A big part of it was he was going to Tea Party rallies in October, instead of talking to folks who aren’t automatically inclined to vote for him. Another is staking out positions he couldn’t retract from.
So how did your “anti-establishment” “true” conservatives fare last year? Not well. Has it ever dawned on you that the so-called “insiders” and “establishment” hold office for a reason? Maybe it’s because they know how and who to recruit to their staffs, how to run and win campaigns, how to raise money. Perhaps most importantly, they know how and what legislation might actually get passed. This is what’s so frustrating about these “outsiders”…they think they can introduce any bill they want and it becomes law. This is why we have state legislative candidates talking about introducing bills to convert Colorado to the gold-standard.
How about instead of true activists wasting time and resources on candidates who won’t win, we unite behind proven conservative winners?
Exactly my point. You don’t understand how disliked the establishment was. Establishment Republicans are one of the biggest minorities in the country today. Not only did Dems and Independents bail in droves in 2008, but the Tea Party split from them in 2010. And yet they think they should still be in power? When will they ever learn?
Ken Buck did not lose because he was conservative or grassroots, that’s for sure. In fact, that was the source of his campaign’s momentum. An establishment GOPer would have fared far worse.
LOL, my “anti-establishment” conservatives gave the GOP their biggest win in years, and the Tea Party established a huge freshman class in congress of about 50 new congressmen (and women). Without them, the GOP would have died and a third party would have formed. The “insiders” WERE the challengers at one point, but they lost their way and ruined the country. Now they are engaged in a futile effort to hold on to power through the very backroom deal-making that the country hates. They know how to buy their way into office when nobody is looking, but times have changed. Conservatives are paying attention again and they will not stand for the failed policies of the past.
I would actually argue that the “outsiders” have been far more successful of late in running and winning campaigns, and standing up to the left. What good is caving to the left only in the name of “getting a bill passed” to further your career? That does nothing to further the conservative cause. The only “proven conservative winners” that exist were recently elected in 2010. The rest compromised themselves into oblivion.
is a little hard for me to grasp, since NO (litmus test) “pure” or “true” conservative CAN GET ELECTED in this state (at least this last decade, see Schaffer, Beauprez, Coors, Tanc/Maes, Holtzman, Hillman) and that to me seems like the most ineffective outcome FOR US ALL.
Party purity seems to be all the rage, but I joined the Republican party in the 80’s when it was, as Reagan put it, a “Big Tent” full of free thinking ideas and independent market based solutions (ya know, before the “cleansing” and the social cons screwed up the economy because of ineffectively caring more about marriage than the economic burdens being placed on the children of those marriages).
I am much happier to say that I supported the effective elected LEADERSHIP of Republicans like Owens, Allard, Suthers, Coffman, Campbell, and Bush than the former “most pure” list, IF ONLY because of their effectiveness!
would rather just build a strong and “true” and “pure” minority than a coalition and majority. The state party has been mismanaged from the top on down for too long
Sure, I’ll grant you that. Actually Allard and Coffman are great, and Bush started out good before the spending. Suthers I don’t know much about. But the others didn’t do much for conservatives.
http://conservatives4palin.com…
Yeah it’s at C4P but it doesn’t really talk about her very much. It defines the establishment.