Fruita policeman and former Republican Party activist Jared Wright won the GOP nomination for Colorado House District 54, currently held by Rep. Laura Bradford, who announced earlier in the week that she would not seek re-election.
Wright overwhelmingly won the nod from HD 54 Republicans, winning 38 of 45 ballots, or 84% of the total.
Wright said that he was humbled by the outpouring of support, and the number of votes he received from delegates. “I think this shows my message of limited government and conservative values and principles resonated with voters”.
Wright went on to say that he planned to “continue talking about the issues that folks in this district care about, primarily bringing jobs back to western Colorado, and improving the economy.”
Wright was nominated by Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland, who stressed Wright’s conservative credentials and the need for unity among conservatives. Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey seconded the nomination, citing Wright’s steadfastness and commitment to personal responsibility.
In his nomination speech, Wright said, “I cannot afford to stand on the sidelines and watch the erosion of our values”. He outlined his policy platform by focusing on what he termed the “three E’s”, Economy, Energy and Education. He spoke specifically of eliminating the Business Personal Property Tax, and standing up to EPA regulators in order to help return the Western Slope’s economy to the strength it saw 4 years ago. He also hinted at school choice in outlining his education policy ideas.
John “Rusty” Price, Wright's only opponent, immediately endorsed Wright, with the caveat that he take a look at his ideas.
“I am disappointed at not making it on the ballot,” Price said, “But I will support Jared, and share my ideas with him, and hope that he sees the value in them.”
Price ran his campaign largely on the idea of “state sovereignty” for Colorado, mentioning concepts such as nullification and a state-owned bank as being central to his platform. Price received 16% of the delegate vote total, but said he would not petition onto the ballot.
The seat was left open earlier in the week when incumbent Representative Laura Bradford announced she would not seek re-election, citing concerns over her husband’s health.
Bradford was conspicuously absent from the assembly, where she was an automatic delegate due to her office.
State Senator Steve King and Rep. Ray Scott both spoke at the Assembly. King spoke of how elections have consequences, pointing to the results of “four years of Ritter, and four years of Obama”.
To date, the Democratic Party has not offered up a candidate to challenge Wright in the heavily Republican district.
Mr. Wright said he was “humbled by the support”, why would he be when it was all set up to turn out that way? The Party power people chose him, put the people in place to make sure he was the winner, and then he plays the humble part.
I believe Doug Thompson is (or will be) running his campaign.Is that the same Doug Thompson who works with Janet Roland and Jennifer Bailey,the same one who was Scott Tipton’s manager, and rumor has it that he will also be campaign manager for Ray Scott? Didn’t he also have something to do with Matt Smith? Gee is there pattern here?
If Mr. Wright really wants to be humbled, maybe the GOP should change the way people are elected. Do away with the caucus’ that are run and packed by party hacks and go to a direct primary that would really give people a choice. Problem with that? You bet, the people might not agree with the party and do something stupid like picking Dan Maes.
Rhino752, tell me one more time how your comment is related to the article? Sounds like a troll without a bridge or a leg to stand on?
Obviously, you did not read my comment or you would realize that it was not a criticism of Rep Ray Scott. He was in fact a TEA Party endorsed candidate in the last election. My comment was all about the Colorado GOP political process and the corrupting effect it has on candidates and potential candidates, which met the criteria selected by the author of Colorado politics. Specifically my comment dealt with the role played by staff members in shaping the agenda, loyalties, selection and participation of candidates’ in house district 54 which was also one of the tag lines selected by the author. I’m sure it will surprise you to know that I discussed much of what was in my comment with Rep Ray Scott over the weekend, so let’s not pretend that your censorship was done in the name of protecting Ray Scott.
What was being exposed in my comment was how the GOP co-opts potential and incumbent candidates and what their attitude is regarding the voter’s right to know. And it was directly related to the subject matter in the author’s article, at least within the parameters that he chose to describe his topic and his selection of tag lines.
But I do understand why you censored my comment and I think most other readers now do, also. It is what it is.
You were using an article you knew people would be reading to spout your own troll bullshit.
If you think because your comment relates to Colorado politics that makes it relevant, you must be smoking something strong.
If you want to go on a rant completely unrelated to a post, go to a Ron Paul forum and join your fellow tin foil hatted brethren there.
Does everybody with a differing viewpoint qualify to be a troll?
Or is it just those who can PROVE their points with FACTS and DATA that exposes the corruption in the political system that you label as ‘trolls’?
Your removal of the comment was nothing less than ill-advised censorship of an opposing viewpoint under the weakest possible excuses.
Good to know though that anybody you disagree with is obviously a druggie and pot smoker.
Alinskys Rule for Radicals,”RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)”
How does that label work for you? Pretty accurate of your actions?
I have no control over what gets deleted. Sorry, check your facts. I’m just a reader and commenter who can’t stand trolls who ruin comment sections.
I do, however, support Peak Politics deleting of unrelated troll comments.
How liberal of you to follow the rules so closely….
So, now we have you as calling others you disagree with “trolls” and “idiots”.
Have any more you would like to throw out to show how intellectually honest you are?
Please, PLEASE use the “Reply” hyperlink when you are writing a comment that is meant to be a response to another comment.
I will. Sorry
Moderator,
Per your response online, are we now to presume that not “directly related” is a subjective decision, unrelated to the topic tags selected by the author of the article on your site? If that is the case, then what purpose do the tag lines serve? And absent the relevance of these clearly defined perimeters, (your terms of use), comments are subject to censorship based on the objectivity or lack thereof of a single moderator, who without written definition decides what “directly related” means. And comments simply related to the topic matter (tags) selected by the author do not fall within the guidelines of your rules for comments. Would you mind very much giving us an explanation as to where these new rules are to be found in your “terms of use”?
Certainly, you have to power to censor, unilaterally. The only question remaining is, will that censorship power be used in a biased effort to curtail free speech?
Fortunately, that conclusion falls within the reach of your readers who now can only wonder at the content of the comment and what the compelling interest was in censoring it and establishing new unwritten “rules”?
As we said, there is no conspiracy here. The post is on Jared Wright winning the GOP nomination.
If you want to criticize Rep. Ray Scott, that’s your prerogative. Do it in your own diary, as it clearly is not a comment on Wright’s winning the nomination.
We allow anyone to draft their own diaries — even left wing Common Cause staff have posted diaries. Just write it in the appropriate space and it won’t be deleted.
It really is that simple.
When the voters get to the voting booth, they will not know whether to vote for ‘jared”(first spelling) “jerrod” (second spelling under Prices comments……
I would bring the moderators attention to the tags selected by KVSloan for his article on your site which include Colorado State House Elections, Colorado Politics, HD 54. Certainly my comment was political. Perhaps too political. It was in fact concerning House District 54s incumbent Ray Scott. I’m sorry but the stated reason for removing my comment just doesn’t hold water and is fraught with political overtones. Truthfully I really expected more from this forum.
If you want to publish something that is clearly not related directly to the posting, you can publish your own diary. There is no free speech conspiracy here.
Don’t attach your musings to an unrelated post and your writing won’t be deleted.
You mentioned Ray Scott by name. The subject is politics, and in particular Mesa County politics.
Jared left out the fourth, and most important “E” and that is the ELITISM that controls all politics in the Grand Valley.
If the Elitists have chosen Jared, then you can bet your bottom dollar that he is totally and completely subservient to the republican elitists and will do their bidding, no questions asked because his political future depends on performing to their expectations/DEMANDS!
Tea Party Patriots comments spoke directly to the corruption, but you chose to delete it.
It makes me wonder who you are beholden to, or in fear of that you would deny opposing as well as negative points of view.
The comment is also available at http://www.konolaforcolorado.c…
As well as several other sites on the Western Slope.
Your removal speaks volumes….
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the subject of the article politics? And wasn’t Rep. Ray Scott’s name mentioned in the article? Weren’t endorsements also a subject? Did you receive a call from someone bringing your attention to my post and asking that it be taken down? Exactly how relevant does a comment need to be to be accepted? Certainly mine was related to the general subject matter and specific people mentioned in the article. But of course if my comment is not available on your site, you also remove your readers’ right to decide. And freedom of speech may be important enough to them that they will seek out A Journey to the Dark Side, presently posted on other sites including GJresult/tea party (http://gjresult.com/forum/index.php) in order to find out for themselves how related it was.
Why was my comment; “A Journey to the Dark Side” taken down?
What happened to freedom of speech? I was just reading a comment on this site (this forum) called “A Journey to the Dark Side” and poof it disappeared. Why was it censored? I had to go to http://atpo1.blogspot.com/p/gj…
to finish reading it. Was it someone from the Gov that ordered it taken down?
Comments that are completely unrelated to the posting will be deleted. Read our terms of use.
Hmmm. I wonder if I posted open threads, what would happen?