U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(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) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

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
December 10, 2009 09:05 PM UTC

"McInnis Disunity" Fallout Continues

  • 17 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Today it’s back to Pinon Canyon, as the Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels reports:

Republicans opposed to the military’s Piñon Canyon expansion project are disappointed that property rights weren’t addressed when party leaders unveiled a new platform and rallied around gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis.

Some ranchers and landowners in southeastern Colorado who worry that the Army is going to take their land said they can’t back McInnis, a former congressman, because he supports the expansion.

“As it stands today, I don’t think McInnis could get 25 percent of the Republican votes in southeast Colorado,” said Grady Grissom, a rancher from Las Animas County. [Pols emphasis]

Grissom is part of the Piñon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition, which criticized McInnis in a news release this week. The group’s website says, “Scott McInnis is a big disappointment.”

But McInnis’ position on the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site has earned him plenty of support elsewhere, particularly in El Paso County, home to Fort Carson and the largest GOP stronghold in the state, with 127,156 registered Republicans…

State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry dropped out of the governor’s race last month, but the Grand Junction Republican had sided with ranchers. Two weeks before exiting the race, Penry ripped McInnis’ stance on Piñon Canyon at campaign events in Trinidad and Walsenburg, according to The Pueblo Chieftain.

“McInnis said (the issue) was not about private-property rights, and people who oppose the expansion are anti-military,” Penry said at the time. “That is irresponsible and reckless.”

After Penry bailed, he endorsed McInnis and helped draft the state GOP’s “Platform for Prosperity.”

Piñon Canyon expansion opponents such as Grissom are disappointed that the platform contained no mention of Piñon Canyon or property rights.

Readers haven’t always agreed with our assessment that Scott McInnis‘ pro-Army position on Pinon Canyon is potentially disastrous, and we understand that it was intended to curry favor with Fort Carson-area primary voters. We think that Republicans regardless of location are very sensitive–more than they’re given credit for–to the private property rights issue at stake here: and now that McInnis is free of primary competition for El Paso County’s military vote, siding with the Army over the ranchers of southeast Colorado could prove much more harmful than helpful.

Josh Penry would say “told you so” if he was contractually allowed to do so.

Tweet
Share

Comments

17 thoughts on ““McInnis Disunity” Fallout Continues”

  1. Would you please verify a contract between McInnis and Penry by posting it for all to read.  So far you through around accusations against McInnis without a basis in fact but when others use conjecture you raise 40 kinds of hell.

    1. That’s EXACTLY what happened to the “Contract for Colorado,” isn’t it?

      “Platformedly allowed” doesn’t sound as good, which is why you guys changed it, isn’t it?

      For God’s sake, lighten up.

      1. Maybe you’re right, “contract” implies something BINDING, and obviously we can’t have that with Scooter McInnis can we!

        Thanks, I’ll be here all week.

  3. With Penry gone, it doesn’t make much sense politically for McInnis to be taking the position he is. Maybe he’s afraid of being called a flip flopper, but with his recent maneuvering on a wide array of other issues, it’s kind of befuddling that McInnis is sticking to his guns on the US army base expansion.

      1. A wise man changes his mind, a fool never does.

        I honestly believe when Scott explains to most of these people one on one (and not have Bartels spin) they will support him.

        1. because I realized I wouldn’t get elected if I didn’t.  It does have a nice ring to it.  I remember how many people had so much fun about I was before it before I was against it.

          BTW, can you pass the state budget over to “Scott” next time you see him ?  He does love him some budgets, he just can’t seem to get his darn hands on that all elusive PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENT.

        2. All Scott needs to do is walk up to each rancher in southeastern Colorado and rationally explain why giving up the family’s cattle operation for the sake of an Army bombing range is a win-win for everyone involved. Makes perfect sense.

          The great thing about ranchers is that they know bullshit. And when McInnis comes to these ranchers peddling his particular brand of bullshit about Pinon Canyon, he’ll be lucky if he doesn’t end up with a pointed boot stuck in a sensitive location of his body.

          1. The fact is if McInnis didn’t get 25% of the ranchers in the SE corner of the state it really does not make a difference.  SE CO does not have the numbers to change the outcome of the election.  The Gov’s race will not be won or lost in SE CO.  

            1. They won’t win the election for McInnis, but they might lose him the election.  If McInnis had a (D) after his name, what you say is probably true.  But Republicans aren’t going to win the election by winning over Denver voters.

              1. Without a serious primary challenge, McInnis will probably be able to smooth things over with the Tea Party Party.

                You’re right that it won’t be decided in Denver alone, but the metro area–especially along the urban corridor from Jeffco/ArapCo up to Ft. Collins will probably be where this race is decided. McInnis needs to do well with those voters to have a real shot at Ritter.

                1. He has to do well across the front range (excluding Denver).  If he can do that he wins in my humble opinion.  As go the “soccer moms” in El Paso and Douglas Counties so goes the Guv’s race.

                  1. because of his stand on gas drilling. He might lose southern Colorado because of Pinon Canyon and the generally Democratic leanings there, and he will lose traditionally liberal counties and urban areas.

                    But in most other areas of the state, particularly the Front Range I-25 corridor, he will be competitive with Ritter. It will be fun to watch.

                  2. They vote GOP. Some of the RINOs may have supported Ritter in ’06, but he doesn’t need them to squeeze in by the skin of his teeth in 2010. McInnis needs those reliable R votes to have a shot.

                    It might very well be soccer moms that decide the election, but it will be the ones in the front range. Ritter needs all the help he can get in Weld and Larimer, but he needs to win JeffCO, clean up in Denver, and probably a clear win in Arapahoe, and competitive in Adams.

                    Maybe I’ll look at some of the numbers from 2006 and do a diary on where McInnis and Ritter should be targeting their efforts. Thanks for the idea!

                    1. I hope you mean the other way around — Ritter will win Adams and Arapahoe will be the contest.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

40 readers online now

Newsletter

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