High Noon Has Come – Tancredo will seek ACP nomination for Governor

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



POLS UPDATE #4: What follows, from the Peter Boyles show on KHOW this morning, is possibly the most disastrous media appearance of Dick Wadhams’ political career–and as the man who handled the response to George Allen’s “Macaca” moment, that’s no small statement.



Can’t see the audio player? Click here.

Wow, what a stupid thing to lie about. In front of people who know better.

POLS UPDATE #3: Nicole Allan of The Atlantic writes:

What’s unique about Tancredo’s bid is neither his one-issue stance (on immigration) nor his dramatic shift to a third party — it’s his intent to hand the governorship to the Democrats because of his dissatisfaction with the Republican options. True, these options leave something to be desired: Scott McInnis is battling plagiarism allegations and Dan Maes has been fined for reimbursing himself $44,837 for a year’s worth of mileage costs. But Tancredo is well aware that if he enters the race, siphoning votes from McInnis and Maes, Colorado voters will most likely elect Hickenlooper…

Tancredo clashed with Dick Wadhams, the head of the Colorado Republican Party, on a local radio station this morning. “What’s your agenda?” Wadhams asked him. “What are you going to talk about? Impeach Obama and bomb Mecca?”

In some ways, Tancredo is riding the wave of the nation’s mood. Voters are leaning toward insurgent, anti-establishment figures, with newcomers Sharron Angle and Rand Paul emerging through the Republican primary process. But rather than pushing the existing party structure to the right, Tancredo is looking to take it down — a bolder version of the Ralph Nader approach. [Pols emphasis]

POLS UPDATE #2: Today’s heated conversation on the Peter Boyles show between Tancredo and Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams is up at Talking Points Memo:

On Peter Boyles KHOW radio show, Tancredo and Wadhams got into a shouting match over Tancredo’s decision to run, with Wadhams arguing that Tancredo is “ensuring” that the Democratic candidate, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, will win.

Tancredo had threatened to enter the race if the GOP’s scandal-ridden candidates, Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, didn’t agree to drop out after the August 10 primary so that the party could appoint another nominee. When neither agreed to do so, Tancredo announced today that he’ll run as a third-party candidate.

Tancredo claimed this morning that Wadhams had said he “liked the idea” of a Tancredo bid, to which Wadhams shot back that he did not like the idea, and “was stunned that you would even bring it up.”

POLS UPDATE: From The Hill, awaiting today’s official announcement at noon:

Tancredo’s announcement comes after he warned GOP candidates, former Rep. Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, that he would run if the winner of the primary was trailing behind Democratic front-runner John Hickenlooper, who is mayor of Denver. Both candidates refused to comply.

GOP operatives believe that Tancredo’s candidacy could ruin their chances of winning the open-seat race. Republicans viewed the seat as a pick-up opportunity after Gov. Bill Ritter (D) decided not to run for reelection early this year.

Well folks, you gotta give Tommy the Tanc style points for keeping his word on this one, and ensuring the final nail is hammered deep into the coffin of the GOP’s Gubernatorial efforts this cycle.  The question now becomes: with the Governor’s race a foregone conclusion, where will GOP donors be redirecting their funds?  

Some believe they’ll just dump their money into the US Senate race, but others believe their bloodthirst for at least one chamber of the legislature (for redistricting purposes) will force them to put their money into the Republican 527s, or State House & Senate races.

The confirmation of this story comes from the blog from the still-kicking newspaper of record in Denver

177 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

    • Libertad says:


      “I will officially announce at noon that I will seek the nomination of the constitution party,” Tancredo told The Denver Post.

      The Littleton Republican must file some papers with the Colorado Secretary of State and register as a member of the American Constitution Party, but then “he’s ready to go,” raising money, disclosing his platform and launching a website that is already put together.

      As a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus Mr. Tancredo secured, with dignity, the Godgiven freedoms that America upholds for tens of millions of human beings.

  1. Pat Boon says:

    Colorado politics is/are getting good.

  2. Complete with lots of artery-clogging butter…

    I like having good seats for this kind of spectacle.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      It’s made with Olive Oil and is much healthier.  Then, sit back and watch the fun.

    • parsingreality says:

      I eat lots of it.

      We are designed, if I may use the phrase, to eat saturated fats.  

      This 64 year old non-athlete just rode 30 mountain bike miles today setting new PB records for distance and average speeds.  On an almost empty stomach.

      My diet is high animal fat and protein, modest low carb veggies.  My blood panel numbers are superb, they would make a 30 something jealous.

      Eat more animal.  It’s what you were meant to eat.  

      • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

        If you look at the structure of our intestines, they’re much more like herbivores than carnivores. If we were meant to eat mostly meat, we’d have a very short, straight digestive system.

        I’ll grant you we’re not strict herbivores in construction, but we’re built to tend towards vegetables in our diet, not meats.

        • raymond1 says:

          Evolution favors reproducing and then dying as quickly as possible once (A) you stop reproducing & (B) the kids are old enough to ffend for themselves. Reproducing until 30something, then hanging out maybe another 15 yrs to help protect & provide for the kids, was the maximally efficient way to preserve resources for offspring. I’m not sure we want to emulate that; our current lifespans totally defy evolutionary pressure.

      • Steve Harvey says:

        which is kind of raymond’s point, I guess. Evolution isn’t a command, and it doesn’t require or benefit from our compliance. We make choices, selection happens, and que sera sera.

        If you want to talk about what’s healthier and what’s less healthy, what’s more or less in our individual interests, as raymond points out, evolution isn’t the ultimate guideline either (and it’s definitely not the guideline for what’s in our collective interests). It explains many things about how we are designed, some of which serve the “interests” of genes (self-replication in perpetuiti) rather than of people, and are perhaps best not acquiesced to.  

        • parsingreality says:

          ….to the extent that mastodon is no longer available, LOL.

          When I all but stopped eating grains over a year ago my long term chronic pain stopped. Within days. So did my toenail fungus, although that took longer.  

          Scientists for the last twenty years or so have been able to figure out, roughly, diets from old bones.  Seems that African paleolithic man was getting typically 80-90% of calories from animal sources, surely including insects.  Neanderthals, our first cousins, it was 95+%.

          When we started  cultivating grains 10,000 years ago skeleton sizes went down, bone diseases and dental problems went up.  

          OK, you might say, let’s not eat grains but eat plenty of veggies and fruits. Fruits today are sugar bombs, not the small bitter ones of yore.  And we could not have evolved our giant brains (current Republicans offering proof otherwise) without COOKED meat.  Klieber’s (sp?) Law about calories burned and where it gets used in the body.  

          I started my weight loss/health journey June 2009.  I have spent many hundreds, maybe more, hours researching.  Everything from anecdotal to peer reviewed published papers.  Above all, I was looking for end results, who loses weight, is healthy (which can mean many things, I’ll grant you.) The evidence is towards animal foods being our ideal.  (And another grant you, our corporate food production is a negative factor.)

          Even last fall when I weighted more than I do now, the doctor I saw was astounded at my blood work up. Wait till this year.

  3. Froward69 says:

     a three ring circus.

  4. … this  morning on KHOW during the eight o’clock hour.

    Tancredo and Boyles both calling Dick Wadhams a liar and Wadhams calling them liars.

    My god, which side do you cheer for in that fight?

    Looks like the teabagger induced self-destruction of the Colorado GOP.

    Who da thunk it?

      • BlueCat says:

        possibly leading to money getting poured into the State House and Senate Races. That won’t be much fun for Dem spectators to the gubernatorial fiasco.

          • LemonLyman says:

            the GOP did their analysis and figured labeling “Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper/Hickenritter” (because “Boulder Liberal Mark Udall” worked so well) would be enough to win the Gov’s seat, and the state leg races were too tough to beat (look at the hard side fundraising Dem vs GOP, Ds are blowing them out of the water in almost every district in the entire state besides safe R holds).  With that race over, the question becomes which chamber will they play in.

          • BlueCat says:

            RGA made that clear.  But this may cause more grass roots level donors to shift focus. In any case, I agree there already wasn’t going to be the kind of money needed going into the race for Guv on R side.  

          • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

            by a wave of support for Hickenlooper to have a legislature he can work with.  The other perspective is that a near certain win for Hickenlooper will really motivate the Dem rank and file to spend a lot of effort down ticket also.  Attention could shift to SD 16 where Nicholson and Leonard will battle over the impact of Tea Party activism versus steady Democratic progress towards a new future based on sustainable green technology.  This could free up a lot of Dem. energy to engage the Tea Party extremists at the local level.

            • shrubHugger says:

              May even help the Dems pick up a seat in the Senate. Right now they have 4 seats that are in contention (that the R’s need to pick up in order to gai the chamber). There are too many seats they have to win in the house.. so my guess in they go for the Senate seats

        • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

          Norton and Buck are killing each other. Disaffected Republicans there are going to stay home.

          Now the Governor’s race is a joke. And most of the Congressional races are non-competitive.

          You won’t see nearly as many Republicans showing up just for lower-rung state level races.

    • Froward69 says:

      earlier Wadhams would only say “anyone but Hickenlooper” and “Tancredo cannot win a statewide race”

      I had a difficult time drinking my coffee… as I kept laughing and snarfing it through my nose.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      I still regard him as a friend and we shared some public roles, like fighting for transportation reform, and personal struggles as our parents aged, etc.  Remember that behind the public role there is a human being and, raspberry me if you like, but I think the human being named Dick Wadhams is a good man.

      • bjwilson83 says:

        The interview was very unfair. They expect him to not field a Republican candidate, despite being the Republican Party Chair? It’s his job, for crying out loud.

      • Steve Harvey says:

        and a very important point, regardless of Dick Wadhams’ personal qualities (I don’t know him). But we do need to fight our political battles without automatically villifying the opposition.

        On the other hand, people of any party or any political ideology who choose to act in reprehensible ways (whether by defending the interests of the more privileged few against the interests of the less privileged many, or making fetishes out of factual and logical fallacies that do violence against the public interest) should be held personally accountable for such choices.

      • Laughing Boy says:

        …lose a child at one point?

        That kind of eclipses politics for me, as much as I’ve been unhappy with his job here.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          of cancer, if I recall correctly. Which is an awful ordeal.  He’s always been honorable and friendly in his dealings with me and I place a lot of value on my long-standing relationships.  One of the reasons I respect Harry Truman is that, after he was president, Kansas City boss Tom Prendergast was convicted of some corruption thing and he was asked about it at his next press conference.  His answer:

          “He was my friend, and I was his.”

           Compare that to today’s weasling politicians: “He was a low level intern, a rogue staffer, and I had nothing to do with him.”

        • parsingreality says:

          I believe, further, it was a one year old daughter.

      • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

        Behind ANY public role there is a human being.

        Even Douglas Bruce, God help him. And certainly Tancredo.

    • bigfatgirl says:

      you’re supposed to just sit back and laugh.  

    • wade norris says:

      how lucky Hickenlooper has been this year.

      On Daily Kos they are saying he must have borrowed Harry Reid’s lucky Rabbit foot.

      I was ready to believe a Tea Party candidate would end up the nominee, but a third party civil war?

      wow.

  5. MADCO says:

    First it’s not noon.

    Second -he’s the one who used to say 3rd party campaigns just weaken the R candidate.

    But mostly it’s not noon yet.

  6. rocco says:

    Here’s thinking Caplis will have the   local republican party response this afternoon.

    It’s impossible to even imagine a scene in which all three of these guys push this thing to the end, when none are electable.

    Seems plausible deals get cut, people drop out for family emergencies, more time at home, etc., and Penry replaces the primary winner. Even with his mistakes running Norton’s show, he looks better in comparison to these 3. I look for Caplis to telegraph it today. The repubs don’t see Caplis as a candidate, but they do get the official local party word out through him.

    Even teabag nation’s cowering from the mess they’ve helped caused. They’ll stand down if Maes gets chopped. They won’t like it, but they’ll stand down if he withdraws.

    The idea Tanc’s running is absolutely too funny for words, and it’s a Jay Leno dream come true, but I just don’t think it’s gonna happen.

    • The realistThe realist says:

      now that Tanc is in, will the Repubs still push the Primary winner out and replace him with another Repub Governor candidate?  Or will the three-way race convince other potential candidates to stay out this year?

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        My guess is that there never was a Republican smart enough to win the governorship but stupid enough to run on the basis of subbing for a McInnis/Maes who was blackballed out.  Now, bearing that cross plus dealing with Mr. Narcissistic Personality Disorder, aka Tom Tancredo, to boot, you’d have to be beyond stupid to run as the party boss candidate.

        Hey, I’ll take the GOP nomination, for 300k cash money, and promise to give a bunch of speeches on water policy…oh, wait, that’s been tried.

           

      • Barron X says:

        .

        Take one for the team this time around, and you can write your own ticket in 2012/14.

        Without a respected Republican on the ballot for Guv, folks won’t invest the 56 cents in postage to return their ballots.  

        Neither Buck nor Norton will inspire sufficient confidence, if the Guv race is a mess.

        .

        • BlueCat says:

          for the ACP it came down to throwing your own under the bus for publicity. This raises the party’s profile from pretty much none, brings in some free press, a few bucks and a new name or two on the  newsletter list. Maybe the leadership will even get to tour the talking head shows on TV and radio. Maybe they’ll even be put at hotels in the process.  With mini-bars.  Whee!

          Now lets not hear any more self righteous crap about the idealist ACP or about how third parties in general are all about idealism and true believers as opposed to the bad old big two or about how sucked in R and D voters are compared to plucky third party supporters.  What a load.  

          After the primary, if the polls still show just a small margin between the winning GOP candidate and Hick, do Tancredo and the ACP say “never mind”?  If so does the ACP then invite their original candidate to remove knife from back and be their special guy again?  

          What if Tank is polling worst of all, as he no doubt will be?  Or does Tank ignore the part about how the R only has to resign if he’s polling way behind post-primary because now he and the ACP are having so darned much fun?  Does it all kind of make you want to take a shower, Barron? Can’t wait to hear your lame take on why not.  

          • Barron X says:

            .

            BC, I only know the part of you that you share at this site,

            but its sounding like you have some issues.  

            Maybe you could go lay in the hammock for a while and relax ?  

            You are absolutely right to denounce my self righteousness, wherever  and whenever you step in it.  Ditto when I post hypocrisy.  

            But did you check out that woman in the mirror, knowing that the Democratic party is craven and corrupt, and voting for the party over principle, year after year ?

            .

            • BlueCat says:

              Sadly not this time with your classic “I know you are but what am I” response. I don’t expect any real explanation as to why you still are all for Tank and the sophomoric, hypocritical and no more or less concerned with the constitution than anybody else is ACP.  But you now what?  Right now I’m pretty happy looking in the mirror. I happen to be having a very good hair day. Hope you are too.

            • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

              So you’re saying Barack Obama was the party and McCain/Palin were the principle in 2008?

              And now in 2010, Hickenlooper is the “craven, corrupt” party and McInnis/Maes are “principle”?

              Give me a friggin’ break.

              • Barron X says:

                .

                golly, without backing off the “craven and corrupt” epithets I assigned to your party,

                The Republicans are every bit as deserving of those labels.

                In fact, in terms of corruption and control by nefarious interests, it’s hard to see any daylight between the two flavors of the one major party.  

                I think the Dems and the Repubs are pretty much the same.  

                I may be totally wacky, or you may be foolin’ yourself.

                .  

  7. Middle of the Road says:

    Barron must be so proud to be a member of a party that has no compunction about tossing aside its candidate Ben Goss and substituting him with a “big” name like Tommy Tancredo.

    Well, I guess this latest twist answers Goss’s own question:

    Why on Earth would anyone choose a party affiliation other than Democrat or Republican? In fact, many have suggested that perhaps choosing a party “other-than” is tantamount to throwing one’s vote away.

    “Broken Promises” according to Goss is the reason he joined the ACP. Wonder how he feels about the ACP breaking their promise to him.

    The American Constitution Party–same as all the rest.  

    • Barron X says:

      .

      I respect and admire him.  He is a good representative of what the party stands for, and will lead the party into the future.

      But there are problems at the level of the party exec committee that prevent party growth.  

      We draw about 2 – 3% in statewide elections, but only 2,000 have affiliated with the party.  

      I think Ben is the guy to shake that up and put us on a path to growth and financial stability.  He was going to do a lot of that in his campaign this year, but now it looks like that won’t happen.  

      I understand the attraction of having a big name like Tom Tancredo on our ticket.  It will get the word out on the party.  Our principles and platform are a lot closer to the values of the T-Party movement than the GOP.  But I don’t think Mr. Tancredo will put much energy into building or supporting the party; he will probably focus on his own campaign.  I could be wrong: he may be in this for the long haul; I sure hope so.

      If he wins, it has to be a good outcome, I’m thinking.

      .

      But it is not accurate to say that the ACP is just as corrupt as the Democratic Party.  You Dems have wallowed in a culture of corruption and unprincipled compromise for as long as you’ve had a grip on power.  It has worked its way into your political DNA.

      We aren’t nearly as corrupt simply because we haven’t had that power.  Give us a chance and I’m sure we can match you, but we haven’t had that chance yet.

      .

      • Middle of the Road says:

        The ACP just proved that it has about as much ethical principle as its good old wingman, the Republican Party. At this point, we’re just arguing over scale and size, honey.

        But hey, congratulations!! Looks like your party is on its way to the big leagues in the “win at all costs and fuck our morals and ethics” department. That should move you up to at least 5%.

        • Barron X says:



          many voters (? 98% ?) choose to vote for the “lesser of 2 evils,” rather than voting for good over those 2 evils.

          It’s a pernicious, fatalistic pragmatism: only the 2 major evil parties ever win, and folks don’t want to waste their vote by voting for something better, knowing that all the other people voting will support one brand of evil or the other.

          .

          Way off the left shoulder,

          from whence you cannot even see the road,

          you have given up on truth, beauty and goodness, and compromise on something short of your ideals, which are probably better represented by some other minor party other than the Democrats.  

          I’m not that jaded.  

          .

          • Middle of the Road says:

            Says the guy whose party just sold their own candidate down the river. Good one!  

            • Barron X says:

              .

              and it doesn’t actually fit this situation.  

              But thanks for pointing out that even the ACP makes compromises.  Maybe not compromises of our core values, as you must every time you vote, but compromises none the less.  

              .

              • Middle of the Road says:

                Barron, you’re a little touchy today. Cheer up. I’m sure you’re still an ethical guy, even if your beloved party isn’t. I feel pretty good about my core values but gosh, thanks so much for caring.  

      • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

        I don’t think Mr. Tancredo will put much energy into building or supporting the party

        He’ll put less energy into it than he did into building his own rec room. (With illegal alien workers.)

      • BlueCat says:

        are a naive, self righteous prig.  The fact that you still have no idea who and what Tank really is speaks for itself.  You think members of the ACP are purer and more concerned with the constitution than others.  They clearly aren’t.  For one thing, they’d have very little in common with Tank or the Tea Party or the religious right if they were.  Their aligning themselves now with Tancredo just to share in the publicity generated by his notoriety disqualifies them from getting into anybody else’s face about how much purer and less corrupt they are.  

        The ACP is just another party with no claim to moral or constitutional superiority and I would have thought you were much too smart to associate with a party that buys into Tancredo’s and the Tea Party’s bull.   To them, the Democratic Party compares quite favorably which is not to say it will be mistaken for a squeaky clean band of philanthropists any time soon.   But then you and your fellow Tea Party loving ACP members will never be mistaken for grown ups with a clue.  

        I, for one, have had it up to here with your smug, insufferable, and completely unjustified moral and ethical superiority. I’m quite sure I’m every bit as moral, ethical and loyal to my country’s constitution as you are and the sames goes for all the Democratic voters I know. So if that’s all you’ve got to defend your positions with, you don’t have much.

        • Barron X says:

          .

          Sis, we have different understandings of what America stands for, what her core values are.  

          Perhaps you believe that the federal government should be taking care of us, pursuant to the General Welfare clause.

          You may believe that it is a basic civil right to have a job, free medical care, free nutritious meals and free cable TV.  Or not.  I don’t know you that well.  But some folks believe that.  

          I believe it should provide for national defense, protect our rights, and stop there.  Well, include everything explicitly in the Constitution, as amended, but not the Christmas tree that some Progressives will swear is implicit.  

          I include the Declaration of Independence when thinking about what America stands for.  

          If I may indulge in just a little snark, I believe in the Constitution as written, and you believe in the way it should have been written, in your opinion.  I say that in parody of some of my “conservative” allies, who feel they are better qualified to interpret the Constitution than the Supremes, disputing the essence of the Marbury Decision.  

          .

          • BlueCat says:

            was ever intended to be set in stone to the extent that the nation should be kept as a preserved 18th century museum piece, certainly not by our radical revolutionary founders, but that’s actually not my point. Having read the ACP platform, I don’t believe that it is a party particularly dedicated to the principles of the constitution at all.  

            I reject your assertion that it is a matter of believing in the constitution as written vs believing in what the constitution ought to be with the ACP representing championship of the true constitution.  I find the ACP platform to be highly selective in extolling those things in the constitution that it believes, mostly erroneously,  to support its agenda and ignoring those which would interfere, especially with its religious agenda.

            Your stance and your party’s stance as anyone’s superior in support of our constitution is, in short, a sham, a cover for advancing an agenda that has little to do with devotion to the constitution either as set in stone or as a living document meant to be amended to accommodate a living, growing changing world. Take your pick, the ACP wouldn’t score higher, and in many, many cases much lower, than any other political party in support of the constitution in accordance with either view. The only difference vis a vis the constitution that I see is in your party’s insufferable, arrogant, ill deserved claims to purity and self righteousness.

            In a previous post you said something to the effect that my responses to you show that I must have some issues. You’re right. I have serious issues with the smug, the self righteous, the holier than thou gaining control over my personal life, the life of my community and the life of my country.  No party to my mind represents all of that better than does the ACP. I therefore find it and all its works execrable. There you have my issues.    

            • Barron X says:

              .

              we hold to it because we think it the most accurate, most honest, most whatever, ….

              In other words, superior to other possible positions ?

              So, if I think my position is superior, and you think your position is superior,

              how is it that you castigate me for thinking my position is superior ?

              .

              • BlueCat says:

                that someone who appears as bright as you can actually swallow the nonsense that is the ACP platform, the ravings of the Tea Party crowd and the idea that Tancredo has altruistic motives. It’s a more an in sorrow than in anger kind of thing. It doesn’t just roll off my back, like Libertad’s non sequiturs or BJ’s ignorance, coming from you.  

      • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

        … Joe Gschwendter.

  8. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    I might vote for him, despite being a dyed in the wool Dem and pretty fond of Hickenlooper. He deserves kudos for being totally unafraid to make Wadhams furious. What other state has such a fantastic lunatic ensuring their elections will be entertaining despite the midterm doldrums?  

  9. davebarnesdavebarnes says:

    Let’s assume that Hick wins in 2010 and 2014. That means that Josh Penry’s first real chance will be in 2018 when he is 42.

    So, what does Josh do for the next 8 years?

    How does he stay in the limelight for 8 years?

  10. EmeraldKnight76 says:

    Now that it looks like a pretty slam dunk election for Hick, his focus is going to be keeping Dems fired up. There are still quite a few important races down ticket and it’ll be up to Hick to keep the enthusiasm up so that Dems get to the polls.

  11. swaps says:

    What is being lost among the GOP paranoia is that if Tancredo files for the Constitution Party that party will have a legitimate candidate who is a proven election winner in the past.

    It is doubtful he could win the governornship, but his campaign would help build a broader base for the Constitution party for future elections.

    Wadhams is clearly a spokesman for the Northeast establishment of the GOP, which is code for socialist light.

    Wadhams oversaw two senatorial campaigns that blew early 14 point leads.  Now, he is presiding over a party that should have swept the state house but instead has self destructed.  Wadhams is out of touch with the voters beyond the big contributors and tired self seeking office holders that are his contact list.

    A GOP that would have embraced the banking reform of Ron Paul would have been ideally positioned during the 2008 economic meltdown and subsequent public backlash against the banksters.

    Instead of fighting for the same Washington special interests Wadhams could have been a key leader in educating the GOP to embrace the reforms needed to save our country from the Trotskyites who infiltrated the GOP posing as neocons.  I guess he he is just another intimidated hack who doesn’t know an Arab Semite from a Mongo-Turk posing as a Semite.

    That lack of sophistication has proven ruinous.

    • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

      Who picked Maes to be at the top of the ticket.  Quit trying to blame Wadhams for the general silliness of Republicans to chase after the purest of the pure.  Being purer than a Wadhams pony isn’t that tough but being moderate enough to win a statewide election is beyond the rank and file to conceive of let alone support.  Wadhams didn’t invent Republican stupidity.  He just made money off it.

    • Barron X says:

      .

      What’s up with that ?

      .

    • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

      Is Scott McInnis the Arab Semite and Dan Maes the Mongo-Turk posing as a Semite… or vice versa?

    • Pat Boon says:

      You kids need some fresh talking points. Avoid words you don’t understand.

      • BlueCat says:

        economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

        no private property a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

        For complete def see: http://www.merriam-webster.com

        Dems do not advocate abolishing private ownership nor do they advocate government ownership of means of production.  That’s socialism.  So, you may not like social security, medicare, the VA, collective support of infrastructure or education but please argue on merits, children, not by making up your own definition of socialism and then using it to frighten the horses.

        The fact is we collectively support and have always supported lots of things, military, police, fire protection, infrastructure, education, etc. and that not only doesn’t make us socialist but is in accordance with our constitution in providing for the common welfare. There would be no bar to universal healthcare if we decided to include the provision of such a service to the people either. We already provide such healthcare via the VA, medicare and medicaid.  

        Plenty of countries, like Limbaugh’s fave, Costa Rica, have excellent universal healthcare systems that embrace private sector options as well as public. If we did the same it would still not fit the def of socialism.  

        So, to review, don’t lump stuff that is collectively supported via taxes under the heading socialism. That’s simply incorrect. Find other arguments.  

  12. raymond1 says:

    … Because you didn’t like my comments, or what? I ask because deleting a diary after you post it for comments is pretty classless – you’re deleting other people’s comments that you yourself solicited by posting the diary.  So I assume you had some sort compelling reason for the deletion??

  13. Diogenesdemar says:

    Obvious:

    Hickenlooper  –  has enough microbrews to get through to November.  Crack ‘em open.  Nothing left to do.

    Tancredo — lots of camera and microphone time.

    Not so Obvious Winners/Losers:

    Wadhams — gets some Crazy-Tancredo cover for this unfolding disaster.  Tom’s fault, not his. Partial win.

    McInnis and Maes — no one’s fanning the coverage about their two scandals right now. Partial Win.

    McInnis — Is corrupt better than crazy?  Lots of big donors think so, more reasons now for the party voters to think so.  Partial Win.

    Maes — If Maes wins the primary and gets to general, he had no chance of winning anyway.  Tancredo’s bid peels off more of Maes’s wingnut supporters than it does McInnis’s corupt supporters.  Partial Loss.

    Obvious losers:

    Moderate Republicans — they were on their way to extinction anyway.  Meet Mr. Comet.

    ACP Party — Hijacked by a lunatic.  Tancredo probably won’t stay in the race until November anyway.  The death of a dream.

    Tancredo — the wingnuts on the fringe of any party lose their voice and become irrelevant soon after their narcissism leads them on a lone quest for the grail.

    Future Draft Choice to be Announced — Doesn’t matter who you are, step into this snake pit and you’re gonna get bit.  30-point loss to Hickenlooper in the general is a guarantee, and also a sure ticket to future statewide irrelevancy.

    Wadhams — How much do school board candidates pay for running their campaigns?

    Questions I have?

    As I understand it, Tancredo is now only a candidate for the ACP primary, is this correct?  Is their enough integrity within the ACP to see through this scam and vote conscience instead of Tancredo?

    Is there any history (I mean before this last week) of bad blood between Tancredo and McInnis?  Tancredo and Maes?   Tancredo and Wadhams?  Who’s Tancredo thinking that he’s helping or hurting here?

    • Barron X says:

      .

      At the convention, all contests were sorted out.  No need for a primary.  Everyone nominated went right to the General Election ballot.

      http://www.elections.colorado….

      .

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        So, is Ken Goss on board with this for the good of the ACP party, or is he being Wadhammed by an ACP counterpart?

        • Barron X says:

          .

          I have been trying to ensure I am able attend any Board meetings or press conferences to show solidarity.  Timing is still very much up in the air.

          He told CNN that he had approached Tom about joining the Party and taking the Guv slot on the ballot, not the other way ’round.  Ben may have got the idea from me, as I am on the ballot for CD-5 again, but trying to recruit a local marquee name conservative to take my place.

          The glue that binds the ACP together, in my opinion, isn’t the neo-reactionary platform or the nod to Jesus.  It’s a conviction that neither of the 2 major parties cares about little people anymore, because we have no power in the process.  We actually got excited about Dan Maes, or at least I did, because he was cutting through the barriers and owned by nobody.  Once he got the notice of the powers that be, though, they brought him down.  Yeah, he screwed up, but I think GOP party insiders may have contrived to bring him down.  Just a theory.  True or not, he’s now toxic.  

          So, Ben reaching out to Tom is completely consistent with our conviction of he need to shake things up.

          In my estimate, our main focus is on the GOP.  Some officers want to tweak the party’s nose a little; some of us want to make them sit out an entire term so that they take a serious look at their internal problems.  A few want the ACP to replace the GOP as the #2 party, the new conservative party.  

          .

          • Barron X says:

            .

            I should have looked it up before posting.  I mean something more like “extremely conservative.”

            .

          • ardy39 says:

            Is that like “wink, wink, nudge, nudge?”

            As for “caring about little people,” my understanding is that this is pretty high on British Petroleum’s list of priorities too. OK, maybe it is just high on BP’s list of talking points.

            Either way, your claim give me just about as much confidence in the ACP’s “truthiness” if they are in no position to actually DO anything for or about “the little people.”

            • Barron X says:

              .

              though that’s not explicitly required, and nobody asks.  

              But I belong to the church founded by the Apostle Paul (on the authority vested in the Apostle Peter,) the one that organized the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

              Others may belong to a millenialist trend based largely on the recollections of the hermit John (not an Apostle) about some visions he had as a hermit in a cave on Patmos, several decades after Jesus ascended into Heaven.  

              In dealing with Christian trends that de-emphasize the teachings of the Christ, and the Magesterium and tradition of Catholicism, I find it best not to spell out in too much detail what doctrine and dogma we AGREE on, lest the points of disagreement drive us apart.

              Maybe I would support a state religion, if I was guaranteed that it would exactly match my beliefs.  In America, that just isn’t possible.  

              Our preamble:

              We, the members of the American Constitution Party, gratefully acknowledge the blessings of the Lord God as the Creator, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe and of our nation. We hereby appeal to Him for aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Divine Providence as we work to restore and preserve this nation as a government of, by, and for the people. Our republic is a nation governed by a constitution rooted in Biblical law …

              Even though this nod is fairly generic and bland, I can still find a way to disagree with it.  I believe that the Earth is ruled by Satan.  I believe that Satan has a lot more influence than Jesus over human events, even in “Christian” America, and even when focusing just on “Christians.”  We Christians are some baaad folk, and do some evil things.  

              I think it is simply incorrect to assert that the Creator God rules the USA.  Things would be much better if He did, but that clearly isn’t part of His plan.  Nor would that appear to be consistent with Catholic teaching on Free Will.  

              So, if it were up to me, I would play down the Christian aspects of the ACP.  But it’s not.

              .

              As far as “caring for little people,” that’s part of the Democratic Party’s image of itself.  Democrats seem to generally believe that it is the role of the Government, or of a political party, to force the rest of us boors to “do good.”  Then all we have to do is empower party leaders to decide for us what’s “good,” and personal responsibility for doing good is absolved.  

              In fact, it almost seems like Dems are so haughty that they think their judgments about “good” are better than the rest of us scum, so we should defer to our moral superiors in the Democratic Party to decide what is “good” and what is not.  This inevitably leads to yet another instantiation of the aphorism about the corrupting influence of power.  

              No, thank you.  In this regard, as in almost all others, neither of the 2 major parties has any capacity to do good by taking from me and giving charity as they see fit, whether to labor unions or to international banking cartels.

              The promise of the ACP is not that it will be a better party than the other 2, once ensconced in power.  The promise of ACP ascendancy is that it un-ensconces the corrupt powers that be.  In the turmoil that follows, some good will happen, until a new elite consolidates their grip, or the old elite regains control.

              .

              • ardy39 says:

                I’m all for it (if they make good cookies).

                But there are different perspectives on what it means to “care” for “little people.”

                (You have hit on a elitist “do gooder” approach. I agree that most of us bristle at being told to do things because it’s for our own good. I do not like some of the safety things I am required to do on the job because I know some are not for my protection but rather for the legal protection of my client.)

                What I see as desirable is an approach that focuses on trying to make free markets work. Namely by ensuring that those that are making profits cannot do so by externalizing their costs.

                I don’t think it is fair that, for example, some have to deal with the real costs of mercury loads in their bodies because some CEO of a coal power plant upwind doesn’t want to expend money to clean up emissions.

                I think the price of the electricity from that power plant should incorporate all the costs of producing it. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pick up the health costs for people who live down wind. Ratepayers/consumers should pay those costs.

                Is this “do gooding” or “free marketeering?”

              • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                to show an amazing amount of intolerance. Do you really expect people of other faiths to join your Party with that Preamble? Or would your party rather do without Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Atheists, etc? Are you sure the C in ACP stands for conservative and not Christian?

                After hearing that joke of a Preamble I have even less respect for your Party than I did hearing you let Tancredo in. At least the Republicans make some slight attempt to hide their religious intolerance.  

  14. dwyer says:

    b there or b square.

    I want to publicly admit my mistake in advocating for the Fairness Doctrine.  Look what we would have missed. If there had been a Fairness Doctrine, everytime a repub got airtime, then a dem would have had to get equal airtime.  We would have seen Romanoff’s baby pictures and Norton’s grandchildren…that would have been about it.  No controversy…because that would have triggered more equal time.  

    INSTEAD:

    We have 80 hours a week of republicans and ex-republicans screaming at each other…then screaming at wadhams who screams at boyles.and/or silverman. caplis entoning about the “greater good.” ….for which I believe he might reluctantly volunteer…  .boyles  just wets his pants as his rating go right through the roof…..and it is not even August….

    I am now setting the alarm for  5am for the boyles show…..he gives hope to old farts all over the state….i had him down for the count more than once…..but he is now “must see radio.”……

    • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

      It’s gonna be wonderful.

      All these birthers blathering about how our country has been taken over by some dirty Kenyan.

      But ohhh noooo, there’s no racism whatsoever in the Tea Party movement! LOLOL

      • bjwilson83 says:

        …though I happen to be neither. In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s this little law about having to be a natural born citizen to run for President in the Constitution.

        • dwyer says:

          I guess I have to respond.  Absolutely I am familiar with that Constitutional provision.  That is why when the electoral college meet in December of 2008, Obama had to present credentials proving his eligibility.  His passport was presented and accepted, the same as with  Bush before him.

          Do me a favor buddy, request a copy of your birth certificate from the state of your birth and post it here.  Just block out the record number  to protect your privacy.

          I double dare you.  

          • bjwilson83 says:

            so I don’t have to deal with that level of public scrutiny. I’d consider if I had it with me but I’m not going to go the trouble of requesting it just to satisfy your curiosity. And FYI, a passport is not the same as a birth certificate. Pretty sure that if you are a naturalized (not natural born) citizen you can get a passport.

            • dwyer says:

              as proof of eligibility to be sworn in as president.

              Maybe if you don’t like the way we do things in this country, you could move to another one….

              You need to familiarize yourself with the various formats and verification used by states for birth certificates.  The best way is to request a copy of your own from the state of your birth, particularly since you don’t have it with you.  Particularly, if everyone has to start carrying proof of where they were born…..

              But, I am now going to sign off, kid.  This conversation will go nowhere. You are a bit weak in the facts department,IMHO.

    • bjwilson83 says:

      on Caplis and Silverman today. Just to give you an idea, this was Silverman’s response: “That was a hell of an interview!”

  15. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    I don’t listen to this talk radio crap typically, plus I’m tone deaf and can’t really tell anyone’s voice apart besides Tancredo. Who is saying what and what did Wadhams lie about it?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.