McInnis Pushed Out?

The results have changed too.

Holtzman stayed in but McInnis bailed.  I can hear Wadhams' order to McInnis, "Don't go away mad, Scotty, but . . . ."

---

by: Cuervo71 @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:08:27 AM CDT

Holtzman...

was also the worst effing gov. candidate in Colorado history.  Might just have had something to do with why he was pushed out.

"Good judgement comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgement" - Jim Horning

---

by: Fidel's dirt nap @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:32:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But he wasn't pushed out.

He stayed in until the bitter end and suffered the embarassment of submitting too few petition signatures to get on the primary ballot.

---

by: Cuervo71 @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:49:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

True

Those were the days.  One good thing I can say about Holtzy is he was a good constant source of material.

"Good judgement comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgement" - Jim Horning

---

by: Fidel's dirt nap @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 15:04:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With the Godfather, Bill Armstrong, supporting Schaffer

as well as Schaffer and Wadhams being long time associates and friends, McInnis was at the very least nudged out of the race.  When you factor in Social Conservatives like Dobson it's easy to imagine a heavy hand pushing McInnis toward the exit door.  Factor in the nice job and, I'm sure, a nice income providing a soft landing, getting out was an easy option whether pushed or nudged.

The Fiscal Conservatives influence in the party is now offically on the sidelines. However, We can expect a full court press hiding Schaffer the Social Conservative behind an extreme make-over morphing him into Schaffer The Fiscal Conservative as his handlers move him toward the political center.  They'll be smoothing out more wrinkles than a botox spa. 

---

by: puddin @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:13:11 AM CDT

Didn't Armstrong back Schaffer in 2004 too?

Only to see Owens flip-flop and back Coors.  Armstrong is no Midas.

---

by: Cuervo71 @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:15:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And Owens is no longer Governor

---

by: puddin @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:23:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and apparently Owens now has less influence than Armstrong???

---

by: mr science @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:38:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

wasn't that always the case........j/k

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:28:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fiscal Cons on the Sidelines?

Bob Schaffer is living proof that it`s entirely possible for someone to be both a fiscal and a social conservative.  Why this is so hard for some to understand is beyond me.  Club for Growth and Focus on the Family will both be happy with candidate and Senator Schaffer.

---

by: Sean McConeghy @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 13:23:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Problem

But the problem with this is that Club for Growth and Focus on the Family represent maybe 30% of the voting public in Colorado.  What this means is that Schaffer has no where to go with his right wing views.  Becasue, lots of Fiscal Conservatives (who aren't drown government in the bath tub conservatives) and who aren't social conservatives at all simply won't consider voting for Schaffer and their ilk any longer.  Welcome Senator Udall.

---

by: Craig @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 13:39:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But the problem with this is that Club for Growth and Focus on the Family represent maybe 30% of the voting public in Colorado

  According to some of the wing nuts, if that 30% is energized enough, it's sufficient to win the election.
  Granted, these are also the people who believe that human beings decended from Adam's rib, and many of whom still believe that the earth is flat.
  Science and math were not their strong subjects when it school.......

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 13:53:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Many also believe

that dinosaur bones and other ancient fossils were planted there by God to test our faith, and that the earth is maybe 10,000 years old at the most.

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 13:58:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You mean I didn't descend from Adam's rib?

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 14:33:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, just Katherine Hepburn. n/t

---

by: Poindexter @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 15:58:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's about 40-50%

If 40% believe that evolution is a load of hooey that means the social conservative contingent in Colorado is probably close to 40%.  Then you factor in the Jon Caldara types and you have close to a majority.  Problem is that they have failed to coalesce around a candidate lately.  That won't happen with Bob Schaffer.

---

by: Dr. Dobson has God-like qualities @ Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 07:55:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is not

good for Udall.  This is a good move for the state party to make, maybe.

I think it shows that Wad-hams is definitely taking a strong leadership role in the party right now, BUT will it cause resentment?

Although I respect Udall, does he have what it takes to run against Schaffer in a state that already has one democratic Senator?  Colorado dems need to take Wad-hams seriously and start preparing themselves for a VERY tough senate race.

"Thousands are sailing, across the western ocean, to a land of opportunity, that some of them will never see . . ."

- The Pogues

---

by: Druid @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:36:44 AM CDT

Disagree

I think Schaffer is an easier opponent for Udall than McInnis would have been.

And Udall showed his toughness in his first race for Congress in 1998 against Greenlee.  If he's still got that fire, he'll do fine against Schaffer/Wadhams.  No way Wadhams can dress Schaffer up to look like a moderate.

---

by: mr science @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 11:46:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No way. This is great news for Udall.

McInnis was a politically viable statewide candidate as a non-bible-thumping Republican.  Schaffer will pretend to be the same, but it won't work, and will only erode his base support.

(Hint to the Schaffer campaign: you can keep removing the fact that your guy lost to Pete "DUI" Coors on Bob's wikipedia page, but that doesn't actually change history.)


"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 14:52:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

??

Your last statement suggests that you frequent Bob Schaffers wikipedia page.....ummmmmm why?

---

by: John Galt @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 17:59:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Viability...

You're looking at things the wrong way.  Bob Schaffer's social conservatism is not viable in Boulder or Denver.  ANY conservative is not viable in those areas.  But outside of those doldrums of liberal morass--in other words, when you get to where most Coloradans live--Schaffer's ideas and values are likely to help him more than hurt him.  Even if a majority disagree with his social views--which, of course, polls and last year's election prove to be simply false--I'm not sure that will sink him when he's up against somebody like Udall.  Udall is as far left as Schaffer is right.  That means that if Colorado is truly center-right, barring any major campaign mishaps, Schaffer will win.

---

by: Dr. Dobson has God-like qualities @ Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:00:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No one is ever "pushed"...

... if they think they can win. 

In other words, did Scotty see some bad numbers?

---

by: Syzygystic @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:22:35 PM CDT

And if McLobbyist saw the writing on the wall,

who's willing to the be GOP's "good soldier" next year and go down fighting?  Bob Schaffer seems to me not to have that perspective on his own party--he's been entirely willing to split certain factions.

But if he runs, I'd say he's facing worse numbers than what scared McInnis off.

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 14:54:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

have Condom Bob and Ramey Johnson buried the hatchet yet?

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 16:56:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Completely Wrong

State party had nothing to do with McInnis bowing out.  If you want to point fingers, point them at the NRSC.

---

by: John Galt @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:58:48 PM CDT

followed the numbers

Indeed. McInnis just followed the numbers NRSC gave him: he'd fail in a primary against Schaffer and even Suthers or Coffman.  Why spend 3 mil in a losing primary?  He did the right thing.

---

by: roll the idiots @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 13:06:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even if this was state party's call...

(and I happen to agree there's no proof)...the Rs can't afford a Senate primary and should be looking at Beauprez-Holtzman not as a mistake they're repeating but a lesson as to why they need to get their candidates set and spend their money on winning an actual election.  How many elections did Beauprez's ultimately disastrous campaign cost, or at least widen the margin for, on the down ticket?  You could argue that Hillman, O'Donnell, and Davidson all took brutal hits. 

...history does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak and the timid. –Eisenhower

---

by: Publius @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 13:14:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well John Galt, you correctly guessed McInnis' departure

so I'm assuming you have some inside scoop.  Or you are psychic.  Can I get your lottery number picks for Saturday?

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 14:41:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

funny...

...everyone knew he would get out.  It was just a question of "when?". 

No conspiracy here, guys.  Move along.

---

by: roll the idiots @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 15:19:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not me...

I was shocked... Even with everything that kept coming out about him, I thought he would pull a Slim Pickens and ride it all the way in. He had all of the Coors folks on board and just seemed to talk like it was his birthright.

However, I am relieved. In my heart of hearts, I'm still a Schafferite.

---

by: Iron_Mike @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 15:50:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was shocked too

(and I'm still waiting for the answer to Lauren's question about the lottery numbers...)

---

by: mr science @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 16:46:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lauren your lottery #'s are 4-15-07

;o)
I have a little political blog that a buddy and I run.  Check it out some time, we try to have fun with it and would enjoy the feedback.  We have correctly predicted the sun setting 6 out of the last 7 nights, so we are pretty much a big deal to say the least.
www.coloradoconservativeproject.blogspot.com

---

by: John Galt @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 17:54:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're good John Galt!

That's like 85% accuracy!

You could be off a little on those lottery numbers though, they look a little scary to me.

I'll check out that blog though.  I have a feeling I'd feel at home at "John Galt's" place:)

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 18:23:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, he had to get forced out. NOT!

This is funny. It's almost as funny as DemoGirl's demented ravings.
Why is the assumption that he was forced out? Like the fact that he jumped into the race while on vacation in Mexico, he hired Phase Line to lose another race for the Colorado GOP, he didn't bother talking to any party activists until February, his tepid reception at political events in February and the fact that Schaffer, Suthers and Coffman get standing ovations when they speak and Scotty just gets golf claps had nothing to do with it?
Please... There has been a rumor all month long than NRSC had a poll showing him getting creamed by Udall but Schaffer being competitive.
AND... Nobody likes the guy. I was shocked at the "Paint the State Red" dinner how few of the West Slopers actually like the guy. One person will tell you he is lazy, the next says he is a hot head with temper on a hair trigger. One will tell you he is Pro-Life, the other that he is Pro-Choice. Did he support Ref A? Ask someone from Brush and the answer is yes, ask someone from Grand Junction and it's no.
McInnis has bigger problems than not being loved by Dick Wadhams.

---

by: Splitting Hairs @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 13:22:54 PM CDT

I don't buy it

You don't just drop out of a race because a poll conducted 18 months before the election show you losing.  There is more here than a bad poll.  Personal scandal?  Fund raising problems?  Inside deal within the party?

---

by: jmatt12 @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 14:39:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You mean other than...

Not being liked in general and seeming to have no inherent base among party faithful... At least that is what I read in Splits little diatribe.

Sounds like it had very little to do with a poll and a lot to do with little known scandals and/or well known associations with the scandalous.

And if I recall, Splits is a Republican who was awfully critical of Both Ways Bob... Like I said, they're learning.

---

by: Boulder County Goldwater Democrat @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 14:57:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not liked, but often reelected

"Nobody likes the guy." "McInnis has bigger problems than not being loved by Dick Wadhams."
One group that seemed to like him somewhat were the 'registered unaffiliated.' Of course, one seldom hears much from them during party wing-dings. It seems that not many in the state Republican party have noticed that the Grand Junction Republicans seem to like to dine upon their own livers. Armstrong's hardcorps may do well in CD-4 and CD-5 -- maybe even in CD-6; but along those rivers that join in Grand Junction, they are indeed just that - a hardcorp outnumbered by the unaffiliated.
I speculate that McInnis discovered that the Armstrong / Wadhams hardcorp controls the party apparatus and that gaining the nomination by jumping through the hoops of the religious right for a politically correctness certification or by moblizing a interparty fight simply is not worth it. First off, either of those two routes is going to drive large numbers of the unaffiliated over to the Democrats. Secondly, what do the polls say are the issues on the minds of the voters? What Armstrong and Focus on [?] are focused on is now way down that list. The Republican candidate has to talk about what the voters are intersted in or rely on dirty tricks. McInnis found out that the nomination is securely in the hands of the hardcorp which doesn't care about what the voters are thinking about because it can always fall back on dirty tricks. McInnis may be short on smarts, but I credit him with some backbone. That's in short supply in some Republican circles.

---

by: BaldJim @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:10:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

The fixation on one US Senate seat may come at the cost of ignoring the state House and Senate races in 2008.

Congress and the US Senate seat counts are close enough that nothing of substance happens at the federal level. Can anyone name a federal law that passed in 2007 that  anyone cared about?  Sexy non-binding resolutions that make headlines, but, at the end of the day, mostly inaction by our folks in DC.

Correcting the imbalance in the Colorado Assembly in 2008 is what the CO Republican party ought to be focused on.  A Democrat dominated House and Senate can pass whatever it wants in Colorado, and unless things change in 2008, all Colorado Republicans can really do is watch.  Republicans may not be able to count on Ritter to veto the next HB 1072.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.  Thomas Jefferson

---

by: bpilgram @ Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 17:18:22 PM CDT

Last paragraph comments

And what it in 2003 and before?  Balanced?  NOT.  Rarely are legislative bodies "balanced."

Wrong, look at what happened with 1072.

Watch?  Like the Dems mostly did for the last 40 years?  The R's can get on board with what the public cares about: the environment, jobs, health care, alternative energy, etc. Not the old program of concealed carry, demolishing public education, and prying into Colorado bedrooms.

The R's could offer a lot of constructive ideas, benefit from strong Republican support in the wind energy eastern plains.

My bedroom is boring, anyway.  Sigh. 

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 23:52:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]