THURSDAY UPDATE #4: This is all becoming really very silly. Former Senate President, and Republican right-wing standard bearer, John Andrews issued this statement this morning:
This morning I called Dan Maes to withdraw my endorsement and urge him to end his candidacy, for the public good. As a conscientious Republican who earlier voted for Dan, I cannot support a manifestly unfit nominee. He has flunked his job interview with the people of Colorado in the weeks since Scott McInnis faded. The party should cut Maes loose if he does not resign the nomination. I intend to write in a vote for Jane Norton for Governor. [Pols emphasis]
Jane Norton? This makes perfect sense. Try to kick out someone who won the Republican primary in order to replace him with someone who lost a primary election of her own. We've absolutely reached the point where this is causing more harm than good for Republicans, whether or not they can convince Maes to withdraw.
-----
THURSDAY UPDATE #3: There is a Gubernatorial debate scheduled to be taped today at Noon as a joint production between Colorado Public Television (CPT12) and CBS 4. The debate is scheduled to air at 9:00 p.m. tomorrow, which could be a bit odd if Maes did withdraw from the race.
-----
THURSDAY UPDATE #2: Moments ago, Dan Maes posted this defiant-sounding update to his Facebook page. Does this read like a man about to pull out of this race?
THURSDAY UPDATE: The Colorado Statesman'sJody Strogoff confirms much of this story in a detailed must-read report this morning: renewed pressure to withdraw, a few days of expressed leeway by the Secretary of State's office should a vacancy committee be necessary, and a twist you may not have expected: Bob Beauprez waiting in the wings?
Colorado gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes has already overcome a significant cash dearth to win once this election cycle, but now Republican leaders are warning that without a fast injection of cash, his campaign might be doomed.
In a recent e-mail to grassroots Republicans forwarded to POLITICO, the president of Denver's Coalition for a Conservative Majority said Maes's campaign was teetering on the brink due to anemic cash flow.
"Dick Wadhams informed us that the Maes campaign is on the verge of collapse due to lack of campaign funding. If you are a Dan Maes supporter, be aware that his campaign desperately needs donations even more than it needs volunteers to work," wrote coalition president Jack Ott, referencing comments made by state party chair Dick Wadhams at recent meeting.
In a separate e-mail to a conservative listserv, Colorado 9-12 Project leader Lu Busse wrote that Maes "in particular needs money," and suggested that a big cash infusion from grassroots members could help spur rank-and-file establishment Republicans and "big money" players to get off the sidelines.
Busse went on to say that statewide Republican candidates like Maes would likely need a million votes to win, more than double the number of Republicans who turned out to vote in the primary. "Persuading 2.5 times that many to vote for the candidates will not be possible in the next 10 weeks without money for direct mail and other advertising . . . This is not being negative, this is accepting reality and changing our tactics/actions based upon the situation," Busse wrote. [Pols emphasis]
We love that last quote from 9-12 Project Leader Lu Busse that they might want to "change their tactics" to include more fundraising. Whatever gave you that idea? Who gave up the secret that you can't win elections with just "Don't Tread on Me" flags and message boards?
Through the July 28 cutoff period for the last fundraising reports, GOP gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes had less than $24,000 in the bank. We've always said that this is one of the main problems with Republicans kowtowing to the Tea Party and 9-12 groups of the world; sure, they're loud and they show up at events, but taken as a whole, they are more of a hindrance than a help. Republicans like Senate nominee Ken Buck have had to move as far to the right as possible in order to win their support in a Primary, but once the General Election comes, they become a humongous albatross. They insist that Buck and Maes take positions that won't help them much with swing voters, but they don't do squat to help them raise money to appeal to anyone other than the Tea Party. You can see this muddled line of thinking in the quote above, as though it just now became clear that raising money might be helpful.
Of course, even if the Tea Party folks could help raise money, there's no guarantee that Maes would know what to do with it, as a former staffer tells Politico:
"There were just red flags all over the place. It was real clear to me he didn't have any personal money. His wife was running the campaign money," said Ross, who left the campaign in March. "He doesn't know how to manage $5. He won't be able to raise money. He can't raise money because people are finding out what a joke he is."
Okay Polsters, it's time for your nominations for the "Worst Political Week in Colorado."
The last time we ran this post, two weeks ago, Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhamswas declared the winner (or loser).
We'll put a couple of the more obvious selections up for a vote (including Wadhams, the current "champion"), but please chime in with your suggestions. And try to make them creative -- sure, it was a bad week for Andrew Romanoff and Jane Norton, but who else???
Our selection for this week's "Worst Week in Colorado" is Josh Penry, campaign manager for Norton's failed U.S. Senate bid. Not only did his candidate lose (despite being the clear favorite for a long time), but the surprising victory of Dan Maes in the GOP Gubernatorial Primary makes it unlikely that Republicans will be replacing their candidate for Governor with someone else (which, potentially, could have opened the door for Penry to take over as the GOP nominee).
These days, Colorado Republican Chairman Dick Wadhams is about as popular among Republicans as a gay illegal immigrant couple. Wadhams came to Colorado with a reputation as a clever political strategist, but as he has bungled one election after another (and is now facing angry Republicans who want him out), that strategic mind has been called into question.
Take, for example, this idiotic letter that Wadhams sent today to CSU Chancellor Joe Blake regarding Joe Garcia, the CSU-Pueblo President and new running mate for Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper:
Colorado taxpayers should not pay Joe Garcia's state salary and benefits while he runs around the state pursuing his political ambitions at the expense of CSU-Pueblo. Joe Garcia has decided his political ambitions are more important than his responsibilities as president of CSU-Pueblo.
Joe Garcia should be honest with Colorado taxpayers and either withdraw his candidacy for lieutenant governor or he should resign as president of CSU-Pueblo...
...But Colorado taxpayers will be the ones who pay dearly for Joe Garcia's political ambitions if they continue to foot the bill for his salary and benefits as president of CSU-Pueblo as he spends his time and energy seeking political office.
To say that you shouldn't be paid by the state of Colorado while running for office is, of course, absurd, since this very thing has been happening in Colorado for...well, forever. Should Ken Buck resign his position as Weld County District Attorney in order to run for the U.S. Senate? After all, he's taking a salary from Colorado taxpayers at the same time he is running for another office!
This is silly, and a waste of time, for Wadhams to try to rile up this issue of taking a taxpayer-funded salary while running for office. Because if it applies to Garcia, then it should apply to everyone else in a similar position.
In the Washington Post's The Fix there was a quote by Dick Wadhams, GOP Party chair for Colorado:
"Tom Tancredo's arrogant decision to go ahead and get in the election today ensures that enough votes will be siphoned off the Republican candidate that Hickenlooper will win," Wadhams said.
THURSDAY UPDATE: A true-life case of biting the hand that feeds you, says the Colorado Independent:
State Rep and 4th District Congressional candidate Cory Gardner dissed Republican National Committee Chairman Michel Steele at a Fort Collins 9/12 group last week. Gardner told locals asking for the controversial Chairman's head to call Party leaders and complain. "It's happening" he said, meaning there was a move on to can Steele, a prodigious fundraiser but also a flash-point kind of figure, who spends extravagantly on himself and has taken heat lately for allowing RNC officials to treat young big donors to strip-club outings.
Yet Gardner has benefited enormously from the support of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which early in the race named him to its "Young Guns" program and has been key in Gardner's impressive fundraising totals all year. Turns out Steele's Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee set up a joint fundraising committee this month that will pool donor lists and inject mega cash into key House races, like the one between Gardner and Democrat Betsy Markey.
After all the effort and credibility Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams has put into defending Republican National Committee chair Michael Steelelately, it's got to be tough to watch CD-4 candidate Cory Gardner -- fast becoming the undisputed king of self-inflicted wounds -- casually throw Steele to the "Tea Party" lions. Here's a transcript of what you're listening to above, recorded at a "9/12 Movement" candidate forum in Fort Collins last week:
9/12 Audience Member: How can we get rid of Michael Steele? I'd like to get rid of him.
Cory Gardner: You know, I think it's happening.
9/12 Audience Member: I've sent two letters.
Cory Gardner: You know what, I think we have. [Pols emphasis] Call up Mark Hillman and Lilly Nunez, our national party committeeman and woman who make the decisions. Neither Lilly nor Hillman voted for him to be chairman. So don't blame them. Mark Hillman and Lilly Nunez, our national committeeman and national committeewoman.
Gardner might want to go ahead and give Dick Wadhams a call to mend fences--there's a difference between idly joining the bandwagon ("Birther" flirtations) and saying things that might actually jeopardize relationships. Then again, maybe Wadhams isn't the one Gardner needs to call, as Dick's a big boy and the discussion did turn inevitably to Jane Norton's Referendum C...
Cory Gardner: Well, Referendum C. Remember in 2005, Referendum C was a measure that was sent to the voters. And it asked voters whether they wanted to take a "5 year time out" from TABOR. Meaning that the state would get to keep all excess funds and tax revenue and they wouldn't refund it us. When the legislature referred, and I was not in the legislature at the time, if I was I would have voted no...
Because, you know, letting the voters vote on tax increases is, uh, not what TABOR is about. How do they keep these talking points straight, anyway? You're right, though, Gardner won't need to call Norton, because Norton's defensive tackle Josh Penry has already got this on his calendar. Or maybe the plan is for Gardner and Norton to never appear together on the same stage? We suppose they can try just try glossing over this little difference of opinion when they do, but the 9/12ers might not find that very believable.
Honestly with that headline we feel like we can clock out for the day, but go ahead and check out the Washington Post's report from Tuesday:
The Republican National Committee and its chairman, Michael S. Steele, were engulfed in controversy again Monday after new financial reports showed that the party used tens of thousands of donor dollars for luxe hotels, private jets and other questionable expenditures...
Although it is not unusual for either party to spend money in tony settings to cater to wealthy donors, the RNC's latest filings captured widespread attention for one expenditure at a risque nightclub: $1,946.25 for "meals" at Voyeur in West Hollywood, which features topless dancers wearing horse bridles and other bondage gear while mimicking sex acts.
The committee fired an unidentified staff member as a result of the disbursement and emphasized Monday that Steele had not visited the club and was not aware of the expenditure. The reimbursement went to Erik Brown, a Southern California GOP donor who has spent time with Steele in the past and whose marketing firm has earned more than $160,000 from the RNC and other Republican committees...
Mark DeMoss, a major RNC donor during George W. Bush's presidency who heads a Christian public-relations firm in Atlanta, said that spending so lavishly during an economic downturn is "mind-boggling." "Virtually the entire country -- from big businesses to small business -- had to make cutbacks," he said. "To think the Republican Party wouldn't do the same thing, I think, suggests either a tone-deafness or just that they don't care, which would maybe be worse."
But others defended Steele and his financial record and pointed to GOP success in recent elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. "You do have to spend money to raise money," said Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado GOP. "I'll give Chairman Steele the benefit of the doubt on spending on major donors." [Pols emphasis]
An RNC investigation of the incident found that the Voyeur party was attended by a group of young Republicans who had been at an official party "Young Eagles" event at the Beverly Hills Hotel the same night, according to an internal memo obtained by The Washington Post. The Young Eagles is an RNC program to cultivate 30-to-40-year-olds as major future donors. [Pols emphasis]
Really? If ever there was a time to say "No comment," this was it for Wadhams. If you honestly can't say that this was not a good idea, then just don't say anything at all.
UPDATE: We've really got to shoehorn a mention of the Hooters Girls at the "Tea Party Express" yesterday somewhere, and this seems to be as good a place as any.
UPDATE:Denver Postreports that the last of the big three candidates besides Hickenlooper--Rep. Ed Perlmutter--will not enter the gubernatorial race. Perlmutter may be pulling his name out of the mix in advance of a Hickenlooper announcement, as many politicians do so as not to look like a second choice. If for some reason Hickenlooper does not run, the most discussed (and strongest) candidates for Democrats are Treasurer Cary Kennedy, Rep. Betsy Markey and former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. We'd be surprised, however, if Hickenlooper is not the Democratic candidate at this point.
While no public decision has been made as of yet regarding the race for Governor, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams seems to think that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper will be the Democratic candidate. We've written before that we think Hickenlooper will eventually enter the race, and the state GOP is already trying to get out in front of any potential announcement.
In a press release sent out today, Wadhams calls Hickenlooper "Hickenritter" and speculates that Hick would be identical to Gov. Bill Ritter in several ways. Republicans are obviously concerned about a potential Hickenlooper candidacy, because when he was passed over for Michael Bennet when the latter was appointed to the U.S. Senate last year, they openly stated that Hick would have been tough to defeat in 2010.
I'm guessing John Hickenlooper has name ID that rivals the governor's, maybe exceeds the governor's. I'm guessing that John Hickenlooper has 4:1 favorable/unfavorables statewide. There isn't enough money in the world to peel that down to 1:1 - to where you could maybe beat him.
John Hickenlooper could claim - he won't do it because he's got enough humility to not do it - but he could claim that the DNC was successful in large part because of his efforts to raise the money. He not only has a Rolodex with names in it, they are successful names.
John could raise more money and be more easily elected. His appointment would have taken that seat almost completely off the table. I don't know what John could have done to make it truly competitive. [Pols emphasis]
Here's what Wadhams had to say about Hickenlooper in December 2008, when Hick was being considered as a replacement in the U.S. Senate for Ken Salazar:
Dick Wadhams, the state GOP chairman, conceded that Hickenlooper "is immensely popular as the mayor of Denver" but said "he'll look a lot different after two years of votes in the U.S. Senate."
These two quotes highlight exactly why many observers, including Colorado Pols, see Hickenlooper as such a strong potential candidate. As we wrote in The Big Line, Hickenlooper has great name ID and is a prolific fundraiser, which are probably the two most important qualities you could have as a candidate for statewide office. That doesn't make him a shoo-in for Governor, but at the very least he would enter the race with an advantage over Republican Scott McInnis on both fronts.
State Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams says he's not leaving Colorado to try to unseat Democratic Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada.
A blog run by Reid opponents reported that Wadhams was in Las Vegas recently and was considering moving there to help former Nevada GOP chair Sue Lowden oppose Reid, the Senate majority leader.
Wadhams said Tuesday that he isn't moving to Nevada to help Lowden. However, he said he did visit with Lowden and her supporters recently to talk about his success unseating former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in South Dakota in 2004.
Almost three weeks ago, the Denver Post reported that former congressman Scott McInnis "privately" had announced his intentions to run for Governor. You know, privately, as in "reported by the Denver Post" from a GOP state party function. Which seems not very "private" at all, being the talk of the GOP's biggest annual event, and reported in the state's newspaper of record--we'll revisit that in a moment.
A couple of days ago, word circulated of a letter sent by McInnis to lots of registered Republicans, asking for "advice" solving the "problems" facing the GOP and Colorado in general. This letter didn't explictly say "I'm going to run for Governor," but it was clearly intended to plant his name in people's minds.
An "enthusiastic" supporter of Scott Mc Innis has registered six political domain names for the former congressman, including ScottMcInnisforGovernor.com.
Another name is ScottMcInnisforColorado.com.
McInnis told friends and supporters he is running for the GOP nomination for governor in 2010 but has yet to make a formal announcement.
The domain names were registered by Joshua Green of Colorado Springs. Green and McInnis' former chief of staff, Mike Hess, last year worked together on Bentley Rayburn's congressional campaign...
We don't know about you, but do you buy the "enthusiastic supporter who just happens to be a seasoned campaign worker" bit for a moment? Didn't think so. Because you're not stupid.
This is where we turn it over for discussion--kind of like Bob Schaffer'sendless stalling of his "formal" announcement that he was running for Senate--how long do they get to "unofficially" set up their campaigns, when everybody knows that's what they're doing, before they have to file papers and report donations like everybody else? When does that clock start ticking, or more to the point, when should it?
We'd say the question is worth asking any time these guys try to pull this "shadow campaign" stuff, a seeming favored tactic of nervous Republicans these days--but in the case of McInnis and his history of questionable campaign fund expenditures, we'd say it's doubly worth asking. Because as we've said repeatedly, we'll believe McInnis is running only when he starts a formal campaign for governor, starts raising money, and starts going around the state as a candidate. Until then...this is just another in a long list of races that McInnis has "strong interest" in running for.
Perhaps the moment you've all been waiting for--given Scott McInnis' track record of expressing 'interest' in running for everything, from the U.S. Senate to Mesa County dogcatcher (and the Grand Junction Sentinel's rush to print a story anytime McInnis farts), we'll only fully believe it when the Secretary of State gets the papers. But no question there's intense jockeying going on behind the scenes in the GOP right now, as the Grand Junction Sentinel reports:
The battle for the Republican nomination for governor in 2010 could be a Western Slope affair, pitting former Congressman Scott McInnis against his onetime aide, Josh Penry.
McInnis, who retired from Congress in 2004 after six terms representing the 3rd District, is interested in the job, as is Penry, now the minority leader in the state Senate.
Penry served for a time as McInnis' spokesman in Washington, D.C., before returning to the Grand Valley to run for the state Legislature.
Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said he was aware of interest by both men in the opportunity to run against incumbent Democrat Bill Ritter of Denver.
"They're both terribly formidable people," Wadhams said...
The thing is, they're not--at least one of them isn't. Handpicked by Wadhams, Josh Penry's brief tenure as Senate Minority Leader has nevertheless been an unqualified disaster, from mismanaged public embarrassments to an "opposition" strategy that gained his party no sympathy--if anything the opposite of sympathy--with either the public or the media. If this was supposed to be the big test of Penry's mettle, paving his way to a Bobby Jindal-style meteoric rise, well, spectacular fail.
On the other hand, as the Sentinel continues:
McInnis said Tuesday he still has political ambitions and, "My focus is more on the governor's seat."
...he's not interested in the Senate seat occupied by Denver Democrat Michael Bennet, McInnis said.
"My interest is not there," he said. "I came home (to Colorado), and I'm staying home."
Nobody can forget the moment of high drama one week before the last election, when McInnis broke his silence about the way he was forced out of the Senate race in favor of Chairman Dick Wadhams' pal and GOP insider-anointed candidate Bob Schaffer. You'll recall that Wadhams "strongly disputed" McInnis' accusations, and within a week every Republican elder statesman in Colorado was penning guest editorials denouncing McInnis with eerie Mao-style unanimity.
Well, dear reader, a few days from the GOP state party reorganization, Wadhams has a credible challenger and Scott McInnis just might have enough backlash behind him to make people forget all about that paying the wife to run your fictional campaign thing and seriously consider him for governor. Until Marc Holtzman reminds them in a big glossy mailer, of course. We digress.
Bottom line: If the last few weeks have proven anything, it's that Josh Penry is not anywhere near ready to head up a ticket. What he needs is several more years to mature and a more statesmanlike haircut--we're serious about this, it's unelectably bad, a mullet kept in check with a beard trimmer. And what Wadhams needs, assuming he survives the weekend, is to realize that he's no longer the kingmaker of the Colorado Republican Party--and the choice of who will top the 2010 ticket is no longer his to dictate.
As for McInnis, what he needs is to stop talking about races he might possibly one day perhaps potentially consider. Because he's starting to look more than a little silly "expressing interest" in virtually anything.
A message just sent out to conservative activists:
Subject: "Save Our State" sent you a message on Facebook...
Tom Stone sent a message to the members of Save Our State.
--------------------
Subject: An opportunity to serve
I have officially announced today that I am running to be the Chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. My interest in Saving Our State is sincere. During these turbulent times we must all put our shoulders to the wheel and put our talents to their best use.
This is for real, folks--Tom Stone is a former Eagle County commissioner and, though less-known than some other candidates whose names surfaced a few months ago, can certainly be considered a credible challenge to current chair Dick Wadhams. That being the case, it's a major development--our first thought is that the last few weeks of disastrous message management by GOP leadership may have shifted the dynamic, where Wadhams had previously more or less suppressed his critics.
Former Eagle County, Colorado Commissioner Tom Stone announced Friday he will run for the state Republican Party Chair.
"I've been very alarmed and concerned about the path that Colorado has been on for the last three cycles - that Republicans have continued to lose people in representation throughout the state," Stone, of Gypsum, said. [Pols emphasis]
Stone has been a real estate broker for the last 32 years, except for the eight year period he served as a commissioner from 1998 to 2006.
He and his wife, Henri, have lived in Eagle County for the last 25 years.
SATURDAY UPDATE: Coffman isn't interested. As the Rocky Mountain News reports:
Some Colorado Republicans want Secretary of State Mike Coffman to step down in the next two weeks so another Republican can run for that office this November.
Their strategy is to stop Democrats from controlling the office for the next two years.
But Coffman, the Republican candidate in the 6th Congressional District race, said Friday that he will stay in office through the November election or beyond...
Coffman's decision to run for Congress prompted opposition by local Republicans who don't want the Secretary of State's Office, which has long been occupied by Republicans, to go to a Democrat.
Some Republicans want Coffman to step down before Aug. 28. That would prompt a special election in November between a Republican candidate and the Democratic appointee named by Gov. Bill Ritter to run the office until then.
Obviously, the possibility of retaining the SoS in November beats the certainty of losing it--Coffman's swift resignation would be the right thing to do if his interest was in party over principle. But that's kind of the point, Coffman is the moral and strategic victor now over the would-be kingmakers who tried to stop his run for Congress. He doesn't have to quit on a schedule that accommodates them, and we seriously doubt he will--it would be a violation of his sacred Marine honor or something. He intends to finish the job of managing the 2008 elections and then go to Congress in January. If you can also interpret that as a fat middle finger directed at the party insiders who lined up to endorse his vastly inferior pipsqueak of an opponent, we expect Coffman is cool with your interpretation.
In fact, we would bet money that the lavishing of praise on GOP chairman Dick Wadhams seen in yesterday's appeal for Coffman to resign (original post below) only increased Coffman's resolve to tell Wadhams which orifice he can shove his proxy-delivered "suggestions" up.
--
We've gotten some strange and interesting emails in our time, but this one may take the cake.
The email below appears to have come from Dan Kopelman, the same Dan Kopelman who got Secretary of State Mike Coffman into trouble for a variety of reasons.
The email below was forwarded to us, and it seems to outline a plan for how Republicans can hold onto the SOS office despite Coffman's pending resignation once he is formally elected to congress in CD-6 in November. According to the email, Republicans could convene a vacancy committee before August 28 and...well, we don't really follow exactly, so we'll leave it up to the bigger brains in the room to figure this out.
But what makes this email a double-doozy is the weird deification of GOP Party Czar Dick Wadhams. Click below for the email...
From the campaign that just keeps giving, the Sentinel is reporting breaking news on its website:
An oil contract Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer helped negotiate in Iraqi Kurdistan is one of several production deals the U.S. State Department has flagged as problematic for Iraq and its attempts to establish a national oil policy.
Poor Mr. Wadhams, he sure does know how to pick 'em!
Congressmen like Mark Udall have essentially shut down domestic oil exploration for the last 20 years.
DickWad. from 9News
20 years?
But Udall was first elected in 1998.
Shut down?
But drilling permits have QUADRUPLED in Colorado over the last several years, and natural gas reserves in the U.S. are at an all-time high. Since 1998, tens of thousands of acres in CO have been leased for oil shale, mining permits (many for uranium) have spiked 400% (just since 2003).
Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams is really mad that he can't get the press to do his bidding, so he's resorted to bullying and threats in hopes of getting the media to pretend his candidate for Senate, Bob Schaffer, doesn't have any warts at all. Wadhams and Schaffer shamelessly attacked and belittled a blog reporter a few weeks ago, and Wadhams just recently did the same thing to a reporter for The Grand Junction Sentinel.
Newspaper editors and political reporters don't need a calendar to tell them that it's an even-numbered year. Even-numbered years are election years. We can tell that because those are the years when we get complaints from politicians and their handlers. It's as predictable as Rick Wagner staking out a position to the right of just about everybody else.
We got a couple this week, and I think they are instructive. One was nothing more than a political handler trying to bully a reporter, the other a legitimate question about why we failed to do something. One was ugly, the other a genuine discussion between people who saw the same thing differently.
First the ugly.
Early in the week Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall proposed the government quit stockpiling gas in the strategic petroleum reserve.
Reporter Mike Saccone, as any good reporter would do, called Udall's opponent to get a response. Republican Bob Schaffer is very seldom available. He called Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager. I don't think he ever even got to tell Wadhams why he was calling. The minute Wadhams got on the phone he launched into Mike, telling him he was a biased reporter, that he's taken cheap shots at Schaffer and asking when we were going to do the same thing to Udall. I listened to the tape of the conversation. Mike seldom got to complete a question. Every time he tried Wadhams interrupted with yet another complaint about Mike and/or our coverage. He did manage to ask Wadhams for specific instances of biased reporting or cheap shots and Wadhams provided none.
The exchange was amusing. I don't know what Wadhams was trying to accomplish other than to try to get our reporter to go easier on his candidate in future stories. Whatever it was it will have no effect whatsoever on how we cover the Senate race. We'll continue to cover it as completely and fairly as possible.
This has always been a part of Wadhams' repertoire - to attack reporters either directly or through a surrogate in attempts to shame them into reporting more on his opponent than on his own candidate. It worked well when he did it through the use of bloggers in the 2004 South Dakota defeat of Tom Daschle, but it doesn't appear to be working in Colorado, where conservative blogs don't really have the reach or the respectability that they may have had in other states.
There's a fine line between strategy and flat-out rude bullying, and Wadhams has definitely crossed that line. Here's hoping reporters around the state don't fall into the trap of Wadhams' intentional belittling and end up turning over their lunch money to him.
Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is still doing his best to avoid talking about anything. As Mike Saccone of The Grand Junction Sentinel writes in his "Political Notebook":
As nearly every major political figure in Colorado sounded off Thursday on the Bureau of Land Management's decision to disregard Gov. Bill Ritter's widely praised plan to develop the Roan Plateau, Senate candidate Bob Schaffer as silent on the issue.
Multiple messages Political Notebook left with Schaffer's chief campaign adviser, Dick Wadhams, have gone unanswered...
...We have written before, Schaffer's silence has been a largely strategic coup for Schaffer. In October, we wrote: "For Schaffer and the GOP, his silence is - to use a tried and tired cliche - golden. Schaffer's silence while he works to build up his base ahead of what is certain to be an intensely competitive contest should be frustrating for Democrats and political reporters. Nonetheless, it's a good idea if you want to keep free from early inning errors."
That said, the November election is less than nine months away. ... We'll leave it to others to say when Schaffer's silence becomes a liability, but at some point the silence will wear thin, if not on the public than on the press.
We're not knocking the strategy here. When you're the 14th most conservative congressman of the past 70 years in a state that has elected moderates in each of the past two elections, it certainly doesn't help to speak out about anything. But Saccone's point at the end is sound: "At some point the silence will wear thin, if not on the public than on the press."
Schaffer campaign manager/czar Dick Wadhams has used the silent treatment before in statewide races in Colorado (see: Allard, Wayne), but the dawn of online media makes it harder to do that in 2008. This strategy is probably fine for now, so long as the media doesn't start really focusing on the fact that Schaffer isn't saying anything. But at some point, Schaffer is going to have to choose between staying silent and being labeled as someone who won't stand up for his beliefs.
Dick Wadhams, the man Republicans brought in - to much fanfare - to head the State Republican Party, has apparently found a better job. As the Rocky Mountain News reports:
To no one's surprise, Republican Dick Wadhams is now officially campaign manager for Bob Schaffer's U.S. Senate bid.
Wadhams said today he will remain chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, but he has hired an executive director to run the day-to-day operations.
Wadhams had been performing both the chairman and director roles since being named chairman in March 2005.
Democrats for months have been saying that Wadhams also was pulling the strings for Schaffer's campaign. Just last month, Wadhams responded to the Democrats' charges by saying, "That's crazy."
He said today he wasn't running the campaign before now.
The GOP executive director is Mike Britt, who worked in Boston on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, which ended in February.
That's swell for Republicans that Wadhams is going to head up Schaffer's flailing Senate campaign (and it is definitely a boost), but, um, what about the rest of the elephants? This move isn't going to create a lot of optimism for Republicans hoping to win back some seats in the state legislature. If Schaffer wins the Senate race but Republicans get drilled in every other race, is that really a worthwhile trade-off?
The Colorado Democratic Party announced today that Sen. Jim Webb will be the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Dinner on February 29.
The Virginia Democrat won his seat in 2006 by beating incumbent Republican George Allen, whose campaign was managed by current Colorado Republican Chairman Dick Wadhams. But Webb speaking in Denver is probably just a coincidence, right?
Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak on Wednesday publicly did exactly what she and her supporters had long accused former Dem Party Chair Chris Gates of doing in 2004 - she publicly got involved in a potential Democratic Primary. From Colorado Confidential:
"For years, I would have said primaries are great for a discussion of the issues," Waak said. "But when I watched what happened with Ed Perlmutter and Peggy Lamm in the 7th Congressional District and the amount of money that took, we're much better off without primaries in 2008."
The Perlmutter-Lamm Congressional primary in 2006 was not only expensive; it was acrimonious with both candidates using negative attack ads to disparage the other.
[Mark] Benner probably wouldn't have the money to do that to Udall. But Waak fears his attempt to get on the primary ballot might divide her party before a general election in a critical race to maintain and extend Democratic control of the Senate.
It is the job of a Party Chair to try to sort out internal fights - but that is before they become public. Once candidates publicly announce their intentions, Party Chairs should not publicly pick a side. And Waak looks particularly ridiculous here because she rode to power on the cries of wrongdoing about Gates. Gates' so-called interference in the Ken Salazar-Mike Miles primary was her sole reason for running for Party Chair. "For years I have said that primaries are great for a discussion of the issues," she says now. Whatever.
Comparing a potential Benner-Udall primary to the Perlmutter-Lamm tussle is also completely unnecessary. We'll say it again: Benner is not a serious candidate. Benner's candidacy, whether he actually runs or not, is completely irrelevent. Waak says she is worried that Benner might divide Democrats, but Benner can't even figure out where he is supposed to file his campaign paperwork. For all her failures as a candidate, Lamm raised a lot of money and had the ability to get her message out. The only people who will even know the existence of Benner are the most dedicated of the Democratic caucus-goers.
In fact, publicly trying to dissuade him only gives the appearance that he matters in this contest. Benner will likely have no money, no real campaign and no impact on the U.S. Senate race, so Waak shouldn't even bother with this. Waak is wrong here, as Dick Wadhamswas wrong to dismiss Wayne Wolf (and as Bob Martinez was wrong to diss Marc Holtzman), but at least Wolf wasn't a complete joke as a potential candidate. And at least Wadhams never pretended to be impartial.
