President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 31, 2009 09:23 PM UTC

Lamborn, Wadhams: Don't Change a Thing

  • 49 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

An AP report from the weekend sure to warm the heart of any Colorado Democrat. What did it mean to recommit this month to the same GOP leadership who ran the party into such a stark minority in so few years?

Lather, rinse, repeat.

“There is hope on the way,” said Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn, whose district includes Colorado Springs.

Democrats hold seven of the state’s nine seats in Congress, Lamborn pointed out. “We can bring that back, though.”

The question is how.

So far, the party seems uninterested in major changes. Party insiders overwhelmingly re-elected Chairman Dick Wadhams to another two-year term. The vote came even though Wadhams presided over the disastrous 2008 races and managed the negative and failed Senate campaign of former Rep. Bob Schaffer.

Most agree with Wadhams’ insistence that the GOP’s miserable 2008 came because of the unpopularity of then-President Bush and national Republicans, not missteps by Colorado Republicans.

“We don’t need to rethink our identity at all. [Pols emphasis] Colorado remains a center-right state,” said John Andrews, who was president of the state Senate when his party lost control of the chamber in 2004…

The article goes on to describe Ken “Tancredo Lite” Buck’s ideas about “reviving the brand,” and Bob Beauprez’s “let’s-go-get-’em feeling.” There is a little part in there with defeated chairman candidate Tom Stone wistfully noting that the party is “focused on the negative” and needs to engage more broadly in differing areas of the state, but that was in his concession speech, wasn’t it?

The only thing that could make it worse for reasonable Republicans to see the last three cycles’ losers on stage for 2010 is to hear them proclaim “we don’t need to rethink our identity.” Like Albert Einstein famously said, insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Except when it’s John Andrews and Dick Wadhams–the crowd goes wild!

The simple fact is, you cannot attribute Democratic success in Colorado last year to national forces any more than you could 2004’s original shift of Colorado from red to blue (or 2006, for that matter). As we’ve been warning for over four years now, the Colorado Republican Party has shifted further right in response to repeated, increasingly lopsided defeats, in a misguided belief that taking an even harder, more dogmatic line would make voters, above all skeptical of any dogmatic hard line…less skeptical. This was the cardinal error that more than any other factor has cost the Republicans their majorities at all levels of Colorado government. A legacy carried on by Dick “Punk You For Bob Schaffer” Wadhams–and thanks to 500 party insiders a week and a half ago, it’s the same philosophy set to govern the GOP’s strategy into the next election cycle.

It’s frequently claimed that we hammer Colorado Republicans out of partisanship, but if they were to ever actually listen–not to us, whatever, but to so many in their own party who have said everything above repeatedly in private conversation–they could have a chance at real recovery in our independent-plurality state. Fact is most Democrats we know would really prefer Republicans didn’t take our advice, finding their present wide majority margins to be, you know, satisfactory.

Tweet
Share

Comments

49 thoughts on “Lamborn, Wadhams: Don’t Change a Thing”

  1. when they re-elected Wadhams?

    And to John Andrews: how can you say that with a straight face? If it’s center-right still, then why the hell would the majority of Colorado voters overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates?

    Colorado is now very much a center-left state. I suppose we’ll have to see what the 2010 returns look like too, but right now Democrats completely dominate every aspect of politics here.

    Until they open their eyes to the political reality in which they live, they will continue to be bystanders.

    Wadhams et al are like beleagured military commanders who, while looking out on the field of battle, see that they are completely outmatched and overrun, but instead of changing their strategy, march headlong into the oncoming volley of cannon fire all the while singing a victory song.

    Maybe they’re not just the “party of no”, they’re the “party of no freakin’ clue”.

    1. The real problem with Andrews’ theory is that his Republican party isn’t center-right.  More like right-so far right they’re in the next room.

      1. Colorado is pretty centrist, perhaps slightly center-left now but a center-right Republican party would be able to run candidates and  issues that could win.  On the other hand, the CO GOP–with their daily dose of panicked hyperbole and ‘let babies get AIDs’ statements and stances–has quickly lost its ability to appeal outside the lunatic fringe.  

        That Lamborn is offering ‘hope on the way’ is a bit ironic.  

    3. A lot of the Democrats who have run here have run on some Republican principals.  Obama ran as a fiscal conservative, Udall ran as a pro-military moderate.  Romanoff wasn’t easily categorized as a liberal….

      In short, Democrats have been better at either nominating moderate Democrats or presenting themselves as moderate Democrats.

      1.    I myself agree with some Repubs on some issues.  I don’t oppose charter schools and I’m not all that thrilled with the stranglehold the teachers unions have over education policy.  But that doesn’t quite make me a Republicans.  At least I hope not.

        1. I’m willing to take anyone willing to call themselves a Republican!

          But name me one Democrat who has won statewide in Colorado that didn’t embrace somesort of Republican issue!

                1. It cuts both ways, though I don’t think that closing a loophole at gun shows is a bad thing.  I don’t like the idea of criminals or the insane being able to purchase firearms.  I went through a background check to get my handgun.  It was no skin off of my back.

          2. You only think those are “republican” because, in your lifetime, ‘pubs have basically branded themselves as the party that stood for those things. In practice, that’s not how they governed (and in practice, again in your lifetime, it’s only a Democratic administration that turned in a balanced budget, to name one “republican” value…)

            Believe the record, not the hype.

          3. fiscally conservative, socially liberal, pro second amendment, pro gay rights, pro choice (or hands off), right to work, small government, common sense, strong nat’l defense, non ideologue, practical repubs will eventually start winning elections

            BUT ONLY AFTER…

            Wadhams and his ilk all over the nation (excluding the deep south) take the party so far right they get completely, completely marginalized and have to accept reality that the world has changed.  

            I saw Meghan McCain on Larry King a few nights ago and she struck me as incredibly articulate and smart, particurlarly for a lady who is only 24 years old.  She looked like one of these “future” republicans.  Good stuff.

            Anyway, my two cents.  We’ll see.

      2. that fiscal responsibility and support for the troops are Republican principles. Those are common-sense, mainstream American principles. Voters see past the Republican jingoism to Democratic competence when it comes to those, and other, issues. There are legitimate and deeply held differences between the parties, but those aren’t among them.

        1. I was going to say that.

          Obama and Udall are still liberal, and therefore left of center. Just because they’re not as liberal as Dennis Kucinich doesn’t mean they’re “promoting Republican principles”.

          I think what’s changed since the days of Republican dominance here is that liberal isn’t a bad word anymore. People are ok with liberals representing them.

          A moderate Democrat is still left of a moderate Republican, and I would be wary characterizing this state–or this country for that matter–as center-right anymore.

          Even now with Obama pushing for the amount of spending he’s proposed, he still has a 66% approval rating.

          1. In the latest budget, for all their bloviating, member for member GOP senators had more earmarks in the bill than Dems.

            We all know how fiscally responsible W was, and the DeLay Congress.  

            Remember those pallets of money that went missing in Iraq, and the fact that Bush’s TARP bill included absolutely no tracking provisions to be able to follow the tax-funded largess larded on the banks?

            Fiscal responsibility belongs to some members of both parties, just as it is lacking in too many members of both parties.

            Supporting the troops, promoting fiscal soundness do not mean that a candidate is borrowing Republican issues.  

            That’s like saying that Republicans who support environmental protections, or who believe in properly funding veterans care, are borrowing Democratic positions.

            1. Nixon broke through the Cold War rhetoric and established relations with China.

              Republicans in the past have led on what are now Democratic issues.  It was Newt the Nub that declared compromise to be a sin and the scrambling for anti-choice vote of extremists demanding a Nanny State to control women that destroyed the pragmatic wing of the Republican Party.  Now we have jerks in Congress threatening “World War III” if an election certificate is issued to a Democrat.

              It was the arrogance of absolute belief in the infallibility of their positions that created a class of Republicans incapable of understanding that Democracy exists because compromise is needed to reconcile opposing views in a free society.

              This is why their bench is so shallow.  All the pragmatic people choose not to run for office as Republicans because it requires them to embrace incompatible positions like believing in personal responsibility but demanding that government decide a woman’s most personal decisions.  Real Republicans don’t want to engage in such blatant stupidity so they choose not be a part of what was once the party of Lincoln.

      3. And I do consider him the best Republican president we’ve ever had.  Look at the bills he signed, the Telecommunications Act that gave media companies the right to monopolize, NAFTA, to name two.

        Sure, Big Bidness did not like the FMLA, but no one bats 1000.  

        1. Nixon (and for a time, Milton Friedman) advocated for a minimum national income, if you recall, and were willing to invest heavily in social programs.

          Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland did a good job pointing out how similar D’s and R’s were on social policy during the Great Society and even into Nixon’s second term.

                1. Nixon was a social liberal, perhaps the result of his Quaker upbringing.  With 30 years hindsight, some of his legacy is pretty good.

                  1.    I’m not sure I would go THAT far.  He had some strange view on race and ethnicity.  But he was somewhat pragmatic on a lot of issues.  

                      If he saw something was coming down the track and he couldn’t stop, he got in front of it and led the parade.  Like environmental protection.  And some civil rights stuff (MBE/WBE contract set-asides originated during his administration).

                    1. held similar positions, even including local Republicans who were drummed from the party or marginalized into obscurity during the ’90s (Norma Anderson, anyone?). Two key events separate our understanding of Nixon from the current Republican Party — Roe v. Wade and Prop 18, both of which underpin the modern GOP.

                    2. he signed into law OSHA, the EPA, was actively working on guaranteed minimum income, and stood up for our Indian populations.

                      Not bad for a Republican in the 1970’s.

            2. Imagine the field day Republicans would have with that these days. They’d have a hard time deciding whether it was fascism or communism, but they could be sure it wasn’t a sound Republican reaction to a recent economic crisis.

      4. something more fundamental. Messrs. Wadhams and Andrews can scream all day and all night that Colorado is a center-right state and they are probably correct to a large degree, but the Colorado Republican Party is a far right radical-extremist party (they’re not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination) at the moment, while the Democrats are nominating candidates that are far closer to where the voters are at this time.

        The Republican party leadership and their candidates believe that center-right means the citizens of Colorado believe in “god, guns, gays and abortion” as the primary issues and that all they have to do is stick with those same issues except with  new packaging and they will win. They are blind to reality.

        What the Republicans are missing is the fact that they have become the party who refuses to govern. Their primary objective is to destroy government. They rarely have policy positions because they don’t believe the government should exist and therefore policy is not something to be concerned about.

        Here are a few concrete examples. Almost a decade ago, former State Senate President John Andrews signed a pledge on an internet website called the Alliance for the Separation of School and State. When he signed the pledge he agreed that we should temrinate    ALL public funding for education, K through university. In short, he believes we should shut down our entire public education system. Apparently, Mr. Andrews still believes that. About two months ago, the gentleman who initiated that website and founded the Alliance died. In his next Denver Post column, Mr. Andrews extolled that man’s values and his quest to end public education. Mr. Andrews is still a leader in the Republican Party and active in party politics. Does anyone, regardless of political party registration or political philosphy believe terminating the entire public education system will serve our state and country? Only a few radical extremists believe that. Yet that is the kind of person leading the Republican Party in Colorado. Does anyone believe that terminating the public education system is a center-right position? I don’t think so.

        Another example is Ref. “C” in 2005. The leadership of the Republican Party (i.e. Messrs. Caldera and Andrews) admitted that if we didn’t pass C the tuition at our state colleges and universities would increase to the same level as private institutions like Harvard and Stanford in five years. They admitted that many of the highway projects would have to be shelved and construction stopped immediately if C did not pass. After admitting that, they said they simply did not care. They responded that if someone wants a college education they will have to find a way to pay for it. In short, they don’t care if our children can’t afford a college education. Does anyone believe that is a center-right position? Is that really a traditional Republican position representing traditional Republican values? I can’t imagine it is and yet these same individuals as well as others of their ilk, like Messrs. Beauprez, Armstrong and Tancredo, still control the Colorado Republican Party and the national party for that matter. Is it any wonder that Democrats have succeeded in Colorado. The Republicans abandoned the center-right positions they held in the 1970’s through the mid-90’s and the Democrats very wisely entered and filled the vacuum.

        As pointed out above, the Republican Party is more bent on destroying institutions rather than saving and reforming them which leads to a final point. The present leadership of the Colorado Republican Party clear down to many of the precinct leaders are not true conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. As Edmund Burke, the great English conservative stated in the 18th Century, when asked his definition of a statesman:

          “A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman.”

        In other words, true conservatives don’t go around destroying public institutions like our public education system or our state transportation system. Rather, they preserve and improve our institutions. That is why the Democrats fit more with the definition of conservative than the Republicans. Democratic leaders from President Obama to Governor Ritter are aimed at preserving our way of life by stabilizing the economy and promoting the new energy economy because they know, as the public does, that something has to be done to preserve our way of life in the short term and for the future.

        The Republicans by standing on ideology and characterizing everything President Obama has done as socialism misses the point. We are in a battle to preserve ourselves economically and from foreign threats and we accomplish this through our government. Underlying Republican ideology is the assumption that we are incapable as Americans of organizing ourselves through our government to accomplish these goals. I believe the public is far more intelligent than that and is capable, through elected representatives, of accomplishing those goals and more. After all, that is what our founding fathers believed and set in motion through the constitution a government that allows us to do that without loosing our freedoms to tyranny. Only the Democrats understand that today.  

  2. a viable alternative to Udall and Bennett but the dumb ass Republicans keeping throwing up puke like Schaffer and Beuprez.  If the Republicans would run someone who was a legitimate candidate then our professional politicians on the left wouldn’t be able to assume that the left wing had no alternative and could be ignored.  Udall continues to offer nothing to the left wing of the Democratic Party and continues to repeat the troops will come home “some day” crap that he was spewing in 2004.  A legitimate Republican candidate would require the Democratic candidates to work to win the support of their base.  As it is, we have to hold our noses when we vote but the alternative is the crazies.  It isn’t good Democracy to have such a weak opposition party.

    1. Throw up a moderate R vs. a liberal D and the moderate R will most likely win in a statewide race.

      Throw up any almost D at the moment vs. a far-right R and the D’s win it.

      The voters in Colorado are for the most part anti-partisan rather than non-partisan. That’s one of the reasons Obama did so well. They vote for the person closest their own electoral identity, and right now even for many moderate Republicans that person has become the Democrat (with exceptions of course).  

  3. It has been said repeatedly.  The republicans have an empty bench.  They have no chance of shifting to the center if everyone at the top is a dogmatic righty, and there is no one ascend that is moderate.  Nothing will change until the current leadership fades away.  I couldn’t stand Owens, but where is his legacy?  Is Troy Eid all he left behind?

    1. Penry is often touted as a real up-and-comer in Republican ranks, but he has zero appeal outside the right. In Mesa County, the Republicans have such a heavy registration advantage that Penry has no need to moderate at all. It’ll keep him in the legislature until he’s term-limited, but he has no appeal beyond that.

      1.    It was my endorsement plus the support he received from all those toe-tapping, T-room cruising, closet cases who belong to the Log Cabin Club under assumed names but who put Wadhams over the top by such a landslide.

          In fact, Dick needs to take his act to the RNC.  If Scott Murphy wins in NY-20 tonight and Michael Steele is forced out as RNC chair, then who better to replace Steele than the Colorado GOP’s Crown Jewel!  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

65 readers online now

Newsletter

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