November 14, 2010 08:06 PM UTC
The Demise of the "Referendum C Republican"
63 Comments- by: Colorado Pols
Failed gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo penned a column for conservative website WorldNetDaily that everybody in the state needs to read–H/T to the Denver paper’s Tim Hoover. Tancredo, whose insurgent third-party bid for governor after the collapse of Scott McInnis under allegations of plagiarism failed to either prevent Democrat John Hickenlooper from achieving majority support or to force Republicans under 10% of the vote. The latter consequence, forcing Republicans into a soul-searching minor party status, by this time was more or less an explicit goal of Tancredo’s, and many of the strident conservative Republicans who went over to him.
And there’s a reason for that, beyond Dan Maes’ ineptitude or perceived slights to the base in favor of Scott McInnis. Tancredo believes, as he expresses in this WND column, that the GOP has “surrendered” its principles.
In Colorado, the state now has a liberal Democratic governor-elect, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, and a split legislature. Republicans are in the majority in the House and Democrats control the Senate. In this situation, neither party can control the legislative agenda. The question conservatives in Colorado are asking is: Will the legislative agenda become truly “bipartisan,” or will Republicans be maneuvered into debating the details of compromises on the Democratic agenda?
To have a chance at genuine compromise and honest bipartisanship, Republicans must first have an agenda of their own. When leading Colorado Republicans like former Gov. Bill Owens join the Democratic governor-elect’s transition team, that serves to give the Democrats’ agenda a patina of “bipartisanship” at the outset. [Pols emphasis] When the Democratic agenda is baptized a “bipartisan agenda” on Day 1, by not only the liberal media and interest groups but by a group of co-opted Republicans, legislators who don’t buy into that agenda can be easily stigmatized as “partisan obstructionists.”
Selling out your party’s platform and policy agenda before the first shot is fired is a form of pre-emptive compromise that ought to be called by its right name: surrender…
All of the warning signs for the schism that has today split the Colorado Republican Party, and helped break the “Republican wave” at the polls in this state, were present years ago. In 2004, conservative Republicans willingly assisted in their own loss of the state legislature, turning on a moderate GOP representative named Ramey Johnson in Jefferson County who was deemed insufficiently conservative. Ramey Johnson’s fratricidal defeat led to the establishment of the Republican Study Committee of Colorado by Dave Schultheis, with the express purpose of codifying an ideological hard line among elected Republicans.
This hardening of the ideological right in early 2005, led by figures like Schultheis, Kent Lambert (whose name you’ll be hearing a lot next year), and Kevin Lundberg, came just as the campaign for two off-year ballot measures–Referendums C and D–was about to pit moderate Republicans against the ideologues like never before.
And the Colorado GOP has never recovered.
In 2010, five years after the narrow passage of Referendum C, the issue remains perhaps the biggest single litmus test among Colorado Republicans. Every Republican who supported Referendum C, which reduced the “ratchet effect” harm caused by 1992’s landmark Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and allowed the state to keep some revenue that would otherwise be refunded, offsetting state budget cuts, has had to answer for it at one time or another since then. And some have paid for their support with their political careers.
The reason Referendum C passed in 2005 is the same reason why Republicans in Colorado failed to capitalize on the “Republican wave” in 2010. There was a recognition in 2005 among Colorado’s conservative-leaning but fiercely independent electorate that ideological rhetoric about “small government” had gone too far, and produced unintended consequences. Conservatives arguing against Referendum C could not explain why it’s okay for Colorado to rank near the very bottom of states for public funding of, just as one example, education. As much as people responded favorably to ideological catch phrases, their own eyes and common sense told them that there was a limit–that some government is necessary, and that the ideologues running the GOP just couldn’t be trusted to know how much cutting was too much.
In 2010, Republicans who supported Referendum C continued to pay for it. There is no better example than that of defeated Senate candidate Jane Norton: more than any other issue, her obligatory support for Referendum C as Lt. Governor under Bill Owens was aggressively used against her during her primary as evidence she was not a “true conservative.” Norton overcompensated for this criticism by trying to reinvent herself into a silly jingoist “War on Islam” caricature, while arguing unsuccessfully when forced that Referendum C “kept faith” with conservatives because it was a vote of the people.
Jane Norton lost her primary, above all, because she was not considered a “true conservative” by the ‘Tea Party’-energized Republican base. Then the “true conservative” choice, Ken Buck, proceeded to alienate a decisive segment of voters (women) that Norton would not have, while positioning himself inextricably to the right of what the voters in Colorado could stomach on just about every issue–even in the waviest of “wave years.” Responsible conservative-leaning independents, despite their anger at majority Democrats and President Obama, nevertheless couldn’t support Buck; or Tancredo for many similar reasons.
You see, folks, the ‘Tea Party’ isn’t anything new. The pundits call Colorado a ‘Tea Party’ state because the fact is, we’ve had them here influentially for much longer than the movement had a catchy name. Before there was a ‘Tea Party,’ there was a Republican Study Committee of Colorado. For years before anyone had ever heard of Jim DeMint, Colorado had Tom Tancredo, Jon Caldara, and Doug Bruce.
And they have failed. Their success in ideological dominance of the Colorado Republican Party has severely compromised the party’s long term success. From Ramey Johnson to Jane Norton, that failure is increasingly consequential.
Unfortunately, we have little good news beyond Owens’ largely symbolic bipartisanship to report for longsuffering moderates in the Republican Party, who realize perhaps better than anyone else how much this shift has cost them. Between the dominance in the Colorado Senate minority of hardcore types like Minority Leader Mike Kopp and Senate JBC appointee Kent Lambert, and presumptive Speaker* Frank McNulty’s brash early moves to reshape the Colorado House on the strength of a one-vote majority*–and now Tancredo leading the charge to discredit Republicans working on Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper’s transition–there’s very little to indicate that the forces in the GOP who chose to “purify” the party of moderates over victory plan to stop now.
We have said repeatedly that the strident ideological wing of the Colorado Republicans is the reason why they lose elections, and have held up the rare examples of moderates–Sen. Al White, former Rep. Don Marostica, and yes, former Gov. Bill Owens–as examples of how things could be different. Colorado’s swing to Democrats in recent years doesn’t mean we’ve become a ‘blue’ state, and election after election has now shown that lack of GOP success is attributable to their fielding candidates who please the ideological right but can’t win with our state’s practically-minded electorate–an electorate that would elect Republicans they could trust to be rational about governing. In short, we’ve been demonstrating the ‘Tea Party’s’ dilemma in Colorado for years, and our experience has shown that they do not learn from these mistakes. Indeed, the influence of the strident ideologues has only grown as the GOP’s electoral success in Colorado has waned.
And lucky for Democrats, Tancredo says the solution is to not change a thing.
There are still a large number of responsible Republican’s out there that refuse to go unaffiliated or change party. (That in a nut shell is why I get so irritated at the generalization putting all R’s in a box.)
To quote several of my Republican friends: “I’ll be damned if the right wing is going to force me out of my own party.”
or are they just louder?
Watching the Buck crash I have an idea (maybe a hope), but I’m wondering from your (or any other sane to sane-ish Republicans) perspective.
If the Republicans are able to move their agenda, that would reflect responsibility.
When the Republicans realize that the majority of the voters in this state don’t care about hard right positions, they will be a party to be reckoned with. Until then, they continue to shoot themselves in the foot by buying in to the idea that they have betrayed their base.
The Republican base in Colorado is not the religious right wings fanatics. Fical responsibility does not equate to hard right positions. Tancredo is the face of a slow moving train wreck for the Republicans in this state. A wreck that is painful to watch but you can’t take your eyes off it.
We’ll see this year if the loud loons prevail or if the saner ones do.
I’m betting on the loons.
first let me say I prefer being a U after years of fighting and particularly after they tried to pass a local resolution against my company (we weren’t pure enough).
I think it’s both. The ultra right wing is louder as opposed to solid conservatives who tend to tolerate those who differ. Some are petty and others truly believe they have found the God given way and go along (I wouldn’t call them loons).
I think of Oren Hatch as a solid conservative who was close friends with and worked with Ted Kennedy from time to time. Many of my friends I would put in the Oren Hatch mold. We differ, sometimes to the point where we just have to agree to disagree, then we have drinks or dinner and talk about kids, football or whatever.
in the base who select the candidates. Increasingly the Rs you speak of don’t have the kind of conservative candidates you would like to see, much less anything resembling a center right candidate, to vote for in elections. The center right is now to be found mainly among Dems.
Most of today’s GOP pols join Tancredo in saying things like “..a liberal Democratic governor-elect, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper,…”. Hickenlooper is about as centrist and pro-business as a person can be and still prefer to be a Democrat. Obama, Bennet, Udall, Cary Kennedy, Joe Rice and countless others are also centrist pro-business Dems. There are, in fact, very, very few real liberals in elected office these days, especially in statewide office.
Apparently the “center”, though the right has had great success in pushing it ever farther to the right, has reached a limit here in Colorado. The idea that Tancredo is simply a solid conservative while someone like Hickenlooper is on the extreme left just isn’t selling. Suicidal government shrinkage isn’t selling either, as witnessed by the passage of Ref C and the recent failure of the amendments championed by the Calderas and Bruces.
This year’s nationwide GOP triumphs almost entirely represent anger at the status quo with poll after poll showing Rs don’t owe their victories to any particular love of today’s still unpopular GOP politicians. The Tea Party isn’t going to be the answer for the GOP either.
You can resent Rs being lumped together but the fact remains; when primaries are over, there is now only one kind of R candidate left for the public to vote for. Well, two. You can either have an extreme right or a Tea Party extreme wacko right. Unless, of course, another Tancredo comes along to do the party a big favor by teaching it a lesson, shaking things up and, in the process, getting Dems elected.
GOP happy dance time may be even shorter lived than the last stretch of Dem resurgence, especially if the GOP continues on its present course. Winning elections with voters who don’t really like you much but are mad at the other guy can go south over any number of things in a heart beat.
I would prefer that the R’s nominated are what Norma Anderson defines as Eisenhower Republicans which I believe are moderate to even liberal(pro choice, gay rights, civil rights)in their views. But it’s true these days you are not going to see those persons nominated any further than maybe county assembly (if they have a friendly district caucus)and that’s sad even to my conservative friends who accept the likes of me in their midst. Still I know too many Republican’s who are biding their time, working to take their party back and I do resent having them lumped in with the current crop.
The Republican and Democratic parties used to both be a lot broader in their philosophies. But we Dems gave up the South when we favored Civil Rights and that made us more intellectual consistent.
And the Republican party has doubled down on social conservatives. This is not just the racists & evangelicals, but it includes those who don’t like change and want to go back to “the good old days.”
The thing is, this split does appear to be stable, both sides now easily control their parties. On the Democratic side it’s still a pretty broad spectrum so we’re ok with this.
On the Republican side I think it means permanent minority status outside of rural and Southern states. But those states do include enough Senate seats to leave the Republican party a player on the national scene. And so I think the Republican party can and will remain a very conservative party for some time.
What could happen is if the Republican party stays off in nutsville, then with additional Republicans going independent, we could actually see the Democratic party split in two and pull in a lot of independents.
1) Dems still range from very liberal to very conservative, not at all intellectually consistent.
2) Yours seems to be governed by issues with specific relevance to your particular situation and lunch dates.
Mea culpa.
There are no doubt many decent Republicans still around, but they aren’t getting the action or the publicity.
So when I rail against R’s, it’s just a shorthand for “Most Republcans these days.”
Believe me, nothing could be better for the republic than the return of Eisenhower and Rockefeller Pubs. I’d be delighted. And if the Dems offered up a real incompetent in some election with a decent Pub, I’d vote R.
blanket statements about Repubs, even though I am certainly aware that they are not homogenous.
I echo parsings’ comments from above about Eisenhower. From todays’ perspective, he was a moderate…if not a liberal…in many ways.
I pray that you can, indeed, take back your party, Ellie.
to the days when a self described liberal such as Eisenhower chose to run for President as an R. At least not in the foreseeable future. That party is gone.
The center of the GOP has moved so far right, old fashioned conservatives are now considered just barely conservative enough to escape the RINO designation. What most Republicans (and everyone else) used to consider moderate they now call liberal. What used to be considered liberal is now called socialist/extremist. Unfortunately Dems have just sat back and let this become the perception in large swaths of the public, to the point of joining in the demonization of the very word “liberal”.
It is the wing of the GOP that is now in charge and in control of who gets past primaries that lumps Republicans into the litmus test passers on the one hand and those not right enough on all issues on the other. It is that wing that has erased governing from its to do list entirely for the next two years. Since other party must always be seen as the enemy, that makes the compromises that are an integral part of governing in our system tantamount to collaboration with evil so there can be no question of governing without controlling every branch.
What the rest of us think or how the rest of us “lump” is the least of an Ellie-style Republican’s problems.
a comment made by a friend of mine when some folks in Mesa County were trying to repeal the term limits on the sheriffs’ position, so that Stan Hilkey could serve a third term.
An LTE to the local paper made the statement, “the people of Mesa County should be allowed to choose their sheriff”.
My friend made the observation that in this ultra-conservative valley, the people have never chosen the sheriff. They have simply ratified the choice of the Republican Central Committee.
I honestly sympathize with moderate Republicans who seek a sensible, but adequate, government. That is what I want. There is much common ground here, but it is being obfuscated and minimalized by the Corporatists who continue to raid the American treasury. They ARE the corrupt military/industrial complex. They ARE Wall Street. They ARE the media. They are the people running the Republican Party.
Politics has descended into little more than a massive professional wrestling match, brought to you every day by the very people who are picking your pocket while you watch.
Maybe I’m just too cynical…
included the majority of our Democratic Party leadership among those Corporatists.
Or should I say “correct” to avoid any ideological confusion? As for sympathizing with moderate Rs, that’s fine but I still don’t see them taking back any measure of influence in the present incarnation of the GOP.
The lines really are between corporate elitists and those who believe that our greatness lies in a prosperous, educated, empowered middle class. If we can’t change the Democratic Party from within we won’t have a party representing the middle class unless we build an effective new one, an almost impossible hill to climb.
and not necessarily D, I counted 5 Republicans that I know worked for Ref. C (besides Owens who was a strong supporter of Ref.D) on the Hick transition committee.
Whose demagoguery against Ref C rivals that of Schultheis, Lambert, or any other member of the fiscal suicide caucus.
What’s up with that?
🙂
paying for it even if they try to run from it?
In the “Republican year” they have 1 state Senator, 8 state Reps, and a couple of local offices. Djou lost his Congressional seat, Governorship went back to the Democrats.
They actually had a number of good candidates running. But the rabid right was loud and that scared people away from even moderate Republican candidates.
But I don’t think you should be promoting your company in your sig line. If you want to promote your company on ColoradoPols, buy an ad.
Pols said that links should have something to do with your comment.
A link is at the bottom of every comment. By definition it can’t have something to do with all comments made.
David had a really good tag during the election. It was his Colorado Election Guide to all the Bluebook items. I put a link to it on my blog (which I’m NOT promoting here). I liked his guide, not for 102 about bail bonds … that was easy. The one I liked the most was the one about which department should regulate bingo games. Thank you David for producing that Guide and puting it in a tag line.
Except for Markey and Salazar, right?
I am so enjoying all of these ‘concern diaries’ on Pols since the election, faux-stressing over what’s wrong with the party that just demolished the Dems in the House, and in legislative and gubernatorial races across the country.
Some people still want to believe that the Republicans lost big time in this last election. Let them cling to whatever rational lets them climb out of bed in the morning.
..in the biggest Republican wave year since 1948. You gained one net seat in the state senate and you gained so few seats in the state house that you might possibly have a majority of one.
Yeah, you lost big time.
..in the biggest Republican wave year since 1948. You gained one net seat in the state senate and you gained so few seats in the state house that you might possibly have a majority of one.
Yeah, you lost big time.
But seriously, you’d have to be utterly blind to think that winning a one seat majority in the State House, the SoS and Treasurer office, and some county offices is a massive victory.
The results in Colorado for Republicans were, at best, a mixed bag. At worst, they were as close to a drubbing that could happen in the 2010 political climate.
Even on a national level, taking 60 house seats is a huge victory, but Republicans should have taken the Senate too. You can thank the Tea Party for that not happening. But you can also thank them for the House. It’s an interesting dichotomy.
But we had TOTALLY SHITTY CANDIDATES here. It’s a learning experience for the tea party folks, and for squishy, too-moderate RINO’s.
But in specific districts, that turned out not to matter much. On a statewide level in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada, it mattered a great deal.
But it would be just as short-sighted of you not to admit that Colorado was, at bare minimum, a wash, as it would be for Democrats to call what happened nationally some sort of victory.
And we’ll see how long your happy dance lasts. Remember, the Republican party still polls very unpopular. When the pattern is that voters swing away from the party with which they are more disgusted at election time, things can change really, really fast. It was Dems’ turn to take the spanking this time. Don’t be so sure it means much in the long run. Time and demographics are not on your side.
And, by the way, the concern that has generated the most responses has been Ellie’s.
They probably would have run the table. Instead, the top prizes went to the Dems.
And really, LB, Republicans came one House seat away from abject failure.
So take what solace you can from victories in SOS and Treas. But my guess is that either Stapleton or Gessler is in the news, and not in a good way, within 6 months.
the national Republican wave didn’t hit Colorado as hard as it did elsewhere. So looking at what’s particular to Colorado seems to be a good question.
You’re doing it wrong.
YOU’RE doing it wrong.
😛
With an older and more conservative electorate this year than in 2008, the GOP did not do very impressively in Colorado. In 2012 Republicans will not have this year’s advantages. Rational Republicans in the state–a dying breed, of course–should be concerned.
Where can we agree on what problems we face, prioritize them, and find progress in the fix?
Stop “playing” politics.
Have a real debate on the policies proposed, and offer up suggested amendments!
But I’m not taking any “hey, let’s work together” lessons from someone like you.
You planning to help the 30 dues paying members of the ACP (the name must have been inspired ny the designations in 1984) raise the funds they’re going to need now if they don’t plan to dissolve?
They’ll just become the party of vanity candadates. Get your name on the ballot with no primary – just pony up the money to fund the caucus.
caucuses for every precinct in the state not to mention the expense of complying with all the other regs. Tanc isn’t going waste any of his lucrative star power to help them. If they can’t afford to met the many obligations of major party status or get some special breaks, I’m guessing they’ll at least have to dissolve as ACP, form under another name (The AFAP for Anti-First Amendment Party, perhaps?) and keep running the usual one or less % losers. A 36% loser was way out of their league.
I asked about Cory Gardner because I truly do not know whether or not he is an anti-Ref C Republican. You can ascribe another motive if you wish, but only I know what was in my mind. If you have anything to say which would let me know more about Cory Gardner I’d be happy to see it. Thanks
A less charitable soul might conclude that Tancredo is a tad hypocritical and needs to look no further than his bathroom mirror to see an example of selling out his party and the party’s principles.
Remember when he reneged on his term limit commitment?
His opportunistic and narcisstic bolt from the Party was not a hard decision for him to make.
And now the ACP will find out that he will abandon them and their principles now that they can no longer feed his voracious ego.
There seems to be a wake of littered principles that follows Tancredo.
This line from Toms article is the best! “As other conservative leaders have observed, Big Government is on autopilot and programmed for a crash. Republicans need to find the off switch. Government needs a fundamental change in direction, not a spare fuel tank.”
Take that, Regents! You too, local city governments!
Now for the “sort of”; he told state and city employees that he would save their jobs and implied bigger paychecks came with the security, or that he would hire more government workers.
You’d think he could stop with the dishonesty. The campaign is over… Oh, right, he wasn’t really running one. I hope this soap box, and the ones it leads to, are big enough for his ego.
across the nation will recede quickly.
The Democrats, and many independents, didn’t vote two weeks ago.
In 2012, they will, at least in larger numbers.
In this state, the Republicans are far too conservative for the electorate. I wouldn’t even call them conservative. They are radical.
The GOP needs to wise up. Most people don’t buy the Focus on the Family crap and the Independence Institute lunacy.
And it is astounding to me that so many of these Republicans think that Democrats are evil, traitorous, extremists. Yes, there are people on the left in the Democratic party. But the Democratic party also includes a lot of thoroughly reasonable, moderate people.
This year’s wave was fed by an older, right-leaning electorate who get their “news” from the propagandists at Fox and talk-radio hosts. That kind of electorate does not a mandate give.
Your implication? That “leftist” Democrats are “evil, traitorous, extremists”. “Leftists” can’t be “thoroughly reasonable”?
Whew. Talk about party ideological purity. Maybe the Republicans don’t have such a unique problem after all. Get your shit together, CastleMan. We’ve got a big two-year battle coming, and your crap isn’t going to rally the troops.
As always, in everything in life.
Not too many decades ago The Radical Left had actual parties to join like the Socialists and the Communists. Heard much from them lately?
The huge shift rightward in public opinion of what is right, center, or left, has obliterated the true radical leftists. I think the most radical now might be Dennis Kucinich. Thirty years ago he would have been central Democratic.
The policies and accomplishments of FDR and The New Deal are being dismantled as being too much big government. (I notice none of the elderly or tea baggers are asking for the head of the FDIC on a platter; seems to protect their risky investments.)
The media plays right into this reinforcement of definition. When obfuscatory blue dog Dems attin the crown of “Centrist,” it’s all over for the left.
no GOP President, including Reagan and GW, would be considered even a tad right of center. Anyone a tad to the left of either of them must be included in Castleman’s evil, traitorous extremists category. The Governator must be a Communist! 99% of Democrats must be more evil than Stalin and Hitler combined!
Took an awful long time to say “We’d like Republicans more if they acted like Democrats.”
Well OF COURSE YOU WOULD, Pols!
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
have as much dignity as the beej? We’ll see …
I like
oakcash.you’ll have the other.
The jury is still out.
I forgot about this, but a bet is a bet. But from what I read you’re paranoid about taking anything besides cash, like most hippie liberals with bad credit.
So how do I get you $50 in cash? Can I send it to V’ger and let him cash my check because he is not a paranoiac?
Would a money order do? That can be anonymous, but your tinfoil hat paranoia might disallow that too.
check from GOPW to V’ger, then from V’ger to me.
V?
I’ll believe it and post it when I have the cash – but good on ya.
Madco says a money order is cool. so just send it to Director of Research, Mile High Law Office, 1615 California St., Suite 206, Denver CO 80202. I’ll then forward it to MADCO. Or if you want to send me a check, just make it out to “cash” and I’ll desposit it to my account and send Madco one of my own. Whatever is easiest for you.
I appreciated your comments re: Dick Wadhams. I have a lot of faults, but forgetting my old friends isn’t one of them, and Dick and I have been through a lot of miles together.
I’m going to send the money. A bet is a bet.