U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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
September 27, 2013 10:41 AM UTC

On radio show, GOP activist says Republican State Chair has list of "most detrimental people to the Republican Party"

  • 16 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Correction: An earlier version of this blog post stated that Debbie “Feeley” is on the list of people who are most detrimental to the Republican Party of Colorado. It is actually Debbie Healy, according to Sarah Arnold, who also told me she was not present at the GOP executive meeting last Friday, where the list was allegedly discussed. I initially reported that she was at the meeting personally. I am trying to find someone who was at the meeting to confirm the existence of the list.
————–

Serious accusations have been condensing in the air at KLZ radio this week and dropping on the head of Colorado Republican Party Chair Ryan Call.

On Monday, for example on KLZ's Grassroots Radio Colorado, former El Paso Republican Party Secretary Sarah Arnold said: "Ryan Call’s law firm is the only law firm that’s allowed to be used by the Republican State Party, while he’s drawing a salary from that law firm and while he’s still making a huge salary off of the backs of grassroots people who continue to contribute to the party.”

Arnold, who's currently writing an election-strategy book called In the Trenches, also said she was present at an executive committee meeting of the state GOP last Friday, where Call "put out" a list of the "six most detrimental people to the Republican Party in Colorado."

Arnold said Call's list, which she called a "Nixonian hit list," included Arnold, KLZ radio hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley, Clear the Bench's Matt Arnold, Rich Bratten of Principles ofLiberty, Laura Bratten, and Deb Feeley. Arnold said people have asked if it's possible to petition onto Call's list. She added that it's Call who's the "number one" threat to the Republican Party in Colorado.

Call did not return my request for a comment on these accusations, but, KLZ guest host David K. Williams pointed out that Call was just re-elected, so he must have serious support within the State GOP.

Before Arnold was on Grassroots Radio Colorado, Victor Head, who's the 28-year-old Pueblo plumber who founded Pueblo Freedom and Rights, and Tim Knight, Founder of Pueblo's Basic Freedom Defense Fund, also aired complaints on KLZ about the Colorado Republican Party.

Call responded to some of these complaints in a Denver Post article Sunday and elsewhere, including in more detailed Colorado Statesman article today, but, to give you a full sense of the tone of the discussion, here's a partial transcript of what the two GOP activists had to say on the radio.

KNIGHT: When we had gotten through the signature phase and we were dead broke, we went in search of allies, and we asked to have a sit down with the state party chair. And we asked for a little assistance on the legal. And, um, kind of, they never really got back to us. A couple guys were selling things and – actually, a lot of guys were selling things, and we asked the good people of Colorado and elsewhere to help us get through that. And, um, you know, we also found out through various means that the Republican party was trying to shut down the recalls, by calling various power players in the county GOPs and saying, “Look, you got to put a halt to this –slow this down.” So, Victor and I both kind of ran into a brick wall there, when we thought we’d have some allies, and they didn’t come through. As a matter of fact, they made it even harder for us. So, yeah, it was a — we wanted to make the– to get the record pretty straight today. Victor probably has more to add to that.

GUEST CO-HOST DAVID K. WILLIAMS: Yeah. Victor, what was the rationale behind the state party not more actively assisting you?

HEAD: You know, I’m not really sure what their thought was, other than that they didn’t approve of it, initially. And so they were just upset that basically we sprung this as ad as ‘we, the people’ without asking for their blessing first…we were down to about where the recalls were about ready to shut down, because we were out of money and needed some help. And then to go to them and get snubbed, it wasn’t a good thing to work through. It was pretty hard. And then, to further it, now that we are successful, they then start sending out emails and raising money off of our work, saying, “Look at everything we did! Give us money.” And meanwhile, we still had outstanding legal bills and things. And we’re like, “Whoa, whoa, whoa! Not only did you not support us, you worked against us! And now you’re making money off of our backs?"

WILLIAMS: Victor, let me follow up on a question, there, for you. In The Denver Post, Ryan Call […] said that – or according to the paper, said that once the recalls were certified, the GOP donated about $40,000 – the maximum it could contribute to recruit and help senators-elect Bernie Herpin and George Rivera of Pueblo. What is he referring to there, and is that true?

HEAD: Right. They absolutely did. What they did is they donated money to the candidates themselves. And in that, they didn’t even donate actual money, that I’m aware of. They donated ‘in-kind’ donations to the maximum amount, being phone banks, flyers, door hangers, that sort of thing. And that’s great, but that didn’t help the recall effort. As you guys were saying at the beginning of the show, the candidates are kind of a secondary to the recall and everything.

WILLIAMS: Right.

HEAD: It’s – you know, that’s expected. Once the recall is there, they have to field a candidate. That’s expected. The point here was that we looked for some help, you know, as we were getting the signatures certified, we needed legal help. And they didn’t think we had a chance. You know, as a matter of fact, Ryan Call came down on election night, down to Pueblo to tell George Rivera how to graciously concede. He wanted to help him on his concession speech. Because he said, “You guys don’t have a chance down here. We need to graciously concede, make sure there’s no sour grapes, and just move on!”

WILLIAMS: And he won by like 12 percentage points, didn’t he?

HEAD: Yeah, then we blow it out by twelve percent! And then, he tries to come down and give a big speech at our victory party! And we shut him out! We said, “NO! Get the hell out of here! Are you kidding me? You were just here four hours ago telling us how we were going to lose! You’re not going to take credit for this!” So, it’s – you know, like you were saying, it’s probably politics as usual in the party. But at this point, we have momentum. We have some grassroots energy, and we’re going to demand some reform in this party and some reform in the leadership, or the party is going to die, I’m pretty sure. I mean, they’re going to be wholly ineffective in 2014 and it’s just going to, you know — it’s not going to help anybody.

Comments

16 thoughts on “On radio show, GOP activist says Republican State Chair has list of “most detrimental people to the Republican Party”

  1. As I say, boyles had the recall people on his show, yesterday.  They were highly critical of Ryan Call.  Seems to be a shot across the bow of the so-called Republican "elite"….nationally, Cruz and his mentor, Sarah Palin, are attacking national republican leadership as well as dems.  All very interesting.

  2. This is a momentous day! My first mention in ColoradoPols! (As far as I know).  As a non-member of the GOP, I found myself an outside observer to the controversy. I did my best to referee.

    David K. Williams, Jr.

    Former State Chair, Libertarian Party of Colorado

    BlueCarp

    1. Wow. Looked at you on twitter and googled you as well. Okay. 

      This could be fun. Of late, the site's been hit a bit by rather over aggressive and angry trolls calling themselves "libertarians".. The results have been, at times, messy.

      Just a word to the wise. Be factual. If you get strong, be ready to back it up. Most pollsters are better at civil discourse than I, but they don't suffer unsubstantiated claims, attacks, or massaged facts or numbers.

      That said, welcome.

      You'll like this site. While it does lean Democratic, the pollsters are fair and open to dialogue. They're also well informed, so just be honest, and you'll be well received.

        1. You're very welcome.

          The wow was my reaction to some of your positions. Up front I will tell you that we'll disagree………….a lot………..but as Elliot Fladen does, you have my respect for posting under your name. Right or wrong, correct.incorrect, anybody that does that probably believes in what he's posting.

          I'm wondering about your article about the government getting involved in Civil Unions being a violation of civil liberties, and your position that a real marraige can only be sealed by a religious ceremony.

          If I got that wrong, Pop me on it. But could you get into detail?

          1. Regarding Civil Unions, I'm not sure to which article you are referring, but in general I do not believe the State (when I use the word "State" I mean the government in general) has any business sanctioning private relationships between consenting adults. It is a relatively new phenonema.

            For example, John and Abigail Adams did not need government permission to get married. They just did it. 

            I am sorry I gave the impression that I believe "a real marriage can only be sealed by a religious ceremony." I do not believe that. I believe that is one way a marriage can be sealed, but it is not up to me or an agent of the State to judge what is a "real" marriage or not. Who marries whom is none of my business and none of the State's business.

            I hope I helped clear up my views on that topic.

            Thanks for asking to expound…

            David K. Williams, Jr.

            1. Welcome David!  Nice to have a new voice on the site who holds promise for rational discourse.

              First, I'm not an attorney, so don't claim to be a legal expert.  But isn't the main interest the state has in sanctioning secular marriage is so they can preside over the orderly dissolution of the same?  I mean that seriously.  Most relationships are economically unbalanced, and so the legal framework is designed to provide a semblance of equality to both parties in a divorce (especially if there are children and/or sizable estates involved)?

              Plus you've got all the reasons gay marriage is finally becoming more accepted that hetero marriages have enjoyed for centuries — ability to make health decisions for their partners, all the legal rights and protections afforded the partners, applicability of tax laws, etc.

              Just ask anyone that has been in a relationship, but never legally married.  If we all lived on our own deserted islands, then your stateless concept of relationships might make sense, but not when there are hundreds of millions of citizens interacting within all the rings of rights, privileges and responsibilities.

  3. Sooner or later, the disenchanted Republicans will find there is only one solution – to break off and create a separate political party. It's really the only way to go. . . .wink

    1. Are you thinking they'll go the way of the prior party plank or the new crazy direction.

      I think the same way you do re: disenchanted "r"'s not thinking the party's the old principled conservatice group it once was and isn't "their party"  anymore, but does it translate to a party more nuts or more common sense?

      You've got people that hate government IN government. They started that con with reagan, and it's turned into a retail revenue job for individual republicans. Both the teabag wing AND the older wing republicans are now selling and zero else.

      Where does an Eisenhower republican go?

      1. I see the tea party finally becoming the Tea Party, and the oldtime Republicans remaining the Republican Party. But to me, the only important result is that the ONE party becomes TWO parties. We Dems would really like that . . .

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

58 readers online now

Newsletter

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