Colorado GOP Woos Tea Partiers, Will they Accept?

by elpresidente | 12:40 am, December 1, 2009 | 5 Comments

That’s the story in today’s Wall Street Journal profile of the Colorado GOP’s attempt in recent weeks to unify its party behind a single gubernatorial candidate and craft some sort of “offering” palatable to Colorado’s Tea Party movement.

To say that initial reactions have been underwhelming . . . well let’s hear from them:

To retake Colorado, the Republican Party wants voters like Michael Schneider.

A proud member of the diffuse ‘tea-party movement’ that gained steam during this summer’s town-hall meetings on health care, Dr. Schneider is on the hunt for candidates who promise to buck the political establishment, defy the party elite and hew tightly to conservative principles.
. . .
But the consensus candidate, a veteran legislator and congressmen, isn’t the kind of rebel Dr. Schneider was hoping for.

“We don’t want the same-old, same-old,” he said, though he conceded he might vote for the candidate.

“Might” is not that encouraging, though it is still early.

Former Rep. Scott McInnis has his work cut out for him–not appearing to be a hand-selected candidate by party bigwigs and top donors, convince not only Republicans but also that great 1/3 of the Colorado electorate–the “unaffliateds”–that he represents a better choice to them than Gov. Bill Ritter, and prove that the “Platform for Prosperity” is more than just a collection of platitudinous pabulum.

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, himself the subject of much heated whisperings about entering the race following State Sen. Josh Penry’s abrupt departure, offered this out to those who don’t particularly care for McInnis:

Republicans, however, said the platform would prompt voters to focus on the party’s message, rather than their feelings about individual candidates. “People can vote for the agenda” . . .

Well if that is true, why does the candidate have to be McInnis? If the platform/agenda/contract (whatever it is going by at the moment) trumps the candidate, why the need to “unify”?

Radio talk show host Mike Rosen consistently argues that “party trumps person.” Well, when the party hasn’t been all that responsive to grassroots’, electorally successful in the last 3 election cycles, or persuasive in arguing for its platforms on a state or local level, one can say the party hasn’t been very effective, to say the least. I would argue that my own aphorism–”Supporting party above principle does a disservice to both”–is clearly appropriate in this case. The principles in question include the need for transparent and competitive primaries to determine a party’s candidate in the general election, not a hastily assembled arrangement of the party’s big candidates from a decade ago who claim “unity” on the basis of a press conference.

On this point, R Block Party activist Nikki Mata (full disclosure–a great friend) sums up the feelings of many in the party, and not just those pesky Tea Partiers:

But Nikki Mata, a conservative activist in suburban Denver, said that such a strategy misses the point of the tea-party movement. Endorsements and platforms matter less to her and her fellow activists, she said, than their gut feelings about whether a candidate would shake things up — or would cave in to the establishment.

Voting for the lesser of two evils–essentially, “we suck less than Gov. Ritter and the Democrats, so vote for us”–is not a long-term winning strategy (and would fail as a business proposition). Ritter is unpopular just enough that this may work in 2010, but it does nothing to set the stage for competitive races down-ticket, or revive any sense of confidence in the party going into the next decade.

The article closes with this observation:

Despite such flashes of populist anger, political analysts in Colorado said the GOP move would likely strengthen the party by scaring off challengers from the right.

“At the end of the day, the tea partiers don’t have anywhere else to go,” said Eric Sondermann, an independent political consultant in Denver. “If they show up at the polls next year, it won’t be to pull the Democratic lever.”

Key words: “If they show up.” The Tea Partiers, rank-and-file GOPers, conservatives of all stripes, libertarians (small and big-L), independents, unaffliateds, and even Michigan ex-pats (sorry Ben) have to be convinced that McInnis (pending Dan Maes primary challenge) is the right guy for governor of the state of Colorado.

In other words, they probably won’t pull the lever for Ritter . . . but then again, they might not even show up.

And we know how that worked out in 2006.

And you can ask former Gov. Bill Owens how important those small slices of voters are in a competitive general election (see close elections, Colorado, 1998).

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

Derec Shuler
December 1st, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

Great points. This type of anointing before the primary takes place is what has so many conservative, liberty loving Americans taking up the activist banner after the 2008 election.

Like you said, we may not pull the handle for Ritter but it may not be for anyone either. That’s not the enthusiasm you need among your electorate to unseat an incumbent.
Donald Johnson
December 1st, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

What you guys fail to realize is that it looks like McInnis has won the money primary. Maes hasn’t even gotten started, and it’s probably too late for him to get off the ground. You can whine and pine, but the reality of politics is that you have to be able to pay to play. And that means you have to win the money primary. Tell me who’s going to give Maes the $ so he can be competitive. Tell me who is so passionate about Maes that they will be able to help him beat McInnis. So far, I don’t see it happening. All I see is a bunch whining. I don’t have a candidate in this or any other race. I just can’t stand seeing people ignore reality.
elpresidente
December 1st, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

McInnis has won the insiders money primary. Penry wasn’t that far behind.

What you fail to realize is that backroom deals, and platforms formulated without consultation of the party in general, is not only outdated but completely deaf to the current political climate.

McInnis can win all the money primaries he wants–he still needs to earn the votes of Republicans and any other Colorado voter, not simply expect their deference and demand their vote because he happened to raise a bunch of money.
Donald Johnson
December 1st, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

With all due respect, but Penry had picked the low fruit. He decided that he wouldn’t be competitive in fundraising, and he knew better than anyone else.

If you have been listening to the people who’ve attended forums and rallies held by the candidates, you’d recognize that the Platform for Prosperity (P4P) shows that McInnis, Penry and others involved in writing it have been listening. P4P is strong because it reflects what the base have been telling gubernatorial candidates.

Politicians have to listen. Then they have to tell voters what they heard and how they plan to be responsive as elected officials. That’s what McInnis is trying to do, and I happen to think he’s doing a pretty good job. Now, you and I and other critics can kick the tires and decide whether McInnis or other candidates have done a better job or will do a better job of responding to voters’ (not just the base’s) concerns.

If you don’t like the P4P, why not? Let’s see your concerns and criticisms. Please be very specific with your complaints and constructive with your recommendations.

The fact is that at some point a candidate has to take charge. He can’t rule by committee or straw pole. He has to show his creativity and political skills. McInnis is doing a pretty good job of that while Maes is mostly just complaining. I keep waiting for Maes to counter the P4P. He claims that it steals from his ideas, but that’s what smart politicians do. They co-op their opponents and claim the best ideas as their own. Of course, the opponents don’t like it, but politics ain’t fair.
elpresidente
December 1st, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

Politicians may appear to be hearing folks, but as for doing anything about it, both parties are consistent in turning a deaf ear to voters when political considerations arise.

I won’t respond, however, to the P4P until the platform appears more stable than the hastily executed hodge-podge–noted by two other bloggers (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/11/platform-for-prosperity-contract-for-colorado-waffling-on-car-fees-removal-poses-conflict-for-voters/) and (http://www.peoplespresscollective.org/2009/11/gob-united-gop-undecided/)–becomes more concrete. The ball is still in McInnis’ court, not mine.

Here’s what I wrote on Facebook:
“My point and part of the point in Ben’s post is that there is work to do. McInnis has the opportunity to attract voters to his side, not simply cruise on the idea that they will default to him. Good grief, I’m a Republican and so is Ben–we want the party to be based on good principles and the candidates to worthy of support. McInnis can certainly do that if he has a mind to, but this cycle, the feet will be held very close to the fire . . .”

As members of our party it is our duty to hold our candidates to a set of standards. Money is just one part of that. McInnis still has to campaign and earn our votes.

Colorado GOP Woos Tea Partiers, Will they Accept?

Comments

Featured Posts

Follow PPC

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

National Debt Clock

Advertise Here!

Categories

Archives

Meta

Blogroll

Contributors