PPC Homepage

Tea Parties are influencing but not winning Republican primaries; bad news for Dan Maes, Ken Buck

by | 7:40 pm, March 7, 2010 | 24 Comments

Every Republican candidate in Colorado is trying to win the votes of Tea Party activists. Tea Party, 9.12 Project and related conservative groups are having a big impact on this year's GOP primaries. They are forcing candidates to focus on fiscal issues. But primary elections in Illinois and Texas, where Tea Party candidates failed to elect candidates in Republican primaries, show that without successful campaign fundraising, Tea Party candidates are likely to have a tough time in Colorado's August 10 primary, if not at the May 22 state convention in Broomfield. This suggests that all of the hard work that candidates like Ken Buck, Dan Maes, Cleve Tidwell and Ali Hasan have been doing for months may come to naught. Tea Party activists attend meetings and caucus training seminars, but they don't seem to be inclined to contribute to candidates. Without money, it will be nearly impossible for any of these candidates to win their GOP nominations or the general elections. Buck and Tidwell are running against Jane Norton for the U.S. Senate. They are splitting the anti-Norton votes with Tom Wiens who is running a mostly self-funded campaign. Maes is running against Scott McInnis for governor. Hasan is running against the establishment favorite, J. J. Ament, and an experienced portfolio manager, Walker Stapleton, for Treasurer. LINK: Tea Party candidates falling short.
Category: Uncategorized
Tags: >

Comments

  1.   iLoveTea
      March 7th, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

    1. Colorado is a caucus state, unlike Texas or Illinois. This WILL make a difference, as this is where the grassroots can make an impact well before the primaries.

    2. It’s important to understand the Tea Party dynamic in Texas, and although it may have appeared (thanks to the MSM) that Medina was their choice, the truth was, most of the Tea Party and similar groups cohesively rallied behind Perry – just to make sure Hutchinson did NOT win. I know this from MANY inside sources. Medina was too extreme, even for a Texas Tea Party, and they knew she couldn’t win. Texas’s groups also do not work as a state coalition as Colorado does. I was recently in Dallas at a leadership summit where I met many people from all over Texas, most of whom didn’t know eachother. This is NOT the case in Colorado, as we work within a strong coalition.

    3. In Illinois, the Tea Party and similar groups split their support among two candidates, both of whom ended up losing while giving the nomination to Kirk – the only one they really didn’t want. I can guarantee you this won’t happen in Colorado. By the time the primaries hit – and even the State Assembly in Loveland, Colorado Tea Party and similar groups will be on the same side.

    You will also see a big coordinated effort to financially get behind Colorado’s Tea Party candidates in the not so distant future. And I’m not talking about the Dan Maes money bomb, I’m talking a serious effort.

  2.   Haynes
      March 7th, 2010 @ 11:52 pm

    I haven’t been to that many events so far this cycle (I really need to get out there much more during the summer). But is Ali Hasan really the Tea Party favorite? I mean, this guy is a moderate Republican with boatloads of cash. He hasn’t lived the life I and a lot of Coloradans have.

    Maybe this is our problem? We’re backing candidates that say the right thing to us, but don’t really beleive it? I mean, jeez, this guy would vote for Diana DeGette if he could.

  3.   kevinallen
      March 8th, 2010 @ 1:27 am

    The bad news is for the lovers of big gov’t and big gov’t politicians like Donald E. L. Johnson. You can’t buy caucus and assembly votes, special interest dollars won’t decide the fate of the Colorado GOP primary, because we are a caucus state, unlike Texas and Illinois!

  4.   Donald Johnson
      March 8th, 2010 @ 8:27 am

    Good comments.

    1. I don’t think the caucuses will decide anything. Norton and McInnis will get enough votes at the state convention to get on the primary ballott. They’ll crush their under funded challengers like Buck and Maes.

    2. I’ve heard Ali Hasan speak several times, and I’ve interviewed him. He frequently says in his speeches that he’s to the right of Doug Bruce. He’s hardly a liberal or a moderate Republican. Anything but. He’s a conservative. He’s working the Tea Party, 9.12 events as hard as anyone, I think. Read his web site.

    3. I’m a small government, libertarian Republican but I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party because of its irresponsible positions on drugs and several other issues. Anybody who reads my blog knows that.

    4. I think that it’s critical that conservatives support the GOP nominees. Otherwise Obama Democrats will rule for decades. This is a once in a generation chance to stop them. Most Tea Party, 9.12 group and similar groups are attracting smart people who know they have a chance to have an impact in this year’s elections. I think they’ll support the candidates nominated by the GOP. They’re angry, but they’re not dumb.

  5.   Donald Johnson
      March 8th, 2010 @ 8:28 am

    Good comments.

    1. I don\’t think the caucuses will decide anything. Norton and McInnis will get enough votes at the state convention to get on the primary ballott. They\’ll crush their under funded challengers like Buck and Maes.

    2. I\’ve heard Ali Hasan speak several times, and I\’ve interviewed him. He frequently says in his speeches that he\’s to the right of Doug Bruce. He\’s hardly a liberal or a moderate Republican. Anything but. He\’s a conservative. He\’s working the Tea Party, 9.12 events as hard as anyone, I think. Read his web site.

    3. I\’m a small government, libertarian Republican but I\’m not a member of the Libertarian Party because of its irresponsible positions on drugs and several other issues. Anybody who reads my blog knows that.

    4. I think that it\’s critical that conservatives support the GOP nominees. Otherwise Obama Democrats will rule for decades. This is a once in a generation chance to stop them. Most Tea Party, 9.12 group and similar groups are attracting smart people who know they have a chance to have an impact in this year\’s elections. I think they\’ll support the candidates nominated by the GOP. They\’re angry, but they\’re not dumb.

  6.   Donald Johnson
      March 8th, 2010 @ 8:40 am

    iLoveTea,

    I’ll believe the money surge when I see it. If some wingnut right wing groups pour money into Colorado, I think they’ll fail in the primaries. And if they succeed in the primaries, they’ll ensure GOP defeats in November. Colorado is a Blue state until proven otherwise, and extremism will not turn it Red.

  7.   Donald Johnson
      March 8th, 2010 @ 8:46 am

    Let me clarify. I don’t think Buck or Maes is an extremist. They’re both people I could support. But if they are backed by extremists, they will be tainted. Even though the Dems are backed by left wing extremists, I think the Dems will paint Buck and Maes as extremists so fast that their poll ratings will sink into the toilet, and they’ll lose big time. Be careful about what you wish for.

  8.   Donald Johnson
      March 8th, 2010 @ 8:47 am

    Let me clarify. I don\’t think Buck or Maes is an extremist. They\’re both people I could support. But if they are backed by extremists, they will be tainted. Even though the Dems are backed by left wing extremists, I think the Dems will paint Buck and Maes as extremists so fast that their poll ratings will sink into the toilet, and they\’ll lose big time. Be careful about what you wish for.

  9.   Chris Maj
      March 8th, 2010 @ 11:17 am

    “3. I’m a small government, libertarian Republican but I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party because of its irresponsible positions on drugs and several other issues. Anybody who reads my blog knows that.”

    You are aware that Republican Tom Tancredo advocates legalizing drugs, yes?

  10.   NancyR
      March 8th, 2010 @ 12:37 pm

    I think it is a shame that we allow the media to portray us as extremists because we have recognized the mistakes of allowing govt to solve our problems. We must stand tall & proud AND speak the truth w/the intention of doing what is right for country & not personal gain.

    As someone who has been part of the 912/Tea Party movement fm the start I am committed to making a difference. The energy and activies all liberty groups have done are a great start BUT in order to really make a difference we must start walking the talk & contribute!! We keep saying we are tired of big $, lobbyists,PACS deciding the candidates & so DO SOMETHING. Many grass roots candidates have been working tirelessly going to our mtgs, interviews, forums, etc. but without $ support career & establishment candidates will still win.
    with the thousands of us in colorado all it takes is $10 or $25 to make a difference. Change starts with each one of us and much is at stake – time to get in the game 100%!!

  11.   Donald Johnson
      March 8th, 2010 @ 7:07 pm

    Chris Maj. I agree with Tancredo on illegal immigration. I don’t agree with him about stopping all immigration, about social issues or about legalizing drugs. His endorsements and recommendations mean nothing to me.

  12.   Donald Johnson
      March 8th, 2010 @ 7:09 pm

    NancyR: I agree. If you don’t contribute, don’t complain when your candidate isn’t elected.

  13.   iLoveTea
      March 8th, 2010 @ 11:27 pm

    Don, are you calling me an extremist? A little confused about that.

    Haynes, I’ve never heard Ali called a Tea Party candidate and have personally only seen him at one Tea Party event, the same one I saw Jane Norton at. Most of my level headed Tea Party activist colleagues prefer JJ Ament, but I don’t speak for the movement as a whole, just for myself.

  14.   Russell Fruits
      March 9th, 2010 @ 7:26 am

    Isn’t the state assembly in loveland this year not broomfield?????

  15.   colawman
      March 9th, 2010 @ 7:51 am

    Donald,
    I think you are ignoring the dynamics of the race for Senator. Jane Norton does not have the majority support, much as you would like it to be. It looks as though Norton and Buck will make the ballot for the primary. That leaves the Wiens and Tidwell voters with a choice. I do not see their votes falling for Norton in the primary. Norton frequently is attacked for her support of Ref C. She is weakened by her money ties to Washington lobbyists and John McCain. You dismiss the Tea Party and 9/12 movements because they do not support Jane Norton, that is convenient but not an accurate portrayal of the movements strength.

  16.   SharonE
      March 9th, 2010 @ 9:05 am

    The Rasmussen poll that was taken asked only if you would vote for McGinnis or Hickenlooper or other. Careful people what you read and what you decide to believe and make sure you do your own research and get the fact. There are those who want to talk you out of voting your principles and values. Polls that are fair are not showing the party candidates as the favorites and all true grassroots folks know that. Stick to your principles and vote accordingly.

  17.   Chris Maj
      March 9th, 2010 @ 9:34 am

    Donald:

    You would be the first self-described libertarian that I’ve come across who supports the big government war on marijuana.

    Please consider watching this short Glenn Beck video, where he and a former Mexican official make the case for ending pot prohibition for reasons of national security:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFmtirw5io8

  18.   Donald Johnson
      March 9th, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

    Chris,
    I think there are millions of libertarians who don’t belong to the Libertarian Party because it is willing to let drug users abuse themselves, the health care markets, taxpayers and their neighbors.

    The national security gambit is silly and wouldn’t work. It might create one problem and create many more problems that were even worse.

  19.   Donald Johnson
      March 9th, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

    Chris,
    I think there are millions of libertarians who don\’t belong to the Libertarian Party because it is willing to let drug users abuse themselves, the health care markets, taxpayers and their neighbors.

    The national security gambit is silly and wouldn\’t work. It might create one problem and create many more problems that were even worse.

  20.   Marty Renn
      March 9th, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

    Chris, There is a major difference b/t being a Libertarian who doesn’t support legalization and someone who supports the big war on drugs. I really don’t think either fits. But then I think either is the Feds determinig expanding their role. Frankly, something like this isn’t a Fed issue. If the local/state want to do it, well that’s another issue.

    But I don’t really agree that its a good thing from a health perspective. Regardless of the “is it cool” or not, I can’t understand how the folks who hate smoking of any tobacco products would support/allow a new smoking item to be made legal without discussing the impact on the nation’s health… So… I’m sorry, did I interject an unrelated logical argument?

  21.   Marty Renn
      March 9th, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

    Chris, There is a major difference b/t being a Libertarian who doesn\’t support legalization and someone who supports the big war on drugs. I really don\’t think either fits. But then I think either is the Feds determinig expanding their role. Frankly, something like this isn\’t a Fed issue. If the local/state want to do it, well that\’s another issue.

    But I don\’t really agree that its a good thing from a health perspective. Regardless of the \"is it cool\" or not, I can\’t understand how the folks who hate smoking of any tobacco products would support/allow a new smoking item to be made legal without discussing the impact on the nation\’s health… So… I\’m sorry, did I interject an unrelated logical argument?

  22.   Marty Renn
      March 9th, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

    Oh, and yes. I’m a self-described Libertarian.

  23.   Marty Renn
      March 9th, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

    Oh, and I’m a self-described Libertarian.

    Donald, I agree with your point about “believe the money when it happens”. Here’s the thing that you all seem to be missing, you are not the majority of the voters. You’re not even the majority of the conservatives in the state.

    The money won’t just “come”. If you keep pointing to the Mass race, you’re living a pipe dream. That was a unique situation that occurred as a special election with an absolute loser of a sitting party. She completely lost the support of her grassroots AND her party organization. Compounding this was the FACT that the opposite party (in this case the Rs) observed this, read the close polls and counter to their lack of effort earlier in the race realized that there was a LOT of opportunity. So while the grassroots/Tea Party folks want to claim all of the credit, it was the work of MANY factors.

    And the money wasn’t just from in the state, but NATIONAL.

    If you believe that Buck/Wiens will be able to garner significant national fundraising just because they’re THE tea party candidate, you’re sorely mistaken.

    Part of the primary process is justifying to party activists that the candidate is capable. Capable of many things, but one of the most important in this day is raising campaign funds.

    Money doesn’t simply fall from the sky. It isn’t just magic produced by a national party – especially one as incompetently run as Michael Steele’s team seems to be.

    If the candidate can’t raise money, I’m sorry they can’t compete against an Obama backed Dem. And regardless of any present day issues b/t Romanoff and Obama, if Andy somehow beats Bennet, the President will do SEVERAL big events to help him.

    Simply put Buck doesn’t inspire folks. The proof is in his pathetic fundraising to date. Argue all you want, but no money equals no game.

  24.   Chris Maj
      March 9th, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

    Marty, you’re probably right that inhaling anything that is set on fire is not the best for your health. But if you consider that marijuana need not be smoked, but instead allowed for its development into vapors, tinctures, butters, etc., then the comparison with smoked tobacco starts to break down. Unfortunately, under the current heavy-club form of federal marijuana prohibition — which I think Donald supports wholeheartedly — there is little opportunity for free market forces to come out into the light and produce better products for the consumer. Of course, there would still be poor choices that would be made, legal or not, but as long as the taxpayer isn’t being forced to pay for those poor choices then we might arrive at the more traditional conservative libertarian position espoused by the likes of Milton Friedman and William Buckley. Which was, succinctly, to legalize it.

    Back to the OP: I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the opinions of those who would control what we do with our own bodies; with the great tea party yearning for significantly less government involvement in our lives.

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!