Scotch verdict on McInnis-Maes

What is called in the law a Scotch verdict, an agnostic shrug of "not proved," is my sad and reluctant conclusion about next week's Republican primary for Governor of Colorado. At present I cannot support either of the two candidates.

I was intrigued with the businessman-outsider persona of dark horse Dan Maes, and went so far as to float the case for him in my Denver Post column last Sunday, posted below left as "Maes and the Medicine." But as the evidence mounts, I deem the case very insufficient.

Dan Maes is not ready for prime time and seemingly not who he has claimed to be.

Scott McInnis has seen too much prime time, and Colorado is not ready for who we know him to be.

Which is regrettable for two public-spirited Coloradans, fundamentally decent men with devoted families -- and even more regrettable for our state, which so urgently needs the limited-government leadership a qualified Republican could provide right now.

Where does this leave us on the morning of August 11 when one of these two is officially the GOP nominee? Attractive and viable options are slim to none.

A ticket-replacement maneuver is imaginable but unlikely. A plurality victory for Constitution candidate Tom Tancredo is also unlikely; Tom is my friend but won't get my vote.

Are we looking at a handshake from outgoing Gov. Bill Ritter to incoming Gov. John Hickenlooper next January, Democrats retaining power against all odds after botching things so badly the past four years? What a pity if it comes to that.

Ginger Rogers Wouldn't Approve of Such Tactics

I am a supporter of Ken Buck in the U.S. Senate race. My vote for him did not come automatically or without careful study and consideration. My first instinct several months ago was to support Jane Norton. At the time, I viewed Jane as an attractive candidate, coming onto the national scene on the coat tails of Sarah Palin. I read her as a tough, gritty conservative woman. I assumed she was a woman of character, ethics, old-west integrity and a person whose handshake equals an absolute bond of truth and sincerity. I had not heard much of anything about Ken Buck, but before I signed up as a volunteer for Jane, I felt compelled to make sure I was making the right decision. I started doing some homework on Ken Buck. When he was somewhat close to where I live, I made an effort to go and listen to him. Did the same with Mrs. Norton, to be fair, and it wasnt long before I started to doubt my friends in the GOP that were coaxing me to stand with Jane. Trust them, they said, we know which candidate can win.

I had a complete change of heart one Saturday morning in late winter when I heard a woman speak at a GOP monthly meeting. It was planned as a U.S. Senate candidate forum but neither Norton nor Buck could attend.  At that time, the field was crowded with other candidates. The room was overwhelmingly full of Norton enthusiasts, including many elected officials, both local and state-wide. Well respected persons in government positions took to the microphone to endorse Jane Norton. There was one woman that had come to speak on behalf of Ken Buck. I was absolutely struck by her passion in talking to the group. She was a woman I definitely could identify with--middle class, about my age, not comfortable in such situations, no rehearsed talking points and coached public speaking--but full of a fire that I believed was the true heart and soul of the Voice of the People Movement.  Having attended many tea parties and grassroots meetings hosted by a myriad of organizations, I knew a good, solid from-the-heart appeal when I heard one, and I heard one that morning. When the meeting adjourned, I was approached by the purple t-shirts of the Norton camp, asking me to fill donation envelopes, sign up to walk precincts and just to "Stand with Jane", afterall, I was a woman--all Republican women in Colorado were automatically expected to march in lockstep. By the time I made it to my car, I was no longer a blind follower of my county GOP's pick, and I was ready to learn more about Ken Buck, the DA from Weld, County.

In May, I was one of the very fortunate folks in Colorado to be able to attend and cast votes at the GOP State Caucuses. By that point, I was fully convinced I'd vote for Ken Buck, even though I had cast a straw poll vote for Norton back in March at my neighborhood caucus.

It's been a journey of enlightenment.  That cold night in March at my local elementary school and then the high energy experience in Loveland at the State Caucuses both seem so long ago. As the heat of mid-summer and evening storms bear down on us in these final days before the Primary, I've held out hope this race would remain civil and dignified. America has had enough of lies and platitudes and disingenuous politicians. I felt all year we could do better.

I attended a very informative lecture last evening given by KUSA's Adam Schrage, co-author of "The Blueprint..." Locally, we'd been encouraged by conservative radio to hear this young man speak and learn from his research and published findings. He was, indeed, an impressive speaker and presenter. I knew in advance the actual details of how Progressives organized and snatched Colorado from the GOP. I'd read the book but hadn't heard Mr. Schrage's presentation. The one point he made that I took to heart and took home was the reality that we will never, ever have one candidate that totally and completely meets all our requirements. No one, other than ourselves, lines up exactly with all of our ideals and positions on different issues. While he was party-neutral in his discussion, he was clear that it is essential to put aside petty issues once a primary is over and stand firmly with the candidate of your party---provided you want your party to win.

I knew as I left that he was right and I was committed that come Wednesday, August 11, I was going to be 4-square behind the electorate's choice for U.S. Senate and Colorado Governor. I kept reminding myself that we must win. We must put a Republican in those seats, even though the persons filling them may not be as conservative as I or may differ on an issue or two.

I've been disappointed by the childish attacks Jane Norton has levied against Ken Buck. I expected more from her.  The behavior definitely does not line up with my ideals of ethics and sense of decency that help define my political agenda. I'm old-fashioned because I believe persons in positions of authority deserve our respect and in turn, they need to live their lives and model behavior that compells the rest of us to try and elevate our own behavior and conduct in society.  It is very discouraging to watch a political campaign use tactics and words that I wouldn't allow my family to use in our home. 

Today, I received a glossy, high-dollar campaign flyer in the mail and while I understand a candidate has no real control over campaign slurs put out by independent groups, I know that the slur presented in this flyer is something Jane herself has hammered on for over a week.

"Grow Our Party", the powerful 527 group headed up by Bill Bloomfield, a California developer, was officially organized in March, 2010, according to an article written March 25, '10, by ABC News political correspondent, Matthew Mosk. (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10198868 The irony is unavoidable because Mrs. Norton has avoided her connections to Sen. John McCain for months and has tried unsucessfully to garner the support of Colorado's grassroots voters. Grow Our Party is top heavy with operatives from McCain's '08 run and now Sen. McCain is coming to Colorado to stump for Jane.  Grow Our Party hand-picks candidates and only seeks elitism in terms of the ad agencies, polling groups and other entities to associate with.  They know what's best for the Republican Party and someone like me is expected to follow their lead without question.  That's hard to do since I've been very vocal about the sorry effects Insider Politics have had on our country, especially in recent years. 

Apparently, when it was politically expedient to deny connection to John McCain other than being friends, Mrs. Norton did so, but now she needs his endorsement and the influx of money from his pals at Grow Our Party, who solicits and often collects donations in the $500,000 range. That's quite a step up for the hometown girl from Grand Junction, educated at CSU (her claim to grassroots fame).

I know Ken Buck and other candidates I'm supporting this cycle also have external special interest groups running ads, as well. But Mrs. Norton has been over the top. I've heard her at several debates. I've heard her repeatedly dodge questions during radio interviews and I've seen her lose her cool when questioned or challenged. She cannot be budged from her memorized scripts. Here's the thing that has literally broken my heart about this particular race:

"Grow Our Party" sent out this fancy flyer today which has a '50's era woman on the cover saying, "Whoa! Aren't we past this?" Inside, the memory of Ginger Rogers is invoked with the statement, "Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels."  I've heard that comment alot and I've always wondered what Ms. Rogers would say about it.  She made a career out of dancing with Fred Astaire and she valued his friendship and the fact that worked so well together.  She could have danced entirely alone and had as much fame and fortune, but she knew the two of them together were even better.  The flyer is cutsy and clearly aimed at undecided women voters, but for me, it had the opposite effect. 

Anyone with any political knowledge of this race knows the reference being made. Jane Norton made some off-handed comment about her high heels, and later Ken Buck made a comment, also off-handed and done with humor. It's been a gold mine for the Norton camp, who failed to encourage "Grow Our Party" to include in this flyer the fact that a woman in Norton's camp recently went on record as saying something to the tune of, "It's time to sex up this campaign." They also fail to mention that the upper tier of Buck's campaign staff is all women. This smear campaign ad goes on to state, ...Ken Buck says the only reason to vote for him is because he doesn't wear high heels. They complete the lie by noting that his "disdain for women is obvious."

Jane Norton's husband hired Ken Buck many years ago. Did she question h is 'disdain' for women back then?   Does Jane Norton honestly think he disdains women when she sees the devotion, love and commitment he receives from his wife and daughter and that he clearly returns to them? According to Jane Norton and the big-money team in Washington, D.C., that has hand-picked her for the Senate, Ken Buck is not fit for about anything, yet as a concerned citizen of Colorado, I had not previously heard her complaints and concerns about him in his public service life. 

As Sean Hannity says, it's the silly season right now in politics. Our country faces so many horrific challenges. We have problems that I never expected to see within the borders of this country in my lifetime. Jane Norton and her camp have resorted to petty politics as usual. Win at any cost. Defame and demoralize a good man and his family. Whatever it takes. She is a woman with a vision of a long career in politics. She is propped up now by the power players in D.C., even though she has repeatedly denied associations of that sort all along.  Her agenda is clear. Voters are also clear in what we want and what we will and will not accept anymore; our kids are watching all of this and the bar should have been set higher.  This is not behavior moms of most young girls would endorse and hold out as an example for their child to follow.

The results will be in come Tuesday night. Colorado will have spoken and we'll know which candidates to unite behind and which to reject. In walking my precinct this evening, I visited with several Republican neighbors that also received that same flyer. They find it replusive, immature and one went so far as to say it's downright un-American. Mud-slinging for the sake of one's own political advantage doesn't rate too high these days. Our opponent is Barack Obama and his Congress.  Folks are so tired of it and the nasty ads that a debate in Pueblo has been cancelled because citizens simply don't want to sit through it anymore.

I have asked repeatedly to be taken off of Jane Norton's phone, email and mailing lists. I wish the cost of that flyer that came today had been donated to a disabled vet instead.  If I'd gotten a small notice that said money that might have been used to attack Ken Buck had instead been donated to a Veteran's Home, my opinion of Jane Norton would have really improved--alot.  Up until today, I was sure that if Jane Norton was the candidate on the November ballot, I'd put aside my feelings and vote for her. The young man giving the lecture last night also encouraged it: vote for the party candidate because you never get everything you want anyway.

After getting the mail today; however, I have new questions. What about personal integrity? What about decency and Christian charity?  What about taking responsibility for your behavior and keeping in mind you have an obligation to set a good example for kids and people we'd love to coax into the Republican Party?  What about expecting a fellow Colorado woman to be above petty, sophormoric, unbecoming behavior? How does a person reconcile your vote when one candidate resorts to behavior you could not accept in your family, church or place of employment?

Ken Buck's chances are now in the hands of the Lord. Only He knows whom He will bless with a win on Tuesday and whom He has deemed as the standard-bearer for us in November. I can overlook a few policy differences. I'm not so sure I can forgive an utter betrayal of common decency and treating one's fellow man with respect and dignity.

Maes and the medicine

(Denver Post, Aug. 1) The other day in Starbucks I overheard Reagana, a personal trainer and Tea Party mom, debating with McDole, her CPA and a moderate Republican. “You can still support McInnis after everything we know about him? With Colorado on the brink, you’re telling me he’s the governor we need?” Doggedly but without enthusiasm, McDole pointed out the GOP veteran’s experience as a legislator and congressman, his litany of endorsements, his feisty campaign style and fundraising prowess. As for plagiarism, heck, Joe Biden did it, Dr. King did it, and look where they are. Passing off that judge’s writing as his own – no big deal. But Reagana said it came down to trust. Scott McInnis took $300,000 from a Muslim foundation for this glorified term paper. It looked to her like sharia sympathizers buying influence with a politician. Poor judgment for starters, and now with the stolen intellectual property, weak integrity as well. “He’s lost my vote.”

The CPA shrugged. His ballot was in the mail already, marked for McInnis. He figured if polling found Scott too damaged by press attacks, the Republican power-brokers would maneuver him off the ticket after the primary and put in Ken Buck or Jane Norton, whichever lost the Senate race. Besides, scoffed McDole, we can’t nominate Dan Maes – no one ever heard of him.

No one but a majority of GOP delegates, the trainer jabbed. Maes defeated Mac at the state assembly after a year of campaigning. How arrogant for the media and party insiders to talk as if no private citizen dares aspire to statewide office. Tell it to the late Gov. John Love. Bayh of Indiana and Blunt of Missouri, legacy boys barely 30, won governor with no credentials but daddy’s name. Businessman Maes has the tools and the ideas, argued Reagana, and anyway Colorado NEEDS an outsider.

McDole fretted about a letter from some Longmont woman in the July 18 Denver Post. “Maes wants to protect TABOR, buck the unions, thin the state payroll, encourage oil and gas exploration, and pass an Arizona-style immigration law. She has it all on tape.”

Reagana clapped with delight. Saw the letter, loved the letter, what’s not to like? Even if Scott could beat Hickenlooper, which he can’t (but neither will he quit the ticket), do you think for a minute he would do all those things, as wired into the cautious establishment as he is?

Our state needs a new broom to sweep clean, she said, because we really are at the brink. California may soon be in for the kind of bailout Greece got, and other states will follow. We’re not on the short list, but we’re not healthy either – huge annual deficits despite the Referendum C tax hike, and a time bomb in the state pension fund. Protecting TABOR is a must. So is cutting taxes.

The CPA jumped to his feet in exasperation. Was there going to be a scene? I looked away and pretended not to listen. “Don’t tell me you’re for those three awful ballot issues, 60, 61, and 101? Wiping out jobs, paralyzing services – please!”

Yes, said the trainer, because with so many governments headed for a fiscal coronary, this is heart-attack medicine we better swallow. One reaffirms the ban on state debt, part of Colorado’s constitution since 1876. Another rolls back Ritter’s illegal property tax increase. The third takes about 2 percent off government’s annual growth rate. Foolhardy NOT to pass them.

“Maes and the medicine – that’s where you come down?” McDole was incredulous. He had forgotten my long-ago campaign for governor, asking voters to support Andrews and the amendments. Roy Romer won easily, but the passage of term limits in 1990 and TABOR in 1992 has benefited our state ever since. As for 2010, who can say?

Pass the hemlock, please

Though the Tea Party movement is not a cohesive entity, its component parts this year have been grappling with a central existential question: To be, or not be, a third party?  Thus far, Tea Party leadership from across the country has made a concerted effort to keep its powerful, grass roots movement within the Republican Party.  As one of Colorado’s Tea Party leaders, Lesley Hollywood, told me recently, “We had to work at convincing people that the right approach was to work within the Republican Party – to restore its conservative principles and to keep it honest.”  The thinking is that third party candidates are relegated to the role of spoiler, and even in the rare occasion when they are well financed, have little chance of actually winning.  Principle is important, but power is essential to changing the way government works.   The Tea Party has learned to work the system, and the system has begun to work for them. Or so they thought.  Late on Monday, former GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo announced that he was entering the race for Colorado Governor as the candidate of the tiny American Constitution Party.    Even for those who know this mercurial politician well, Tancredo’s move represented a dramatic about face.  In December of 2009, Tancredo sent an open letter to Colorado’s Tea Party patriots, imploring them to get behind the Republican Party and not make the “suicidal” mistake of backing a third-party candidate from a small fringe party:

Some patriots are tempted to launch a third political party or back one of the existing small parties that never attract more than one or two percent of the vote in state races. I strongly believe that such a course is suicidal and would only result in splitting the conservative vote and guaranteeing the re-election of liberals and socialists.

I believe the Republican Party is the natural home of conservatives and that the road back to constitutional government lies in taking control of the Republican Party from top to bottom, from county committee to the statehouse and all the way to Washington, D.C.

According to the Denver Post, the ACP has 2,000 voters registered with the Colorado Secretary of State, and is the kind of fringe party that Tancredo rightly says never attracts more than a point or two of the vote.  But with a high-profile candidate in Tancredo, who has a dedicated core of state-wide support and a proven capacity to raise money, there is a very real fear that the American Conservative Party will split the Republican vote sufficiently to ensure that Democrat John Hickenlooper is elected in November.  As Colorado GOP Chair Dick Wadhams told the Wall Street Journal, “He wants to destroy Republican chances”.

Not that Republicans haven’t done a good job themselves of messing up the Governor’s race – the Republican front runner, Scott McInnis, has been embroiled in a high-profile plagiarism scandal, and  Tancredo’s stated rationale for joining the race is McInnis can no longer win.   But in the end, this move by Tancredo likely has less to do with politics and more to do with personality.  “Tancredo has an unquenchable thirst for national media attention, at any cost”, Wadhams told the Wall Street Journal.  Tancredo has gained a national following for his strident position on illegal immigration.  When Tancredo ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, he ran an ad that was reminiscent of the “daisy girl” spot that LBJ ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964 – depicting a bomb being planted by illegal immigrants exploding in a mall and the slogan “Tancredo – before it’s too late”.

This kind of sensationalism from a Tancredo run is likely to suck the air out of the Colorado campaign season – at all levels.  In fact, conservatives worry that beyond splitting the conservative vote in the Governor’s race, Tancredo’s presence on the ballot will affect other races as well.  This includes the race in the critical 4^th CD, where Republican Cory Gardner is running a hotly contested race against Democrat Incumbent Betsy Markey.  If Tancredo’s presence at the top of the ticket helps the ACP”s 4^th CD candidate Doug Aden siphons away votes from Gardner, it could mean the difference in the race.

All of which is salt in the wound to Colorado Tea Party activists – especially in Northern Colorado, where Cory Gardner is from.  In an open letter to Tancredo the day before he made his decision to enter the race, Lu Busse, Chairwoman of the Colorado 9-12 Project Coalition wrote:

We clearly demonstrated at the precinct caucuses and state assembly (that the)Tea Party and other pro-liberty grassroots individuals have worked tirelessly for more than a year championing our principles, becoming engaged and informed, learning the political process, vetting candidates at all levels, and also reshaping the Colorado Republican Party as you advised.

For Tancredo, it’s do as I say, not as I do.  “He’s making a mockery of himself and the entire election process”, Lesley Hollywood told the Wall Street Journal.  “It seems like an enormous power grab”.

Or publicity grab, anyway.

Sign the Lone Tree Declaration today

Hundreds, soon to be thousands, who believe that freedom is in the balance are adding their names to the Lone Tree Declaration, a statement of principles and concerns adopted at Western Conservative Summit 2010, July 9-11 in Denver. Named for a town close to the conference venue, the declaration drew a comical repudiation from liberals in local government, as if the municipality's name was a trademark -- but over 800 summiteers from a dozen states were undaunted in lining up to sign the parchment-style version on that Saturday afternoon.

Now you can be a signer as well. Add your electronic John Hancock and pass the word via email, Facebook, and Twitter to others of like mind. Let's build a fire under this thing. America has never needed it more!