In Dan Maes' first month as Republican nominee and Tom Tancredo's first full month as an American Constitution Party candidate, Tom Tancredo outraised Dan Maes by four to one. During the month of August, Dan Maes raised a paltry $50,201 next to Tom Tancredo's haul of $200,485. Both lag behind Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper's take of $403,597 during the same period.

Notably, the Maes campaign spent nearly half ($22,500) of what it raised last month on Secretary of State fines and legal fees. Maes also paid himself an addition $2,287 in mileage reimbursements. Maes begins the month of September with only $19,786 cash on hand compared to $141,028 for Tancredo and $171,542 for Hickenlooper.

So now what?

The Election

I'll share with you folks what I am going to do but I bet many of you have already guessed.  I'm going to vote for Tom Tancredo.  Tom entered the race at the behest of the Chairman of the Republican Party of Colorado.  He suspected dirty dealings but decided it would help the party.

Now there are a lot of folks out there that don't believe that.  Well, you are entitled to your opinions just as I am entitled to mine.  When I look at the cast of characters we have seen in this Tragedy, the guy that seems to have the cleanest hands and the most arrows in his back is Tom Tancredo.  For some reason I always lean towards the guy with the most arrows in his back.

I encourage each of you to go out and look at the issues and the standing of the candidates on those issues.  I encourage you to ignore party affiliation for one office in one election.  I hope you will vote for the person that you believe is best suited to lead Colorado and deliver principled, common-sense policies........who is on the ballot.

The Aftermath

Over at the American Spectator site I have been involved in a discussion.  I said that if this were ecumenical court, I'd vote to excommunicate the Pope or, in this case, Wadhams. Then I would examine the possible ways to pick up the pieces and salvage something for the people that support the Colorado Republican Party in good faith--because they have been SHAFTED by the folks that were supposed to be looking out for them and advancing conservative principles (again).

I would explore the possibility of throwing my endorsement behind Tancredo and then wooing him back to the Republican Party if he is elected.  The other possibility is to endorse the Constitution Party and encourage the Conservatives to go over there.  I think I'll propose both:

Vote for Tom and then watch the Republicans we send to represent us, at the State and national levels, this election.  If they do the same thing the Repubs did in '94, then join the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party (research both) and don't look back.  If they campaign on Conservative principles and then act like piggy prostitutes (selling themselves for money and setting up shop at the pork trough) then it is time to go looking for a party that will support our principles.

Political parties are formed by like-minded groups.  They are not groups of people who randomly joined together to vote, they are groups who share a belief in specific principles. It therefore stands to reason that if a political party abandons the principles that are core to a segment of its membership, in pursuit of the votes of a different group, or simply because they find it convenient, that segment should deprive that political party of its support. Failing to do so encourages the polticians to ignore the will of the very people who elected them.  Sound familiar?  Such nonsense is how citizens lose control of their government and one should question the motives of anyone that encourages party over principle.  I know it is hard to believe but we have some folks in the party that believe that our elected officials know best and we should just hush up and follow the leader.  They encourage elitism with their nonsensical advice.

It is time for some real, lasting accountability.  Tell the Republican leadership that the party is in an eight year job interview.  Hold them accountable.  We are responsible for the elitism in Washington, D.C..  We no longer expect our representatives to be as truthful and responsible as our employees--yet that is exactly what they are. If your child's teacher lied to you would you hold him accountable?  It is our failure to enforce the same responsibility for our representatives that we expect of ourselves and those around us that has allowed the "Grand 'ol Party" to not be so grand.  We, as Americans and as Republicans, are responsible for our party. 

When You Find Your Attention Slipping

Here are a few things to help keep your attention focused:

This political science paper examines the way the liberal elements of the Republican Party began to find success by lying about their beliefs to appear more conservative.  Many consider it a "how-to" manual: "The Impact of Intra-party Conflict on Electoral Outcomes: The Case of the Republican Party in the South, 1980-2000", Paige L. Schneider, Dept. of Political Science, University of the South.

The US Debt Clock: Watch it all slip away

Remember the anger, against our Republican piggy prostitutes,  that swept us out of power and swept Obama in.  Don't just be mad at Acorn.  Don't let it happen again.

So, here I go touching the "third-rail" in Colorado politics right now.  It got me kicked off of redstate.com and even had folks saying things like "Stay far, far away from my state", not realizing I am in his back yard. :->

The reality is that Dan Maes is NOT going to win this.  I was really disappointed when, like a real man, Tom Tancredo offered to leave the race and allow another Republican to be nominated if Dan Maes would leave the race.  Like a real politician, Dan Maes said "No".

Now, we are all unhappy with the prospect of Hickenlooper becoming governor.  Let me remind everyone that we were all really upset about Carter being elected, Clinton and now Obama too.  Have any of you folks stopped to think about what the election of those folks did for Conservatives?  Candidates that espoused Conservative values were "shoo-ins" after those folks got elected.  Nevermind that most of those elected were really RINOs wearing Conservative clothing.  Nevermind that, as soon as folks weren't watching as closely, they did everything they could to stomp out the real Conservatives that got elected.  Nevermind that the folks that do the vast majority of the work at the grassroots levels are Conservative and nevermind that it is the Kenesian and inte(R)nationalist policies of Karl Rove and Bush I & II and the "moderate" wing of the big tent party that lost the majorities that the Conservative grassroots worked so hard to get.

What to say about political parties?  Oh, yea: (from http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/politics.html)

___________

Political parties did not exist in 1789. Washington despised the idea of political associations, formed in such a way as to pit one group of citizens against another. In his farewell speech in 1796 he said:
 

[While speaking on the subject -- The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.]

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

________

Conservatives need to break away from the Republican party and become a force of our own.  The antics of Steele and Wadhams as well as John "I was a POW" McCan't, "No, don't take Baghdad" Bush and "Go take Baghdad" Bush, Mitch "Moderate leftist" McConnell and the poor excuses for Representatives leading the House Republicans, etc. are excellent examples that CONSERVATIVES AREN'T WELCOME IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.  Bring your votes but leave your opinions at the door and don't say anything about it or we'll kick you out!

I was on Capitol Hill for the 104th Congress, a.k.a. the "Republican Revolution", with Newt "Gushing about Clinton's friend Alvin Toffler" Gingrich's "Contract With America".  I worked for a Conservative Republican freshman from Texas (No, I'm not from Texas).  I helped (B-1) Bob Dornan (California) take on the inte(R)nationalist wing under Gingrich by bringing an American "security consultant" named Giles Pace, working for the Bosnian Muslims in Tuzla, Bosnia, to the US to testify in front of the National Security Committee prior to the American entry into the Bosnian conflict.  It wasn't even a year after the sweep of the House by Republicans singing the Conservative Anthem that all of the REAL Conservatives were pushed to the side like so much trash, cut out of the debate and literally told to be silent in meetings and the elitist,     inte(R)nationalist, "neocons" were already complaining about how the "Contract" was chafing them and how they weren't going to do that again.  

The point is that we are going to be taken again if we are not careful.  We need to support principle over party EVERY TIME.  If we don't we will continue, on the State level, to have weak-kneed apologetic moderates that are then pushed out in favor of someone who actually has beliefs.  Since the Republican party is dedicated to stifling Conservatives the only folks allowed to run who have beliefs are the Progressives.  The result is a constant trend to the left with no ground re-taken by Conservatives.  On a national level we will have a repeat of the neocon death march with the resulting international entanglements, budget deficits, expansions of big government, elitist snobbery, pandering to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and anyone else with oil or money policy.  What we WON'T have is a principled, moral, Constitutional government that reflects the Will of the People.

The Republicans have had their chance.  They have ridden the Conservative horse for too long without giving it food, water or rest.  Now it is time to unseat these morally gray usurpers and strike out on a truly Conservative course.  Change will not come in days or months but in years.  Yes, anything worth doing takes patience and hard work but wouldn't it be nice, for once, to not have to want to kick yourself when you walk out of the voting booth?  Wouldn't it be nice to hear someone defend the Constitution the way you do and actually win a debate with the liberals as opposed to just giving in and constantly compromising with the left? The Republican moderates have shown, in no uncertain terms, that they are willing to compromise to strength.  They have been doing it for years with the Progressives.  Isn't it about time to start pulling this country back in the right direction? 

Stop letting the moderates own delivery of the Conservative message.  Let's make them compromise with us instead of the Progressives.

I support Tom Tancredo and Sarah Palin and I DO NOT apologize for it.

I was recently banned from my former blogging site, redstate.com.  I was banned because I took issue with the Republican party here in Colorado and their choices for guberrnatorial candidates.  I outlined the issues that led me to believe that neither Maes nor McInnis are a viable choice to represent me.

I went on to rail against the moderate Republicans that are currently taking issue with Tom Tancredo's entrance into the race.  I called them weak-kneed and cowards for being afraid to back a strong conservative and called-out the fact that this is not the first time that Conservatives have found themselves shunned by the "important" people in the party.  I also drove home the point that the Republican party is not Conservative but, rather, Republican.  I called out the fact that the inte(R)nationalist, so-called "neocon", wing of the party (formerly referred to as "country club" Republicans), have been responsible for the very things that caused us to lose the majorities in the House and Senate that we fought so hard for in the 1990-1994 timeframe.  I pointed out that they had brought us the Department of Homeland Security, Bailout I, Desert Storm, MFN for China, a huge debt, a huge deficit, restrictive rules of engagement for our soldiers on the ground, failed nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan and, more importantly, Barry Soetoro, aka Barak Obama.

I called for Conservatives to stand up and vote their conscience.  I also declared the Kenesian-believing, inte(R)nationalist wing of the party to be my enemy and told them point-blank that I am coming for them--That I was "going to kick your butts our of the party leadership, so help me God".

I did a "what if?" excercise on the possiblity of Hickenlooper being elected and pointed out my belief that if we end up with a Governor that is a liberal in disguise and will compromise-away all of what we stand for then I believe that we are better off with Hickenlooper because the entire state would be likely to swing hard to the right afterward.

I expected that folks reading it would be able to tell, quite clearly, that I am thinking for the long game and would rather be very well positioned for the long term and poorly positioned for the short term than to be well positioned for the short term and poorly positioned for the long term.

Little did I realize how far the mainstream neocons had fallen.  I expected searing comments and significant amounts of debate.  I expected name calling and discussion.  I expected freedom of and the clash of ideas.

I did not expect heavy-handed censorship.  I did not expect a site advertising itself as "conservative" to completely ignore one of the founding principles of this country.  I, ignorantly, did not expect a repeat of history:

 These are the fruits of the policy of statesmen who have risen from beggary to opulence, from obscurity to distinction, whose private mansions are more splendid than our public buildings, and whose fortunes are exalted in exact proportion to the decline of the interests of the state. What is the cause of this change? The simple fact, gentlemen, that formerly the people, having the courage to act, and to see service in person, controlled our statesmen and was master of all our emoluments; and any of the citizens in general was content to receive from the people his own share of honor or office or advantage; whereas now, it is the statesmen that dispose of our emoluments; it is through their agency that everything is done; while you, the people, gentlemen, reft of all your strength, stripped of your treasure and allies, have become mere underlings and appendages, and are satisfied if your statesmen present you with a dole from the festival fund, and the manliest part of all! you are even grateful for receiving from them what is your own all the while. They coop you up in the city, and entice you to your pleasures, and make you tame and submissive to their hands. But it is impossible as I hold to have a high and noble spirit, while engaging in petty and mean pursuits: men’s pursuits must necessarily have an influence on their character. I should not be surprised if, for merely mentioning these matters, I were to suffer more than those who are themselves responsible for the state of things. It is not every subject on which you permit your boasted liberty of speech: I wonder that you have permitted it to-day.  But if, gentlemen, you would only renounce these practices and be ready to take to the field…you might, you might perhaps, secure some solid and important advantage.

The Greek Statesman Demosthenes (384–322 BC), in the Third Olynthiac 

 Unfortunately, the much-boasted-of "liberty of speech" has been denied to me on Redstate.  Not only that but my comments were even mis-charaterized by Neil Stevens, the editor that banned me and attempted to block my access to the site. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 [No, you don't get to promote the election of a Democrat, or shill for a Constitution party whack job, at RedState. Begone. – NS]

 He'll stay away from RS, too.

Neil Stevens Tuesday, August 3rd at 12:44AM EDT (link)

Dan Maes sent out a statement today telling Tom Tancredo he isn't going anywhere.

Evergreen, CO, July 23, 2010 - This morning Republican Designee for Governor, Dan Maes, responded to the July 22 ultimatum by ex-congressman Tom Tancredo which stated that Maes or his republican opponent, Scott McInnis, should step down from the race for Governor if they win the primary and are losing in the polls to John Hickenlooper.  "This is an arrogant and absurd position for Tom to take but it is certainly his right to do so.  I will not step down from this race at anytime, period." Maes declared.  "Tom thinks I am unelectable because of some bad press.  If he actually has the courage enough to step into the arena I suspect he to will get some bad press."  Maes claimed. "I am proud to continue our campaign with the state assembly victory, and polls showing us competing head to head with Mayor Hickenlooper at our back." Maes concluded.

No word yet from the McInnis campaign on whether or not he is backing out if Tom Tancredo gets in.

The McInnis campaign and other Republican leaders have been working to unify the party in order to take back Colorado from Democrat control.  Mike Rosen writes about this in the Denver Post.

The agenda, modeled on the winning reform recipes of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell in their New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races, gives McInnis something concrete to run on rather than merely running against Ritter. It's sufficiently faithful to traditional conservative principles to please and reassure the Republican base, while specific, practical, and inclusive enough to attract swing-voting independents in the state. You might call it a Contract for Colorado.

Some of the provisions include:

• A commitment to limit taxes and state spending.

• Rescinding the Ritter executive order unionizing state employees.

• Requiring employers to participate in the federal e-verify program for new hires.

• Establishment of a state "rainy day" fund.

• Responsible development of renewable energy and Colorado's abundant oil and natural gas resources as well as nuclear energy.

• Appointing conservative judges to balance the court and reign in judicial activism.

• Expanding school choice through additional charter schools and education vouchers.

• Reversing property tax and auto registration taxes.

Concerns that the platform would repel moderates by taking an extreme position on abortion were unfounded. It simply reinstates Gov. Bill Owens' policy, banning taxpayer funding for abortion agencies like Planned Parenthood and making a general statement of principle defending the sanctity of human life.

This appears to be a winning agenda.  Republicans could have a great year in 2010 if this works out as planned.

Adam Schrager reports at 9News that Josh Penry has been carrying on a number of high-level discussion with Scott McInnis and Tom Tancredo in an effort to defuse a potentially destructive gubernatorial battle.

Within the last few days, Penry has attended two meetings with McInnis and potential challenger Tom Tancredo as well as a meeting with Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams.

"I'm using the good will I accrued by dropping out of the race to be a diplomat," Penry told 9NEWS Monday by telephone. "Every one of these conversations has been positive and leaves me with the impression we have more in common than we don't."
....
"I'm not going to tell Tom what he should or shouldn't do," Penry said. "I did suggest that we should engage Scott on his agenda and told Tom if he feels comfortable in that agenda, we can avoid the cost of a primary." Contacted by e-mail, Tancredo said he "completely agreed with Josh's characterizations of these discussions."

"It is important to know that, at least for me, the purpose of running for office is NOT the simple acquisition of that office," Tancredo wrote. "It is instead to advance a conservative agenda. If it takes raising and spending $3 million in a primary to do it - so be it. If, on the other hand, the goal can be accomplished in less expensive or less grueling ways, count me in. I have been surprised and heartened by the commonality of purpose I have observed to date. We shall see."

The three men met in person last Wednesday and spoke again by phone last night. The McInnis campaign confirmed the meetings with Tancredo, Wadhams and a host of state lawmakers who previously supported Penry and said the candidate would continue to reach out to Republicans throughout Colorado.

The ball is essentially in McInnis' court at this point. If he is successful in placating Josh Penry's major supporters the odds of a Tancredo candidacy greatly decreases. Penry is giving him a prime opportunity to repair some of the damage that was done by the premature leaking of the news that Penry was departing the race.

As was first reported here, Tom Tancredo is moving forward with plans to run for governor. An exploratory committee is being filed and it appears that Tancredo is actually getting into the race this time.

As Josh Penry prepares to suspend his campaign for Governor, former Congressman Tom Tancredo may be preparing to deny Scott McInnis a clear path to the nomination.

This would not be a move without precedent. Tom Tancredo's gubernatorial intentions were made clear in the months following the 2008 elections when he told Republican insiders and organizations that he was planning to run for Governor. Those plans fell by the wayside in 2009 when Josh Penry began to consolidate support from conservative activists.

More recently, Tom Tancredo was reported to be on the verge of challenging Jane Norton for the Republican Senate nomination had Norton found herself the lone contender in that race.

(- promoted by Rocky Mountain Right: some impressions from the Steele dinner last night from an attendee, also see this Politics West article on the prospective candidates at the event.)

Michael Steele apparently won the hearts of the Colorado GOP last night, and he saw and heard that the Colorado GOP has a stronger bench than most people outside the state think.

Bob Beauprez and Dan Caplis made especially strong impressions in the Senate race. 

Josh Penry did ok but needs to work up a better presentation and needs practice.

Mark Hillman struck me as a strong prospect, but he's not running. 

J.J. Ament looks good for state treasurer, and Scott Gessler was impressive.

I was disappointed with Tom Tancredo. Scott McInnis didn't speak and Marc Holtzman was a no show as far as I could tell. 

UPDATE: This poll has been taken offline after upwards of 200 votes were logged from Indonesian IP addresses on behalf of Cleve Tidwell. Apparently my warning went unheeded since the perpetrators may or may not have been able to speak English and may not have understood it. They ended up doing exactly what I didn't want them to, and that was to spam the hell out of the poll and then plaster the results everywhere claiming it was a great show of "grassroots support." Spare me the emails claiming that all the votes came from supporters because I can tell which one came from Indonesian servers and proxy servers (the vast majority of them), so please don't insult anyone's intelligence further by pretending that this a victory.

As an aside, if you really are that hell-bent on spamming a poll on this site, please go to the poll host's website instead of this one. When a lone Indonesian server refreshes this site 500 times in the course of 15 minutes it just looks like a denial-of-service attack on my end.

A WARNING TO SUPPORTERS OF A CERTAIN FLEDGLING CANDIDATE: When you vote, your IP address is logged and I've worked enough in IT to recognize when someone is hammering away from proxy servers. I can tell definitively when someone is spamming a poll in favor of someone (as opposed to the blindingly obvious circumstansial evidence of a candidate who trailed in last place all week suddenly jumping to first in a manner of hours). As with one of my previous polls, I am more than happy to toss out your repeat votes and embarass your candidate by pointing out what you are doing so please think twice. When Ron Paul's supporters used tactics like this, it only annoyed the bloggers who were targetted and it is still just as annoying.

Vote for your favorite Republican gubernatorial candidate out of these five likely candidates. This poll will expire in one week (Feb. 19th at 12:00 PM).

Feel free to syndicate the poll to your own blog to help get an even clearer picture of conservative activists:

RENDLEMAN FOR E.P.C. GOP CHAIR LAUNCHES SITE: Races for county Republican party leadership don't usually escalate to the point of having campaign sites launched, but the Kay Rendleman- Lois Landgraf- Buddy Gilmore ticket in Colorado Springs has done exactly that. They are being opposed by a ticket consisting of Cami Bremer and Darryl Glenn pushing for a greater focus on youth outreach and technology. The Rendleman - Langraf- Gilmore ticket seems to be running on "experience."

El Paso County will select their new leadership on Feb. 7th.

POLL SHOWS RITTER VULNERABLE IN 2010: Ben DeGrow points to a poll by a democratic polling outfit on potential 2010 matchups between Bill Ritter and Tom Tancredo or Bob Beauprez. Tom Tancredo unsurprisingly would be crushed in a historic landslide. More interesting is the fact that going up against the guy he beat by 17-points a couple years ago and who still holds a 45% disapproval rating in this poll, Ritter only wins by 6-points and falls short of breaking 50% (Ritter is at 46%).

Poll numbers of match-ups between Ritter and a Republican not named "Tom Tancredo" or "Bob Beauprez" will likely show a dead heat or a very close race.

Michael Bennet received his worst reception of his entire statewide tour in solidly-Democratic Pueblo. The Rocky Mountain News reports:

It was undoubtedly the toughest crowd of the five-day state tour led by Gov. Bill Ritter to introduce Bennet to parts of Colorado where his is less than a familiar name.

"I've never heard of him," said Ken Griffin, a retired electrician who didn't get a chance to ask for Bennet's views on organized labor.

"On a personal level, I had a real hard time with the fact the young man is not from Colorado," said Pueblo County Sheriff Kirk Taylor. "The second issue I have is the politicians within the state, up until the Salazars, have tended to be Denver-centric."

Meanwhile, hispanics in Denver are starting to sound like they're on the verge of going to war with Bennet. The Denver Post reports:

"These appointments have been made without the consultation, without the consideration or without any commitment to the Hispanic community," she said.

"If the governor was concerned about Denver's public schools, he should have kept Michael Bennet where he belongs and not appointed somebody to the Senate who did not have the credentials and has only been in the state a decade," Bordas said at the news conference, to applause.

Bennet might have some pull in the Denver suburbs, but if Denver and Pueblo fail to turn out in force it could spell serious trouble for him. The ideal Republican opponent will be someone with credibility in Southern Colorado to cut the margins in Pueblo and who can be competitive in the Denver suburbs. Who that candidate is, I'm not sure. At the very least it shouldn't be someone who responds to sincere attempts to court hispanic voters by putting out crude photoshops of Ron Paul and Fred Thompson at a Mexican cockfight.

Ben DeGrow has similar thoughts.

It's official: Ken Salazar is going to be Secretary of the Interior. This obviously makes his seat one of the hottest in the country going into 2010. Bill Ritter will appoint a replacement for Salazar, but they will have next to no time in office making this basically an open seat. This also has the effect of causing some major upheaval in the Republican primary fields for the statewide races in 2010. Everyone had been seemingly lining up to challenge Bill Ritter because he looked more vulnerable than Salazar. Now, with Salazar gone, many candidates who were previously considering gubernatorial campaigns will go over to the Senate race.

Josh Penry, who has been rumored to have been looking at both CD-3 and the Governor's race, would be a more logical candidate for Salazar's Senate seat at this point. Penry's relatively young age could be a problem running against an incumbent for an executive office. A run for the open Senate seat would play to Penry's strengths on the other hand. His experience as a State Representative, Senate Minority Leader, and staffer for Scott McInnis make him just as qualified as anyone the Democrats could put forward for the seat.

John Suthers considered running for Wayne Allard's seat this year. He is very likely to consider running again now that the field is wide open.

Mark Hillman narrowly lost a statewide race in 2006. He has statewide name ID from that race and from his long record as a state legislator. Hillman would be running in a more favorable environment for Republicans than 2006 and could escape the circular firing squad that the CD-4 primary is likely to be.

Bob Beauprez and Tom Tancredo have both floated their names in the Governor's race. As Congressmen, a Senate contest would make more sense for them. It's hard to see Beauprez gaining traction in a statewide campaign though, and Tancredo's high negatives make winning a Senate race just as impossible as winning against Ritter.

Former Gov. Bill Owens, who has been seemingly disinterested in running against Ken Salazar, may reconsider joining the 2010 race now that the seat is open.

Two-time CD-5 candidate Bentley Rayburn is likely to make noise about running for Senate, just as he inexplicably did last time.

The fields for the Governor and Senate races are going to take shape quickly over the coming months. This is a positive devlopment for Colorado Republicans not only because Salazar's seat is even more vulnerable, but also because some of the deadlock in the Governor's race will be alleviated.

Thankfully, the auto-maker bailout plan has been killed by the Senate. It seems some priciples of fiscal conservativism are alive and well in the Republican Party after all. In case you're curious, Wayned Allard voted against the bailout and Ken Salazar voted in favor. (H/T Ben DeGrow) This is great news.

What isn't such great news is our would-be Governor's vote on the auto-maker bailout. Here's how the Colorado Congressional delegation voted on it:

YEA
DeGette
Perlmutter
Salazar
Udall
NAY
Musgrave
Lamborn
NOT VOTING
Tancredo

Tom Tancredo previously voted in favor of the $700 billion bailout plan. Tancredo's defenders immediately called this an isolated incident (even though a $700 billion spending spree arguably cancels out a career of fiscally conservative votes). Tancredo's staff, seemingly catching on to the outrage among fiscal conservatives over the first bailout vote, came out and tried to play damage control by promising opposition to the auto-maker bailout. PolitickerCO reported the following last month:

Tancredo will be voting against the proposal, said spokesman T.Q. Houlton.

"We're bailing out these large auto industry makers where basically they've run their companies really in a bad direction, and we shouldn't be holding the taxpayers responsible for that," Houlton said.

The article went on to say:

Houlton said Tancredo will remain in Washington, D.C. throughout the U.S. House's lame-duck session.

To use a bit of internet slang: WTF, Tom?

Democratic polling outfit Research 2000 has provided some polling numbers that give us a preview of how Tom Tancredo would perform were he the 2010 nominee for Governor. I'm not going to address the top-line results as they are next to worthless, they were polling hypothetical match-ups against Ken Salazar and whoever ordered the poll is clearly clueless about Colorado politics. With that caveat, the demographic information in their crosstabs is accurate so the favorable/unfavorable numbers are useful at least.

Here is the breakdown of the numbers for Tom Tancredo:

                   FAV         UNFAV       NO OPINION
DEMOCRATS            9%         71%         20%
REPUBLICANS         77%         17%          6%
INDEPENDENTS        38%         49%         13%

Tancredo has racked up an astonishing 49% unfavorable rate with independent voters. With voter registration now at an even split between Dems, Republicans, and independents; that means Bill Ritter would start out near or at 50% support right off the bat.

If you want some historical perspective, Bob Beauprez was in the 36-41% unfavorable range in most polls conducted in October and November of 2006. Ritter won by 17-points. Tancredo's unfavorables are already 5-10 points higher than Bob Beauprez's were after a lenghty and difficult campaign.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, two rising stars who should be watched over the next four years, sat down with Bloomberg Television recently and gave their takes on the direction the party needs to take. Though they differed on some of the the details, they were largely on the same page on the key issues:

`The most important thing is to make sure that we reach out to Hispanic voters, to African-American voters,'' Crist said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' airing today.

Sanford said he takes ``a different tack toward getting there, but we're after the same objective.'' He urged fellow Republicans to do a better job of defining themselves as the party of limited government and lower taxes.

``The problem to a degree we've had as Republicans has been running on one message of conservatism and then governing a very different way,'' Sanford said. ``I think that the way that you appeal to blacks or Hispanics is to first of all carefully define what you're about.''

``There are a lot of blacks, there are a lot of Hispanics that very much agree with that idea of limited government, less in the way of taxes,'' Sanford said, because ``it has everything to do with their respective hopes and dreams.''

Both are absolutely correct and touch on a long-term strategy for the Republican Party. Hispanics are a logical constituency for the Republican Party and have only swayed away due to over-heated rhetoric from Tom Tancredo and similar politicians. A message of economic freedom with socially conservative undertones will win the hispanic vote as long as no opportunistic politicians are around to undercut the message with a "culture war" against hispanics.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem, Barack Obama's election may actually make it easier for the Republican Party to make inroads among African-American voters in the future. Barack Obama stressed to the African-American community the need for economic self-dependence and self-determination. Whether he intended to or not, Barack Obama may have injected a healthy dose of economic libertarianism and entrepreneurship into a new generation of an already socially conservative community.

There is a clear path for conservative ideals to take back a majority in Colorado and nationwide. If you get discouraged just remember that even with $600 million and an incumbent Republican with a 20% approval rating, Barack Obama still managed to only get 53% of the vote.

Rocky Mountain Right readers lean towards Marc Holtzman and Josh Penry as their top choices for Governor in 2010. In a hypothetical four-way match-up between Marc Holtzman, Josh Penry, Mark Hillman, and Tom Tancredo; both Holtzman and Penry topped 30% support out of over 100 votes cast. "None of the above" took 18% of the votes.

Ironically, the only one of these four to have made any solid moves towards running for Governor placed dead last. Tancredo came in with only 9%.

The "New" Tom Tancredo is not the one Colorado sent to Congress ten years ago...

Once upon a time, Tom Tancredo was a hard-working Congressman speaking out on an unpopular issue. Tancredo was vocal on getting the Republican Party to address the issue of border security and he eventually accomplished his goal. After the rest of Republican Party came around on the issue of border security, Tancredo felt that he had to go even further than everyone else to keep getting attention.

Tancredo let himself be hijacked by out-of-state interests and abandoned his congressional district to run for president. As it became clear that virtually every Republican presidential candidate had endorsed a pro-border security and anti-amnesty position, Tancredo started veering off into more and more extreme rhetoric in an attempt to stay relevant.

The truth is that Tancredo's view on the immigration debate has become so twisted that he thinks any attempt to speak to hispanics about issues important to them or convince them to vote Republican is a tacit support of illegal immigration.

Take for example this charming web ad from Tom Tancredo's presidential campaign that singles out Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Mitt Romney among others as pandering to illegal immigrants. Tancredo was apparently so offended that any Republican would attempt any outreach to the hispanic community that he was willing to brand even border security advocate Duncan Hunter as un-pure on the issue.

Just let that sink in. Tom Tancredo thought that Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul were pandering to illegal immigrants because they tried to talking to hispanic voters. Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul.

In 2007, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore addressed the Iowa Republican Party. In his speech he said that an amnesty program must be opposed and framed controlling the borders as a national security issue. This would all seem like it would be fine by Tom Tancredo, until Gov. Gilmore made the fatal mistake of saying that even though he supported border security he wasn't advocating hatred towards hispanics:

"We simply cannot have an amnesty program.  We should control our borders, make sure that they are secure, use all resources at our disposal to do that, of technology and personnels and people everywhere on the northern and southern borders.  We cannot be a sovereign nation unless we control our borders.  We should be harsh with people who break the law and hire people illegally.  Now I have no interest in sending a message of hatred or anger to anyone..."

In Tancredo's mind, that statement evolved into this:

"Less than a year ago, while campaigning for the presidency in Iowa, I witnessed Gilmore give a speech supporting a policy that sounded like amnesty to me."

Tom Tancredo would spell the end of the Republican Party in Colorado if he were given any leadership role or, even worse, became a candidate for Governor. Giving Tancredo a platform of any sort will only drive even more hispanics away and make it completely impossible for any conservative to win.

Economic issues will resonate with hispanic voters and will give conservatives a path to victory in Colorado. That will not happen if Tom Tancredo is around to accuse anyone who tries to make that case of "supporting amnesty."

(Poll closed)