( - promoted by Rocky Mountain Right - )

Tom is a good man. He has backslid a couple of times but, overall, he is a good man. I live in Parker (Tom's former Congressional district) and I am one of the folks that voted for him every time I got the chance.

That said, the campaign has become very nasty with a LOT of backroom dealing and disavowed comments. The RINOs have spent the last several weeks throwing mud at Tom and calling him everything under the sun. He made some statements about not joining a third party that have come back to haunt him. The RINOs and the party-line-over-the-cliff lemmings have really been out for blood.

If I were Tom, I'd be really mad that the party--and PEOPLE--that I took so much abuse supporting and so many bulletts defending would turn so violently on me. Amidst resounding declarations that I was "finished in the Colorado Replublican Party" I might just fly the middle finger and stay in until the bitter end.

I mean, what's he got to lose? Truth be told, the abuse I have taken for defending him from those RINO [not fit for print] has very nearly got me to the point of voting for him to teach the dang RINOs a lesson. They tried to push Norton on us--who McCain recruited, funded and campaigned for, and then tried to play down their mistake with McInnis and take a shot at the Tea Party by pretending to back Maes. Their ultimate goal with Maes, when he self-destructed as anyone with a brain knew he would after meeting him, was to be able to look condescendingly at the Tea Party and 9/12 folks and say, "See, we told you so. Now let us ex spurts handle the politics".

With that all in mind, I have moments of wondering why I should vote for Norton if she is on the ballot.

Lesson: Root out the RINOs from leadership. In this single campaign they were able to take out Maes, then prop him up, talk Tancredo into ruining his chances for a further office by waving the conservative flag at him and telling him it really WAS best for the party, then turning on him and then position their RINO Senate candidate that lost to Ken Buck as the Republican candidate for Governor.

Two words: Shark Tank

....and Wadhams said he thought McInnis was untrustworthy?  Look in the mirror, man!

In 2006 - Bob Beauprez, arguably the worst candidate Colorado Republicans have ever fielded for any office until this point, was crushed by Bill Ritter in a 57-40 landslide. Having Bob Beauprez at the top of the ticket caused a drag effect on the rest of the ticket causing excellent candidates such as Mark Hillman to lose their races by narrow margins and extremely popular candidates such as Mike Coffman and John Suthers to end up in much closer races than they should have been in. Bob Beauprez's unpopularity surely contributed to handing his own 7th Congressional District to Rep. Ed Perlmutter (that district voted for both Ritter and Perlmutter by a wide margin). The carnage in 2006 in the state legislature can also be blamed on the disastrous top-of-the-ticket as local races are more insulated from the national mood.

As the last few years have shown , Bill Ritter is not exactly a skilled politician or a great campaigner. He won in a landslide because of Beauprez's implosion. In 2010, Colorado Republicans have even more damaged candidates than Bob Beauprez in the form of Scott McInnis and Dan Maes. On the other hand, Colorado Democrats are fronting a very skilled politician in the form of John Hickenlooper. In short, this is a recipe for an electoral blowout that will make it nearly impossible for Republicans to win back the Senate seat, the State Treasurer's office, the Secretary of State's office, CD-3, CD-4, CD-7, and countless local races that could be tanked by association.

There is no longer any doubt that Scott McInnis will not be on the ballot in November. McInnis may be able to scape by for the next few weeks and stand as a primary candidate. He might even be able to win the nomination against Dan Maes. However, McInnis does the party and the conservative movement a disservice the longer he remains in. This scandal has advanced to a point where it cannot be argued that it is "just politics" and every day that it rages on it tarnishes all Republicans.

On the other hand, a Maes victory in the primary would not be a legitimate victory. Maes would win not on his own merits but merely by the spectacular implosion of the McInnis campaign. Maes, who by all indications will still be unknown to the majority of the primary voters once ballots are dropped, could win by default. This scenario would leave Republicans with a candidate who has no resources to compete against John Hickenlooper, a tendancy to make 360-degree flips on issues when the situation suits him, and a questionable grasp of how the state operates. Maes is, simply put, woefully out of his depth.

Perhaps more damning to both candidates is the complete lack of confidence that is being shown towards both. Activists do not believe either can win (outside of small dedicated followings). Elected officials are running from them. Partisan organizations want no part of the Governor's race anymore. Colorado Republicans are about to be left with a gubernatorial candidate who has been disowned by their own party.

The only way out of this mess is for both candidates to step aside for the good of the party. Doing anything else will not only mean a certain victory for John Hickenlooper; but a probable victory for Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter, John Salazar, Bernie Buescher, Cary Kennedy, and Michael Bennet as well.

While many self-styled populists will rage against the idea of a party "establishment" vacancy committee selecting a nominee, the time to rage against them was when they were sweeping viable conservatives out of the way in favor of a race between Scott McInnis and whatever random people felt like slapping their name on the ballot. This is not an ideal situation by any means, but this is the only choice left.

The biggest news from today's GOP Assembly was the failure of the McInnis campaign to capture top line on the primary ballot. While McInnis will still be heavily favored going into the August primary, the strong Maes showing combined with Joe Gschwendtner petitioning onto the ballot could cause headaches and a chaotic three-way race.

The second biggest piece of news was the fact that J.J. Ament not only secured top line but held rival Ali Hasan off of the ballot by a comfortable margin. Ament goes on to face Walker Stapleton in the August primary.

In noteworthy, but unsurprising, news Ken Buck won a vast majority of the votes and held all minor candidates off of the ballot. There had been speculation beforehand that delegates supporting Jane Norton or Tom Wiens would try to blunt Buck's victory by casting their vote for Cleve Tidwell or Steve Barton instead of Buck, but Buck's 77% victory indicates this probably did not happen.

Results

Ken Buck: 77%
Cleve Tidwell: 15%

Dan Maes: 49.35%
Scott McInnis: 48.89%

J.J. Ament: 79%
Ali Hasan: 19%

In the recent Rasmussen poll there were several polling results that were not made public and were only available to subscribers. One of the most interesting was Gov. Bill Ritter's dismal job approval rating:

Ritter as Gov. (3/5)
Approve: 34%
Disapprove: 63%

Ouch, no wonder he decided not to run for re-election.

Amazon.com sent out the following notice to small businesspeople using their online-affilliate program last night:

Dear Colorado-based Amazon Associate:

We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to inform you that the Colorado government recently enacted a law to impose sales tax regulations on online retailers. The regulations are burdensome and no other state has similar rules. The new regulations do not require online retailers to collect sales tax. Instead, they are clearly intended to increase the compliance burden to a point where online retailers will be induced to "voluntarily" collect Colorado sales tax -- a course we won't take.

We and many others strongly opposed this legislation, known as HB 10-1193, but it was enacted anyway. Regrettably, as a result of the new law, we have decided to stop advertising through Associates based in Colorado. We plan to continue to sell to Colorado residents, however, and will advertise through other channels, including through Associates based in other states.

There is a right way for Colorado to pursue its revenue goals, but this new law is a wrong way. As we repeatedly communicated to Colorado legislators, including those who sponsored and supported the new law, we are not opposed to collecting sales tax within a constitutionally-permissible system applied even-handedly. The US Supreme Court has defined what would be constitutional, and if Colorado would repeal the current law or follow the constitutional approach to collection, we would welcome the opportunity to reinstate Colorado-based Associates.

You may express your views of Colorado's new law to members of the General Assembly and to Governor Ritter, who signed the bill.

Your Associates account has been closed as of March 8, 2010, and we will no longer pay advertising fees for customers you refer to Amazon.com after that date. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to March 8, 2010, will be processed and paid in accordance with our regular payment schedule. Based on your account closure date of March 8, any final payments will be paid by May 31, 2010.

We have enjoyed working with you and other Colorado-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program, and wish you all the best in your future.

Best Regards,

The Amazon Associates Team

As Ed Perlmutter suddenly finds himself at a cash disadvantage, he is turning to the time-honored tradition among endangered Congresscritters of franking. Nothing like gouging the taxpayer to push out some free mailings (complete with a union print shop bug) to the entire district.

(Click for larger versions)

The mailing itself appears to be preying on individuals who have had problems with excessive credit card debt and would logically be more amicable to Obama and Perlmutter's driving up of the national debt.

 Liberal State Rep. Jack Pommer (D), fresh on the heels of a meltdown last week in a house committee, has now gone "off message" once again. In a rare moment of honesty, Pommer says what he really thinks about businesses - they are all out to swindle hard-working Coloradans and flee the state.

When the proletariat rise up against the capitalist pigs you can bet that Jack Pommer will be right there, AK-47 and bowie knife in hand, leading the glorious charge.

Brief U.S. Senate candidate and libertarian-leaning Republican Luke Korkowski has announced he will be running for State House in the district currently held by Rep. Kathleen Curry (D/I/U/?):

Crested Butte, CO - Luke Korkowski seeks to return Colorado to a sound financial footing and to bring jobs back to our state.

“The economic downturn has hurt Colorado’s working families, and Governor Ritter’s tax hikes haven’t helped,” Korkowski said.  He continued, “Though Colorado’s unique Constitution limits the General Assembly’s powers, I believe that, if we’re willing to restructure how we conduct business at the Capitol, we can return prosperity to our State.”

On Korkowski’s agenda are tax reform, facilitating the growth of small businesses, promoting responsible energy exploration, and education reform.

Korkowski previously ran a campaign for U.S. Senate.  “I thought I was done with politics for a while,” Korkowski said, “but some persistent friends convinced me that we needed solid conservative leadership right here close to home.”  Korkowski concluded, “I’m happy they were so tenacious, as I’ve come to believe they’re right.  We’ve got to get our state back on the right track, and I look forward to serving at the State Capitol.”

Korkowski is a business consultant and transactional attorney in Crested Butte. He is married and has two young children.

More information will be available at Korkowski’s website, www.luke2010.com, which is set to launch within a week.

Luke would make an excellent Representative and will bring a unique perspective to the State House.

John Hickenlooper's view on a variety of major issues are suddenly shifting now that he's a declared candidate for Governor. While far-left 527s might want to make hay about Scott McInnis' "makeover" (AKA 'a shave'), they are simply attempting to distract from John Hickenlooper's makeover on the issues. Several days ago, "bi-partisan gubernatorial candidate" Hickenlooper declared to a crowd of oil and mining executives that he believes there is no consensus on global warming and that it might not be that severe (if it exists at all):

“I don’t think that the scientific community has decided with certainty that climate change is as catastrophic as so many people think,” said Hickenlooper, a former geologist in the energy industry. 

He likened the discussion over climate change to when the scientific community as a whole turned on the issue of plate tectonics in the 1960s.

“Suddenly what was the standard accepted dogma of the field, was suddenly discredited,” he said. “So, my thinking with climate change is I can’t tell you, I don’t think anyone can tell you for sure if the climate is changing that fast, and certainly, in a snow storm like this, you have to look at it with a little bit of skepticism.” (Denver Daily News)

Contrast that statement with liberal Democrat Mayor Hickenlooper's statements only a few months ago while attending the Copenhagan conference on climate change:

Global warming skeptics out there, take note: Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is looking to change your mind.

The city's chief executive is in Copenhagen, Denmark this week for the world's climate change conference and says the evidence he's seen from scientists across the world is "shocking."

"It's pretty compelling," the mayor said by phone on Tuesday morning. "It really does make you say, 'Gosh, I know it's going to be hard. It's going to be unpopular [to change].' My takeaway is I want to come back to Denver and sit down with every skeptic I can find and just walk them through all the evidence." (9 News)

You can't have it both ways, John.

Q4 2009 Fundraising Totals (Incumbent in Bold)

Michael Bennet - 1,149,091
Tom Wiens - 725,000
Jane Norton - 550,605
Ken Buck - 39,850

John Salazar - 187,160
Scott Tipton - 109,981
Bob McConnell - 12,471

Betsy Markey - 227,442
Cory Gardner - 197,553
Diggs Brown - 61,174
Tom Lucero - 25,824

Ryan Frazier - 218,824
Ed Perlmutter - 215,201
Lang Sias - 30,931

U.S. Senate

Michael Bennet's fundraising continues at a monumental pace and it is starting to look as if he will have a massive advantage no matter who the Republican nominee may be. Jane Norton once again posted strong numbers, though many observers found it troublesome she did not improve much over the last quarter's take.

Though the Wiens campaign is declining to say how much of the $725,000 they are claiming to have brought in came from the candidate himself, it appears safe to assume that Wiens followed through on his previous statement that he would be investing $500,000 of his money into his campaign. Regardless of where the money came from, this means Wiens now has a very well-financed primary campaign.

Ken Buck had an extremely disappointing quarter. The sole consolation here is the massive ad buy by the Campaign for Liberty that can free up some money that may have been allocated by the Buck campaign for media and divert it into organizational costs.

CD-3

Scott Tipton had a strong showing for his first month in the race. If he is able to keep up the pace he should be able to place the seat into play.

CD-4

Cory Gardner had another strong fundraising quarter. Despite being outraised by Makey, CD-4's Republican voter registration advantage means that Makey would have to be raising even more than she is to make it up. Gardner is strongly positioning himself as the leading candidate in both the primary and general elections.

At $61,174, Diggs Brown has enough money to mount a primary challenge, even if it is a long-shot. He will at least be able to afford a working campaign organization, which is more than what most other underdog candidates in these Republican primaries can say.

Tom Lucero again had a lackluster quarter, but even more damaging to his prospects than his low fundraising haul is his astounding 200% burn rate. When a campaign spends twice what they raised in a given quarter, it is a sure sign it is on it's last legs.

CD-7

Ryan Frazier had a strong fundraising quarter and stands as the only Colorado Republican challenger for federal office to outraise the Democratic incumbent. While a narrow victory, Frazier's take places what was expected to be a safe Democratic seat into play.

Ex-Democrat and Mark Udall supporter Lang Sias, despite starting fundraising at the beginning of November and having most of the quarter to fundraise, came in with a dismal $30,931. Nearly half of his money came from Washington DC, as opposed to Frazier who blew him out of the water and raised funds mostly from in-state, and $5,000 of that came from John McCain's PAC. While Sias gave the illusion of being a strong candidate with his McCain backing and much-touted Washington connections, after raising only $30,391 it is hard to see how he is even remotely serious. Sias' funding problems will become even more severe as he is rumored to be planning to bypass the grassroots by running a costly petition campaign in the coming months.

Ken Buck, Ali Hasan, and Tom Lucero are an unlikely trio of underdog candidates that have the distinction of being among the first candidates for office to feature in campaign commercials.

"Campaign for Liberty" Spending $350,000 On Buck

An ad run on behalf of Senate candidate Ken Buck is the most important of the three developments. A group calling itself the "Campaign for Liberty" (this is not necessarily Ron Paul's group, C4L is a 501c4 and is barred from running candidate ads) has purchased $350,000 of ad time focusing on Ken Buck's candidacy. These ads reportedly began running during local news programs earlier this evening and we are seeking a copy of the commercial to upload as soon as we can.

While Buck's fundraising has faltered in the last quarter and Jane Norton (who was not without fundraising issues of her own) has a modest lead after Q4 2009, Buck is poised to have a great deal of cash spent on his behalf by outside groups. In addition to national groups such as the Senate Conservatives Fund eyeing the race, certain interests based in Northern Colorado are preparing their own outside efforts on Buck's behalf.

Hasan Goes On Radio

Treasurer candidate Ali Hasan began running radio ads today. Denver-metro area listeners can hear them on 850 KOA.

Lucero's Gambit

CD-4 candidate Tom Lucero has invested what is left of his campaign funds on a TV ad buy in which he looks very surprised by the camera.

 Gary Harmon of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports that Dan Maes is planning to force Scott McInnis to petition onto the primary ballot:

Maes said he hopes to gain 71 percent support from delegates to the GOP’s state convention this spring, forcing McInnis to make a “hard choice” whether to petition onto the ballot and force a primary election or withdraw.

Maes, 49, said he’ll rely on his business background to persuade voters he has the executive experience needed in the governor’s mansion, and he’ll avoid a destructive primary fight by stressing his strengths and conservative beliefs.

This is a lofty goal to be sure. The question that remains is that if Dan Maes finds himself falling short of gaining ballot access, as Marc Holtzman did in 2006, will he be willing to step aside in order to "avoid a destructive primary fight"? This sort of thing cuts both ways.

ColoradoPols reports that the Michael Bennet campaign is in full-fledged damage control mode over a Rasmussen poll showing Bennet losing to all three major Republican candidates. Bennet's camapign has issued a release boldly asserting that Rasmussen Reports, which conducted the poll showing Bennet trailing Jane Norton by 12-points, has "long been identified as a partisan polling outfit whose survey results are consistently wrong, and always favor the Republican candidate."

The Bennet campaign's press release is accompanied by a poll conducted by their own partisan polling outfit showing Bennet trailing Norton by only 3-points.

A Hispanic Democrat from the San Luis Valley posed the gubernatorial-candidacy question Democratic leaders have dared ask themselves only in private: Does Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper know anything about the rest of Colorado? From The Denver Post:

Rep. Ed Vigil may have unwittingly given Republicans an attack line when he wrote "What the Hick?" on his Facebook page.

"What the Hick is going for governor," Vigil, a Fort Garland Democrat, wrote Thursday. "Does he know there is a rural Colorado? Has he been past Colorado Springs?"

We wonder if Hick could even find Colorado Springs on a map of Colorado. Thank goodness he got his overpriced degree in English from a Little Ivy school; he'll be able to read the words on the map, even if they're in Old English. But enough about Hickenlooper's East Coast liberal roots and penchant for overspending. He has owned bars, and microbreweries, at that. Surely that alone qualifies him to run Colorado, regardless of whether he knows Fort Garland from Fort Collins:

Hickenlooper grew up in Pennsylvania. He was a LoDo brewmeister and successful businessman before becoming Denver's mayor in 2003. Various polls have shown he has statewide name recognition and high approval ratings.

Wow, some people like him! It just doesn't seem that any of them have names that end in -ez:

Vigil posted his comment at 2:10 p.m. Thursday, shortly after it was reported that another San Luis Valley native, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, would not for governor.

No doubt, there is some pro-Salazar angst involved, but Hickenlooper really has not proved himself among Hispanics. Which is fine by us, because Hispanics are, despite the Corky Gonzales types, conservative by nature. We can only hope Scott McInnis takes advantage of this -- and soon.

Rasmussen Reports has the first public polling on the post-Ritter gubernatorial race and Scott McInnis leads both Ken Salazar and John Hickenlooper:

Scott McInnis: 45%
John Hickenlooper: 42%

Scott McInnis: 47%
Ken Salazar: 41%