To the Colorado Tea-partiers;
Ok, first off I am an ardent Democrat and disagree with 80% (or more) of your political views. We are on opposite teams in every sense of the word. So take this with a grain of salt. But there are a couple of things I think we can agree on.
First, that a candidate who will say anything to get elected, who will say one thing to one group and the opposite to another, who will avoid taking a stand on any issue so as to not upset anyone – that person will do anything (or nothing) in office. We may want to hear the exact opposite from a candidate – but we both want to know where they stand on key issues. And have them discuss those issues in detail and with clarity.
Second, we want a candidate who will listen to the voters. This is a point on which we are in total agreement – events like townhalls where politicians listen to us – to all of us – are critically important. If a candidate is only willing to face self-selected groups when running for office, you know they will reduce that down to nothing once elected.
Third, you want a candidate who embraces your views from conviction, not from recent political expediency. Because if their support of your issues is due to expediency, then if the political equation changes – you've lost them. Real change comes from individuals willing to fight for what they believe in, not those who shift course when the political climate gets a bit rough.
Let's talk Senate first.
First you have Tom Wiens. This is who I hope you elect in the primary. Why? We had a scheduled interview and I asked for suggested questions on Pols. When some tough suggestions appeared, he cancelled the interview the day before because of "travel plans." If this is enough to scare him off, there's no way he can handle a campaign – because he's going to be hit with questions that are a lot rougher. (Plus as every political operative knows – my interviews are about as easy as it gets.) This guy may agree with you – but I don't think he's got the tough skin required to campaign successfully.
Next you have Jane Norton. She appears to be a very nice and agreeable person. But trying to pin down where she stands on anything – it's not happening. She's a lot like FDR in that she agrees with everyone she talks to and leaves everyone with the impression that she supports their issues. My guess is if there is a need for another gang of 14 to find a compromise, she'll be joining that group along with Mark "milquetoast" Udall.
Finally you have a quality candidate with Ken Buck. I disagree with him on issue after issue, but I find him thoughtful, intelligent, and in my interview with him he gave me answer after answer that he knew I disagreed with. And did so politely, calmly, and with strong arguments for his views. If he's elected I'll scream over his votes, but probably respect him. He's not going to drop his conservative views for political expediency – because those views are who he is. In additional, he'll listen to you, discuss issues with you, and will treat you with respect, not as a group to stroke and then abandon.
Now let's talk Governor.
First you have Scott McInnis. Scott is a case study in campaigning on generic platitudes while not giving a specific answer on anything. Do you have any idea how Scott would govern? I sure don't. Maybe you'll be thrilled with him, then again maybe I will. I hope Scott is your candidate because I think he will govern from the middle like Bill Owens did his second term. And politics in this state require a Republican governor to lead the effort to fix TABOR – it can't be done by a Democratic governor. But neither of us knows what we will get with Scott – I don't think Scott knows how he's going to govern.
Second you have Dan Maes. Dan is an intelligent thoughtful guy who, like Ken Buck, has supported a conservative approach for a long time. With that said, he's new to the political arena and would need to learn most everything on the job (being Governor is very different from running a company). And again, someone who will listen to you and is coming from the same philosophical point of view.
You had Josh Penry who was exactly what you needed – he has been fighting for conservative ideas his entire political career and he knows the state government. But the powers that be in the Republican party didn't want him and forced him out as he probably would have won the primary (which says interesting things about the people controlling the state GOP).
Voting to win
With the above said, sometimes ¼ of a loaf is better than none. Jane Norton & Scott McInnis may be moderate and will probably do very little of what they promise you – but they will do some. That moderation gives them a better chance of winning (although in the case of Ken Buck, I think he might be a more formidable opponent than Jane Norton).
Besides, if it's Jane & Scott, and they win the general election, then liberals like me will be happy with some of what they do. And you want us liberals to be happy – don't you?
