Norton Attack Ad Improperly Taken From People’s Press Collective Video

By Julian Dunraven

Honorable Friends:

This morning, Eileen Mahony, D.C. Bureau Chief for the People’s Press Collective, put up a very amusing piece about how the Norton campaign borrowed rather liberally from PPC to produce their latest attack ad against Ken Buck. Well, borrowed might not be quite accurate. Given that they took video from PPC, edited it to remove the PPC copyright notices, cropped the size of the video to remove the PPC title bar, and then added it to their ad without any citation to PPC whatsoever, some might even call that stealing. Unfortunately, that seems to be the theme of this election.

Judging from the comments in Ms. Mahony’s post, some have mistakenly assumed PPC is favoring Ken Buck in the primary. This is not true. PPC does not endorse in primary elections. However, its members do tend to object when campaigns try to steal their material. It seems they have objected rather strenuously too. PPC has provided access to a series of documents detailing this matter, including the PPC cease and desist letter to the Jane Norton campaign, the Norton campaign’s response, and PPC’s reiteration of its cease and desist demands.

As one of the PPC commentators has already suggested, this incident reveals a disturbing and lack of character in the Norton campaign. Not only did the campaign grossly distort Buck’s words in its ad, it took material from the PPC without permission or even attribution to do so. The PPC’s final letter to the Norton campaign asks, “If even allies of the campaign cannot depend upon it for fair dealing, how is the rest of the state supposed to trust it?” That is a question I think many of us will be considering.

Plagiarism Renders Scott McInnis Unfit to Practice Law or Govern

By Julian Dunraven, J.D. M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Yesterday’s Denver Post reported that Scott McInnis plagiarized the work of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory J. Hobbs in articles McInnis drafted for the Hasan Family Foundation. The foundation paid McInnis $300,000 for these articles.

After the story broke, Mr. McInnis blamed a researcher for the problem and claimed in his own press release that the plagiarism was unintentional. This is rubbish.

Mr. McInnis is certainly familiar with academic and professional writing standards; he is a doctor of law, after all. Thus, he should know he has an obligation to review any material submitted by a research assistant. However, he should also know that, if he intends to use whole pages of text submitted by his research assistant, then he has a responsibility to list the research assistant as a minor coauthor and cite his contributions. Mr. McInnis failed to do either of these things. Instead, he claims he took whole passages of text, supposedly submitted by an assistant, added them to his article, and represented it all as original and finished work, but somehow did so unintentionally. In order to believe such acts can be accomplished unintentionally, we have to believe that Mr. McInnis was not in control of his own body or mind. Perhaps he was possessed at the time. Otherwise, he is lying. Which do you suppose is more likely?

Plagiarism represents the height of intellectual dishonesty and reveals a complete lack of academic integrity. Not so long ago, virtually all conservatives and most liberals agreed that a similar lack of academic integrity rendered Ward Churchill unfit to teach at a university. I cannot now find any ethical way to apply a lesser standard to a man who seeks, not simply to lecture a few dozen students in a classroom, but to govern the entire state of Colorado.

During law school, I sat on the faculty’s academic affairs committee as a student member. During one of our meetings, we discussed what to do about a few students who had indulged in plagiarism. The guilty students put up the same defense McInnis now offers. They claimed they did not fully understand that they were plagiarizing and that it was all unintentional.

I had no sympathy for such excuses. The idea that anyone can get into a top tier law school like the University of Colorado and not understand plagiarism is absurd. Thus, I recommended immediate expulsion for these students. The professors, however, did not want to appear unmerciful. They simply gave the students failing grades in the classes in which they were caught plagiarizing. The law school then forwarded a report of the incidents to the Colorado Supreme Court’s Board of Law Examiners, detailing the penalties discussed and imposed. The Board of Law Examiners, however, agreed with me. None of these students were permitted to sit for the Bar Examination—they were not permitted to become practicing attorneys.

Already a practicing attorney, McInnis cannot be prevented from taking the bar exam. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that the Colorado Supreme Court will soon review McInnis’ actions and sanction him for violating Rule 8.4 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. Anyone seeking to file a complaint about McInnis’ conduct should contact the Attorney Regulation Counsel.

Plagiarism renders a person unfit to teach at a university because academic dishonesty undermines trust in all legitimate scholarship. Plagiarism renders a person unfit to practice law because a person who would lie about a mere academic paper cannot hope to be trusted with protecting both the finances and liberties of his clients—not to mention the integrity of the justice system. The temptation to lie becomes too severe for such an unprincipled person. Yet, neither a professor nor any individual lawyer holds such public trust as a governor of a state.

The Tea Party movement, in its call for accountability in our public servants, reminds us that this issue of trustworthiness is of paramount importance today. The Republican Party is laudably attempting to address these concerns and redeem its past mistakes by demanding responsible limited government always accountable to the people. Mr. McInnis, however, has dishonored himself and proven totally unworthy of the people’s trust. Yet he has the audacity to ask the Republican Party to nominate him as its candidate for governor. After the Republican fury over Ward Churchill, nominating McInnis would be the height of hypocrisy and further alienate already disillusioned voters and Tea Party activists.

For these reasons, I must regrettably join in the call for Mr. McInnis to withdraw from the gubernatorial race in order to spare himself and our Party from further embarrassment. At this point, no ethical Republican could vote for him without shame or with any expectation of reform in government as usual. If plagiarism demonstrates such unprincipled character as to make a man unfit to teach and an attorney unfit to practice law, then it should certainly render a candidate unfit to be the governor of Colorado.

No Economic Recovery; Prepare For Inflationary “Meltup”

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Your government is lying to you. We are not in economic recovery. We are merely experiencing a cash bubble through printing—inflation—and every day that bubble is in greater danger of bursting. When it does, the American people will face national bankruptcy.

The following video comes to me on the recommendation of Gerald Celente, director of the Trends Research Institute, and The Trends Journal. For those of you who have not already subscribed to his journal, he is one of the best economic forecasters in the world.

To my friends in the Tea Party, this is why you are marching. Simply getting Republicans elected will not be enough to save this nation from economic collapse. Any politician, Democrat or Republican, who does not understand what is in this video must go.

In addition to Mr. Celente, this documentary, "Meltup," features some of the best economic experts available including:

• Peter Schiff, Austrian School economist, bestselling author of Crash Proof, owner of Euro Pacific Capital, former economic advisor to Ron Paul, and current candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut
• Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas , former presidential Candidate, bestselling author and voice of the Austrian School economists on Capitol Hill
• Marc Faber, renowned Austrian School economist.
• Jim Rogers, investor, author, and financial commentator
• Tom Woods, historian, bestselling author, and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
• And several others.

The National Inflation Association has done a fine job in producing "Meltup." Our liquid fuels crisis, the manipulations and fraud in the precious metals markets, the debt problems and the looming threat of dollar collapse through inflation are all covered in detail. As Celente points out, we are on the verge of the second American Revolution. This video will give you a better understanding of what we face, and what the Tea Party and its supporters MUST achieve if it is to be successful.

Chatting with Tom Wiens: Colorado Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Thanks to profligate spending policies, bailouts, stimulus packages, and unprecedented extensions of Federal power, I have a good deal of confidence that Democrats will suffer many defeats in the upcoming elections. I just wish I felt equally confident that the Republicans who replace them will do much better. Unfortunately, after chatting briefly with various candidates in the last few forums, I often had the impression that I was talking to some sort of annoying animatronic devices which, upon sensing motion, would begin to recite a list of talking points: “Drill, baby drill,” “All of the above,” “No more bailouts,” and “I’m against stimulus.” Any questions seeking more information about these subjects just triggered another recitation. If this is the depth of understanding we can expect from politicians, is it any wonder why even many Republicans in Congress voted for the so called Jobs bill—a stimulus by another name? Our Republican candidates have all figured out that they should oppose bailouts and stimulus packages, but if the only way they can recognize a bailout or stimulus bill is if it says so in the title, then we are all in a great deal of trouble.

In chatting with the various people vying for the Republican nomination to be the next U.S. Senator, I was impressed by the enthusiasm and decency of the candidates, but not by their grasp of the fundamental economic issues this country must face. I was almost ready to despair over the state of Colorado politics . . . until I overheard Tom Wiens answering a question about the gold market and displaying a depth of economic understanding I have almost never seen in a politician. I immediately requested an interview and, last week, he was kind enough to sit down with me for an hour and a half to chat about the state of the nation.

Now, I did not bring the PPC film crew to this interview; I did not even bring a voice recorder. I was not interested in sound bites or talking points. I was only interested to know what made Mr. Wiens any different from any other Republican candidate, and why anyone should trust him at all given the abysmal job Republicans have done so far in their half-hearted attempts to support limited government and a free market. Mr. Wiens exceeded all of my expectations and left me thoroughly impressed.

The difference in experience between Mr. Wiens and his fellow GOP contenders is fairly obvious. While his major competitors have spent virtually their entire careers in the public sector, Mr. Wiens, by contrast, has a strong background in the private sector as a Colorado banker, rancher, and entrepreneur. Thus, he knows the costs increased regulation and taxation place on small businesses – not just in money – but also in time and effort.

Of course, these days a strong business background is not always a great recommendation for politicians. Our federal government is absolutely full of private sector businessmen who seem all too happy to use the power of government to influence various industries. Many commentators have noted the unprecedented influence of former Goldman Sachs executives in the Bush and Obama administrations, and with the Federal Reserve. The American people are rightly angry that Wall Street so often persuades Congress to offer advantages to some businesses and industries over others.

Mr. Wiens certainly understands this. Rather than make the usual hollow attacks on special interests, however, he blames Congress for overreaching to the point they have created a business climate that almost requires government involvement. When Congress holds some industries accountable for their errors while providing bailouts to cover the mistakes of others and can be persuaded to create anticompetitive regulations to ensure the survival of favored businesses, it should surprise no one that lobbying has become a blood sport.

To Mr. Wiens, the solution to this is not to try silencing lobbyists and industry. That would just mean Congress could continue to meddle in the economy unimpeded—but with even less information on which to base their ill-considered policies. Congress, he says, needs to massively scale back spending, taxes, and much of its administration if it truly wants to aid the economy. Unfortunately, because so few members of Congress have any proper understanding of economics, even some Republicans can be convinced that stimulus packages and jobs bills are needed to help economic growth. In truth, all the stimulus bills have done is increase liquidity and inflation, pouring cash into an increasingly unstable financial market, without any increase in productive capacity at all.

Mr. Wiens suffers no such confusion about economics. He is an avid student of Austrian School free market economics and can speak eloquently and easily about the long term devastating effects bailouts and stimulus packages will ultimately have on our economy. According to him, if Congress really wants to help, it needs to stay out of the markets, lower taxes, pull back its administrative agencies, and massively cut spending—and not just the tiny bit of the total budget that goes to earmarks.

That is certainly sound policy, but I have heard other Republicans say something similar, then watched them vote on appropriations bills in lockstep with liberals. To this challenge, Mr. Wiens pointed out that, as a state senator, he was frequently the only ‘no’ vote in hearings despite the urgings of his own party. I checked with a few of his old colleagues at the state legislature and they all confirm that, even when every other Republican and Democrat was in agreement, if a bill violated Mr. Wiens’ principles as to the proper role of government, he would vote ‘no.’ This earned him a reputation as a bit of a curmudgeon, but also as a man of integrity and philosophical consistency. Though a smart politician can always feign devotion to principle, it is quite rare to find one who has a voting record to prove it.

All of this is rather encouraging and speaks well of Mr. Wiens. However, his many admirable traits are not what inspired my trust. It was his faults that impressed me most. You see, Mr. Wiens talks too much—far too much for talking points and sound bites. During the course of our conversation, he excitedly proposed a single subject rule for congressional bills, sunset provisions for virtually all laws and agencies, and an evaluation process to determine when an agency is bankrupt or failed and should be closed. He burbled on about the precious metal markets, the housing market, and the sovereign debt crisis of the states and much of the EU in great detail. Finally, we talked about energy policy and the liquid fuels crisis. I was impressed he could speak so fluently about supply shortages, increased usage, infrastructure problems, environmental issues, and national security concerns that affect the issue, and quickly decided we would have to discuss some of these issues in more detail on camera.

At one point, we were briefly interrupted by a member of his staff asking a question about provisions for a party. Mr. Wiens was somewhat irked by the interruption and apologized profusely. However, had it not occurred, I would have never known that, every year, he invites cadets from the Air Force Academy out to his ranch for a small celebration in appreciation of the service they do for this country. It just happened to be going on during our interview. While Mr. Wiens may not have thought to mention it, I was quite impressed.

This is why I did not want a video camera or voice recorder for this interview. When people know they are not going to be on video or quoted directly, they tend to speak more freely and you get a better picture of their true characters. When you get to know him, Mr. Wiens does not seem like a typical politician. In fact, I think trying to hold back his enthusiasm and speak only in prepared sound bites might actually kill him. Considering his passionate interest in free market economics and policy, and after examining some of the dense books on those subjects he reads for leisure, you might even call him a bit of a nerd. A distinctly private person, Mr. Wiens is more at home with his own family and business interests than with the megalomaniac self promotion required by a statewide campaign. I think he would not be running at all if he did not so clearly see the terrible financial storm building over this country and most of the world. Mr. Wiens certainly has the means to ensure he and his family can weather that storm. However, he is also a patriot, and he is trying to offer his knowledge and experience to the people of this state and nation to help them weather it as well. His knowledge, experience, and philosophical integrity impressed me greatly, and his personality is far too enthusiastic and quirky to be anything but honest. He may be exactly what we need. I strongly encourage all our honorable friends to take a good look at his candidacy as we approach the primary. I think you will be impressed. So far, I have yet to meet anyone better.

GOB United; GOP Undecided

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

I learned from yesterday’s front page headline of The Denver Post that my party now stands united behind former Rep. Scott McInnis in the Colorado gubernatorial race. Odd that. I used to think we had primary elections for this sort of thing, but it seems they have fallen out of fashion in Colorado. It is, after all, far more efficient for the Party’s leaders to simply anoint a candidate. I am certain that Mr. Dan Maes would be overjoyed to know that he need not bother with a primary. Afflicted with the woeful ignorance of fashion so typical of Republicans these days, however, he still seems to be campaigning. I am sure someone will point out the faux pas, though.

I also learned that we have a new platform, again courtesy of Atty. McInnis and the GOP leadership, saving the rest of us a great deal of time and consideration. The Post even published a nice ten point summary of it on the front page. In fact, many of my Independent and Democrat friends called to chat about these bullets before I even finished reading the article. Although they are each greatly dissatisfied with Gov. Bill Ritter, and despite the fact that they agree with most of those ten points listed in the article, my honorable friends told me they were going to abstain from voting entirely, or else reluctantly support Mr. Ritter again, due to the fact that two of those bullet points were dedicated, yet again, to social issues. They had hoped the GOP would focus entirely on economic and liberty issues.

Hoping to restore the confidence of my honorable friends in the GOP’s potential, I visited Atty. McInnis’s web page to examine the full text of this new platform. Interestingly, what I found was substantially different from what the Post article reported. The Post reports that this new, “Contract for Colorado” includes promises to appoint conservative judges to state courts, to establish a school voucher program, to restore Former Gov. Owens’s ban on state funding for Planned Parenthood, and to establish a general statement defending the sanctity of human life.

In contrast, the “Platform for Prosperity,” on Atty. McInnis’s web page makes no mention of judges or the judicial system whatsoever. It speaks of school vouchers not at all. While it does indeed promise to revive the Owens era ban on state funding for abortion providers, a general statement defending the sanctity of human life is nowhere to be found.

I do not know whether these discrepancies are the result of poor reporting on the part of the Post, or whether Atty. McInnis and the GOP leadership who authored this plan simply provided the Post with faulty information. However, with such noticeable inconsistencies in the commitments of Atty. McInnis and the Party leadership, I can hardly blame my honorable friends for being distrustful. Indeed, many Republicans remain wary as well. Whatever they may think of any particular issue, they have had few reasons to trust the Party leadership and its mothballed candidates who so often seem far more interested in the politics of pull than in principled policy.

While it may be true that the Good Old Boys (GOB) of the Party leadership have united behind Atty. McInnis, the Grand Old Party (GOP) remains undecided and skeptical. Moreover, as the GOP has never been known for its fashion sense, it may well ignore the new trend against primary elections and continue to consider the candidacy of Mr. Maes. If Atty. McInnis truly wishes to unify the GOP and Independents in support of his candidacy, he should strive to show firm and consistent commitment to principle. That has never been his strong point, but I have always believed people are capable of positive change.

Influential Blogger Not Seeking Office In 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Embargoed until 2089)
August 6, 2009

Underemployed Smartass Blogger Opts Out of GOP Senate Race

Independent, Maverick Hope’n’Changer Has Better Things To Do

(His Parents' Basement)—Pajama-clad chickenshit People’s Press Collective blogger and itinerant Independence Institute groupie El Presidente has, after careful consideration and extensive consultation, decided NOT to challenge Senator Who? in the 2010 election. He now joins an elite group of only three other individuals who have not tossed their hat into the GOP primary.

“After conducting a comprehensive state-wide listening campaign that consisted of a blue-ribbon panel comprised by his four Facebook fans and a guy named Larry, and a feeling that any multi-cellular organism could defeat an appointed Senator whose speech patterns are less interesting than 1980s animatronics at Disneyland, I have decided to take the decisive and bold path and not enter the race,” declared El Presidente. “Besides, what’s the point of splitting the primary vote 1,013,476 ways?”

Though he believed himself to be a formidable candidate despite having staged a failed 5th grade class coup, he had left the possibility of running for a democratically-elected state-wide office open until today. However, citing extensive familial responsibilities as a reclusive bachelor and noted misanthrope, El Presidente also concluded that he could not stomach the grueling campaign schedule required to build name brand recognition, nor the number of handshakes that were in store for him.

“Campaign events before noon? Yeah, riiiiiiight. Besides, I’d need a whole lot of Purell, and that is dangerous for our climate in this new energy economy,” remarked El Presidente.

Had he launched a formal Senate bid, El Presidente planned an extensive, scorched-earth campaign chock-full of disastrous launch stumblings, calculated missteps, unidentified geography in his ads, inexplicable verbal gaffes, annoying/antiquated/untimely/irrelevant press releases (like this one), a general lack of focus in his messaging, and a complete disregard for anything even remotely resembling a Republican principle.

“Socialism for everyone sounds so socialist itself, so I planned to burden the economy with even more government spending so that I could avoid any real, serious conversation and get down to the business of the people—getting myself reelected, and then surreptitiously switching parties. I believe in the 80-20 principle, 80% for me, 20% for all of you unwashed, gun-toting, God-fearing troglodytes who whine about ‘high taxes’ and ‘liberty.’ It’s not all about you or your liberty, it’s about me, your hypocritical elected official. You people make me sick,” concluded El Presidente.**

During the trial period, he spoke to several egregiously overpaid political hacks, faux-Internet gurus, and old-guard roadblocks who encouraged him to run.

“The superficiality of these GOP insiders is amazing, and I looked forward to their non-sensical advice and thoroughly deplorable backstabbing,” noted El Presidente. In addition, had he actually decided to have it bothways and mount a run before he ultimately decided against it, El Presidente articulated the need for a clear New Media strategy involving Web 2.0 tools that he hopes other GOP candidates will latch on to in their own meretricious efforts.

“The Democrats have the Gang of Four, the Colorado Model, and almost every elected position in the state. But we have Facebook and Twitter and the severely underfunded and generally disregarded conservative blogosphere on our side. Not that I’ve ever visited those or any other websites on that new-fangled “intarwebz” thingy,” argued El Presidente. “My college-aged anarcho-syndicalist commune, which doubled as my campaign war room, told me that multiple sockpuppets and an outrageously obvious and horrendously misspelled astroturfing campaign launched from my own IP using my personal email address would ensure me a grassroots following so far-reaching, that literally billions would join the cause. I crap you negative. After all, I know people, and am a mighty oak.” El Presidente’s entire cadre of earnest but unwitting supporters has subsequently been liquidated, following a judiciously unjust, farcical show trial.

In preparation for what could ultimately prove to be Colorado’s most expensive Senate race since the last most expensive Senate race and assuredly not as expensive as the next one, El Presidente’s fundraising efforts in the exploratory phase had yielded a staggering $0.57 cents, most of which came from a single donation from his parent’s couch.

“No candidate can seek funding from just one source. A great candidate needs resources from a large pool of donors of all political stripes, and I was able to bring both sides of the sofa together, by drawing support from both the right AND the left cushions,” boasted El Presidente. The response was phenomenal the past 45 quarters, and we even saw a generous amount of foreign backing in the form of Confederate war bonds and Zimbabwean currency. “Never too early to get in the race, nor build up a campaign war chest,” asserted El Presidente.

El Presidente’s nascent campaign drew endorsements from a wide variety of public groups, including “People with ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ Bumper Stickers On Their Cars” or PWDTOMBSOTC and the “Society for the Total Usurpation of Public Involvement in Democracy” also known as STUPID. “The STUPID socialists were some of my biggest and earliest supporters, but unfortunately, since they don’t believe in the free market, capitalism, or personal property, none of the STUPID bastards could give me any money,” lamented El Presidente.

While El Presidente has not endorsed any specific candidate in the GOP primary, he has identified a few potential frontrunners and personal favorites in the ridiculously overcrowded field.

“If I can get through 100 candidates an hour, 24/7, for the next 10 months, I might be able to have a grasp of the entire field, and issue my endorsement—or I’ll just withhold support and then note one week before the general election, as the Republican candidate heads for certain defeat, that I could have run a much better race and actually, you know, won the damn thing. Ahhh, the bitter taste of sour grapes, low expectations, and a sense of paid-my-dues entitlement,” quipped El Presidente. “I call on all Republicans running to make a commitment to do everything possible to piss off the base, irrevocably destroy the party, ostracize Libertarians and freedom-oriented independents, and empower Democrats for the next century or two with nasty, hyper-partisan, ad hominem attacks in the primary. Let’s circle the wagons once again and, in a show of party unity, fire in—that’s the ticket!”

El Presidente has scheduled a press non-availability at an undisclosed, undetermined location, as security concerns will only permit a few teleprompters, some stage plants (primarily Ficus), and a Gatorade stand. Only pre-screened softball questions submitted by a sycophantic and propagandistic media will be allowed, and generally ignored. Your cooperation isn’t appreciated, or even all that important to us. After all, you’re probably just a wide-eyed blogger with a covert agenda, and jeebus, why do we even bother . . .

For more information contact:
Yo Momma
c/o State GOP HQ
303-BITE-ME
soyunperdedor@republicanscantgettheirshitstraight.com

**Not actually elected, though you probably didn’t read that far anyway, so what does it matter?
Editing by MIM

Senate 2010: Ryan Frazier--"A New Way Forward"

Quite impressive effort to kick off Frazier's broader introduction to Colorado's voter population--combining stirring clips from his stump speech and a nice blend of visual imagery in a longer format than the soundbite campaign ads we are accustomed to:



"Capitalism over socialism, freedom over slavery, life over death, and states' rights ove central planning"--sounds like an excellent place to start.

"The Big List": 2010 State House And Senate Races

Jeremy Pelzer (formerly of PolitickerCO and 5280) has a complete rundown of announced, projected, and speculative candidates for Colorado House and Senate in 2010 (to be continuously updated):

2010 House Candidates

2010 Senate Candidates

Jeremy's blog Mile High Politics is sure to be a key source for political news for 2010, so be sure to bookmark it and check back frequently.

Colorado 2010 US Senate Race: Ryan Frazier An "Untraditional" Candidate

The local media (InDenver Times) has picked up on the increasing profile of Ryan Frazier in an update on the looming GOP primary for the opportunity to unseat the appointed Michael Bennet:

Republican Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier said Wednesday he is “seriously considering” running for U.S. Senate in 2010, though he acknowledged his toughest fight may come from the more conservative wing of his own party.

Frazier stopped short of saying he will definitely run. But the 31-year-old Navy veteran has been making the rounds, meeting with potential supporters and attending county party gatherings. At a dinner in Douglas County – one of the state’s most conservative areas – Frazier got about 60 percent of the vote in a straw poll, besting more conservative Republicans such as radio host and attorney Dan Caplis, former Congressman Bob Beauprez and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck.
. . .
A native of North Carolina who has lived in Colorado for 12 years, Frazier describes himself as “not a typical Republican” and “very independent.” He knows his stance on certain issues, such as benefits for same-sex partners, may rankle the far right. But he believes he is better positioned to win statewide, much as Democrats have dominated recent elections with more centrist candidates such as former Sen. Ken Salazar.

“It’s going to be a real question for the Republican Party: ‘Are they ready for someone like me?’ ” Frazier said. “It shouldn’t be a question of surviving a primary. It should be, ‘Are you ready to win? Or do you want to continue down the road of a string of losses?’”

That's up to the Colorado GOP--establishment vs. activists, and the mythical "base" of social conservatives vs. center-right, fiscally conservative voters statewide. The GOP primary, depending on who actually jumps in, should give us a clearer picture of where the party insiders stand, as well as where the rank-and-file Republicans are leaning. Expect more libertarian-minded folks and those "unaffiliateds" to take a good look at Frazier's "live-and-let-live," limited government, and economically-minded positions over other potential GOP competitors.

That won't stop the criticism, however:

Most recently, Frazier was one of the driving forces behind the “right-to-work” initiative known as Amendment 47. Voters rejected the measure, which would have banned agreements that require workers to pay union dues if they fall under a collective bargaining contract.

But Frazier also supported benefits for same-sex partners of city of Aurora employees. And in 2006, he joined with Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper – a Democrat – to publicly endorse Referendum I, which would have given domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples statewide.

Frazier said he’s been told by many people – inside and outside his own party – that his support for those measures will be “the arrow on my back” in a primary battle.

“They will come at me hard on that,” he said.

Based on the somewhat coordinated comments seen so far, they sure will.

But Frazier's initial strength lies in being outside the traditional party structure that ultimately alleviates any associated baggage from a recently weak Colorado GOP, and is more concerned with moving forward than looking back a decade:

“These are untraditional times that call for untraditional people to step forward,” he said.

Frazier said his top issues would be the same issues he believes are most important to voters: the economy, energy, education, defense and government reform.

Frazier also said he isn’t dissuaded by Bennet’s stellar fundraising in the most recent quarter, in which the former Denver Public Schools chief and businessman raked in nearly $1.4 million.

It’s a good start, Frazier said, but added that whichever Republican takes Bennet on, “the money will come.” And he said he has had Democrats and unaffiliated voters encourage him to run.

Regardless of the candidate, the GOP will push hard for this Senate seat--the question of degree of broader support will ultimately depend on what kind of candidate the GOP settles upon, both for Senate and for Governor.

Real grassroots support will play an extremely large role in this primary--although there will be the temptation to coordinate astroturfing campaigns in order to "demonstrate" real support among GOP voters, however far-fetched.

Incidentally (via RockyMountainRight), at the most recent Denver County GOP First Thursday Breakfast (April 2), Frazier and State Sen. Josh Penry won informal straw polls for Senate and Governor, respectively. Penry spoke at the breakfast, and Frazier is scheduled for the May meeting. While the results are unscientific and very, very early, it looks more and more likely that many Republicans are at least prepared to take a look at younger, next-generation, not-as-established candidates. Much will depend, as indicated earlier, on who eventually runs and who can create the necessary ground game for primary victory. Fundraising and messaging will be important as each candidate seeks to establish his own "base" within the party.

If the party truly wants to create a 64-county, all district, renew-the-bench strategy to reinvigorate GOP voters, increase registration, and re-connect with unaffiliateds, then it will need a fresh vision for the state. Relying on late '90s electoral messaging, final-weekend get-out-the-vote campaigning, and retread candidates will not be the way to electoral victory in the critical 2010 election. With redistricting looming and five state-wide offices up for grabs, the top of the ticket--the U.S. Senate and Governor--should be viewed as the vehicles for electoral coat-tails. Mediocre and uninspiring candidates will be shunned by activists, won't attract much national attention or fundraising, and will depress voter turnout if they can't engage on a meaningful level, especially on economic issues. Elections have consequences, and Colorado can't afford a repeat of the 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections.

GOP 2010: News From The Grapevine And Why Republicans Should Borrow A Page From The Democrats' Playbook

Face The State has a new report on the "rumor mill" making the rounds within the GOP for the upcoming 2010 midterm election.

The speculation is not unsubstantiated beyond FTS, as SP has heard good things about Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier beyond insider comments, with Frazer responding to FTS that "It’s fair to say that right now I’m considering where I can have the greatest impact going forward"--and SP is looking to candidates in the Frazier mold to step up and begin to refill the tattered GOP bench.

Why is this important? The GOP can't win in 2010 (just as the GOP didn't win in 2006 or 2008) by using the same candidates, political operatives, and electoral strategies that worked from 1980 to 2004 any more than the Denver Broncos were able to use the same coaches, players, and playbook from their back-to-back Super Bowl victories in the late 1990s. Just ask Mike Shanahan or Pat Bowlen.

The idea that the normal cursus honorum or "paying your dues" processes that produced the "Contract with America" class of GOP politicians is still viable will only doom a newer generation of conservatives and GOP-leaning libertarians (roughly those 25-45) to wait through potentially more disastrous election cycles in the near future, and forsaking long-term goals to rebuild the party locally and nationally by wanting to avoid stepping on the toes of those who believe that this is "their time." Incumbents of any age and viable candidates of all backgrounds should be given the opportunity to throw their hat into the ring, especially if the GOP wishes to mount anything approaching Howard Dean's 50 state strategy and fellow blogger Joshua Sharf's call to run in every district in Colorado.

Quick-fix celebrity recruits aside (the often-rumored John Elway, for example), every race should have a viable candidate, even in difficult areas where incumbency or voter registrations numbers are a disadvantage. GOP primaries should not necessarily be avoided, and multiple competing candidates at the bench level should see a wide variety of opportunities given the Democrat Party advantage in governorships, state legislatures, and Congress. There is no reason why the GOP shouldn't be anything but a national party and not simply a regional party of "get-out-the-base" voters, volunteers, and fundraisers. We haven't conceded anything on the core principles of the "big tent"--free markets, smaller government, and individual rights/liberty--so why concede districts just because they are held by Democrats?

The 2010 election in Colorado will feature several state-wide races--Governor, a US Senate seat, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and State Treasurer. Voting in the aggregate matters, especially at the state level in midterm elections, and turning out GOP and GOP-leaning center-right and independent voters will be the key to victory. Renewed interest in local races in typically uncompetitive districts currently held by Democrats will play a huge role in reengaging those voters set adrift by strategies that look to maximize votes in supportive areas while ignoring others in the hopes that the GOP brand will be enough to get folks to vote. President Barack Obama's campaign presciently and effectively--obviously, he is the President--eschewed such a course. Even without him on the ballot in 2010, much of the party infrastructure and institutional knowledge will still be in place, and the Democrats are no doubt hoping that this built-in advantage will discourage any GOP efforts at revamping campaigns off-line or on-line. To do so would be to ignore (forgive the gratuitous Star Wars reference) Admiral Ackbar's admonition--"It's a trap!"

It is still too early in 2009 to endorse those candidates who have formally filed, those who have been mentioned or have shown an interest, and those whose candidacy is merely speculation. But it is not too early to begin reengaging the dispirited GOP rank-and-file, to propose bold new visions for the party, to toss out discredited strategies, to effectively communicate our principles, to avoid becoming a party of "NO!" by offering alternative solutions instead of whining about the other side of the aisle, or to turn into debased imitators of the most vitriolic smear-merchants in the Democrat Party.

Opportunities to perform a true house-cleaning and not simply rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic don't come very often. GOP elites, fundraisers, powerbrokers, political operatives and especially the bench itself is going to be put on notice (as if it hasn't already been in the two most recent electoral abbatoirs)--lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Senator Who? Gov. Ritter Appoints DPS Superintendent Michael Bennet To Replace Salazar

"Bennet for Senate."

Has a nice ring to it.

Wait a minute.

As I heard again and again today--who!?!?!?

RMR posits a variety of plausible theories on the nature of the Bennet appointment by Gov. "Blue Ribbon" Bill Ritter. The reaction from both sides is complete bafflement--both GOP State Chair Dick Wadhams and the folks at ColoradoPols are in the WTF? boat. Other reactions include everything from Bennet as "dark horse superstar" to the harbinger of a new age of political aristocracy in America.

The only constant: that the appointment is risky, especially given the failure rate of appointees to be elected on their own in subsequent elections.

Todd Shepherd of CompleteColorado.com argues that the appointment of Bennet could not have transpired without the blessing of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, widely perceived in recent days to be emerging as the frontrunner among a trio of well-qualified and well-positioned Democrats that included Hickenlooper, former State Rep. and House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and Rep. Ed Perlmutter-CD7.

Whether or not that is the case, following Ritter's official announcement and confirmation of his appointment, Bennet will face the formidable task of raising his own personal ID and building the apparatus for the statewide election in 2010, or providing a capable caretaking role should this be an unlikely placeholding appointment.

Either way, the state GOP can only be licking their chops at the opportunity provided by the Bennet appointment. Not only will the seat Bennet occupies be a top target simply because of the appointment itself, a mediocre performance by Bennet not only puts the seat more clearly into toss-up territory, but disheartens the Dem base (see the aristocracy and WTF? argument linked earlier) and calls into question Ritter's own executive judgement. By appointing Bennet and not a more qualified/quantifiable Democrat from the deep bench on the left, Ritter has drawn an even bigger target on his own reelection and the Dems in general in the locally focused 2010 elections.