Ryan Frazier To Make Senate Run Official In Coming Weeks

From a press release this afternoon (no link yet):

“In a little over two months, we undertook efforts to weigh support for our positive and forward-looking vision. Since that time, we have gained momentum from people responding to our direction because they are looking for positive change. A New Way Forward is resonating with families and small businesses across Colorado and across party lines.

Our campaign is built on ideas, not personalities or tired insider politics, and will surge ahead as we meet more people and offer better solutions. Because of the early support and enthusiasm we’ve generated during past two months, I intend to make an announcement on my official candidacy in the weeks ahead. My family and I are grateful for the enthusiasm of hundreds of new volunteers and a promising financial start towards building a strong and effective campaign,” said Frazier.

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.

Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier On 9NEWS' "Your Show"

Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier answered viewers' questions on 9NEWS' "Your Show" this past Sunday.

Frazier's GOP primary opponent Ken Buck appeared on the show in May.

On Astroturfing--Or How Not To Make Friends On The Internet

Earlier in the week, good friend and fellow blogger Rocky Mountain Right brought forward evidence that demonstrated a bad-faith, astroturfing campaign by or on behalf of the Cleve Tidwell for US Senate campaign.

Ben DeGrow provides additional examples of what appears to either be a hijacking of Tidwell's personal email address (unlikely) or a concerted effort to astroturf under a variety of fake names known as sockpuppetry. Numerous conservative/libertarian/GOP blogs have been pounded by "swarms" of purported Tidwell supporters, including the People's Press Collective.

Of course, this was bound to hit the media at some point, and today Lynn Bartels of the Post covered the brewing controversy:

A conservative blog this week accused Republican U.S. Senate candidate Cleve Tidwell of anonymously posting flattering comments about himself.

Tidwell said he had nothing to do with the posts, adding "as important as I'm sure these blogs are I don't get involved with them. I don't even read them."

The retired Denver businessman said today that when he questioned his campaign about the posts, an "enthusiastic" volunteer with access to his e-mail addresses admitted she "might have stepped over the line."

He declined to identify the volunteer, but said she has since quit the campaign.

The accusation against Tidwell was posted Monday by Anthony Surace, a 22-year-old student at Metropolitan State College who operates Rocky Mountain Right.

Gotta love the "rogue staffer" defense.

Tidwell earns himself no plaudits either for his backhanded dismissal of blogs in the Post story above even as he is scheduled to appear on the Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0 Blog Talk Radio Show tonight, and has attempted to cultivate relationships with bloggers for the past few months as the campaign began to swing into gear.

Look, campaigns and their surrogates--whether paid staffers or overzealous volunteers--are always welcome and indeed encouraged to promote their candidates in a friendly manner, without reverting to the use of astroturfing and sockpuppetry to give a veneer of widespread support online when in fact there may be little more than a handful of real supporters at this point in the primary. Not only does the concerted effort to deluge online straw polls and spam comment sections and email inboxes with regurgitated and misspelled testimonials shed a bad light on the campaign itself--and by extension, the candidate, whether or not he is directly involved or even knows that this type of behavior is taking place on his behalf--but betrays a basic lack of Internet-savvy that currently plagues many in the GOP.

Simply having a Twitter feed or a Facebook account does not constitute a campaign with "Web 2.0" capabilities. Those are merely tools for messaging and developing relationships with potential volunteers and fundraisers.

The gross misuse, however, of blogs and other Internet forums to "plant" support for a candidate while then accusing a blog of being "in the bag" for another candidate when that information comes to light is absurd. True grassroots movements rely on the activism of individuals who share a common goal or support a worthwhile candidate, and their efforts will show in the amount of money raised, the turnout for events hosted, and the number of votes cast in the primary. Faking such a grassroots movement--hence the term astroturfing--reveals the paucity of support for this or any other candidate relying on such tactics.

Ken Buck, Cleve Tidwell, and Ryan Frazier all have campaigns and will be afforded plenty of opportunities to make their strongest case for their own candidacies. For his part, Frazier has extended multiple opportunities to this blogger to chat, conduct interviews, and attend events. Tidwell has agreed to appear on the RMA Radio Show this evening to make his case. Buck will be given similar opportunities, and is indeed welcome to contact this blog or any other in the RMA/PPC community for an interview or an appearance on the radio show as well.

The bottom line? No one likes to be played for fools, or have their own forum abused by even well-intentioned staffers or volunteers, rogue or otherwise.

You want to shout from the rooftops all day about Buck, Tidwell, or Frazier?

Good for you!

Now get your own damn blog and stop crapping on someone else's carpet.

Let Colorado Choose: Blogger Memo To NRSC

Ben DeGrow nails it--and quite succinctly, I might add: memo to National Republican Senatorial Committee--let Colorado Republicans decide.

We don't need the NRSC to determine, Florida-style, who the GOP nomination for US Senate will be in 2010.

Bloggers from around the country are circulating a petition (click for additional signatories):

Dear Senator Cornyn,

We the undersigned believe that the National Republican Senatorial Committee should be committed to serving ALL the members of the Republican Party.

Additionally, the NRSC should be focused on defeating Democrats, not Republicans. Towards that end, we believe it was completely inappropriate for the NRSC to endorse a candidate in the Florida primary race.

Therefore, we request that both you and the NRSC alter your position on the Florida Senate race, maintain neutrality, and promise to spend no money directly or indirectly in that race.

Sincerely yours,

El Presidente
Colorado
Slapstick Politics
People's Press Collective
Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0

The Colorado GOP welcomes a frank, honest, and open debate between the three announced candidates--Ryan Frazier, Ken Buck, and Cleve Tidwell.

And next August, Colorado Republicans will decide who they wish to see battle Sen. Michael Bennet in the general election. Not party insiders, national operatives, or yes, the NRSC.

**My position on this petition includes only my personal blog, and extends to my affiliations elsewhere insofar as I participate in those collaborations, and is not meant as the position of either PPC or RMA 2.0.

"Principled" And "Solutions-Driven," US Senate Candidate Ryan Frazier Speaks Out

(Co-authored by El Presidente and Ben DeGrow)

We were privileged with the opportunity last Saturday to sit down and conduct an exclusive half-hour two-on-one interview with Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ryan Frazier (Frazier's two GOP primary contenders are Weld County district attorney Ken Buck and businessman Cleve Tidwell). The conversation was wide-ranging and informative. We left with a clearer picture of the candidate's vision and the campaign's direction.

We began by bringing up a recent article in The Hill that portrayed Frazier as part of a "band of centrists", and asked him what he thought of the characterization. He responded: "I'm Ryan Frazier, and I do what I believe to be right. I've never been much for labels.... I'll leave the labeling to the press." Though he did choose the word "principled" to describe his philosophy, he was fairly adamant about not being categorized into a box.

Nor did Frazier express any dismay that Beltway Republican Party bigwigs have taken a wait-and-see approach to his candidacy (all the better in light of NRSC's recent Florida endorsement): "I'm not really concerned about folks in Washington DC. I never expected to be their number one choice. As a matter of fact, I think that's why our candidacy can be so significant. Because we're not the establishment. We are a grassroots campaign.... I'm not as concerned about whether they think I'm a top choice."

Frazier added that his coalition building is anything but traditional for a Republican candidate in Colorado, as he stressed the bottom-line focus of his early campaign strategy: "It's building the base, period. That's my goal. And I'm not talking about just purely a Republican base. I have to build a Colorado base of support that spans Republicans, unaffiliateds, and Democrats....I'm going to take a very non-traditional route toward building the base." That route will be premised on “ideas and specific solutions” that rise above party affiliation.

Frazier also elaborated on the nature true grassroots movements in leading the resurgence of fiscally responsible, limited government, and individual freedom-inspired candidates nationwide. “What they represent is a movement, something that the center-right has not seen in some time,” Frazier explained. He continued, “This movement is critical to my campaign . . . but also critical to restoring Republican fiscal responsibility, and move this country in a better direction.”

Now, certainly, Frazier would prefer to be the candidate representing the Republican Party in challenging Michael Bennet in 2010. But in any case, he laid out a pretty clear, 3-point roadmap of the incumbent appointee's clearest weaknesses:

1. Education: In particular, Michael Bennet's abandonment of disadvantaged kids by throwing the D.C. voucher program under the bus (more recently, Bennet told Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll that the program is a "here today, gone tomorrow" argument).



2. EFCA, also known as the union card-check bill. Of course, Bennet's indecisiveness on this issue has approached legendary status. Frazier noted that no matter what happens going forward, Bennet has already identified himself by his long delay in making a decision on this "extremely poor policy".



3. "He's been going around the state touting Obama's budget as if somehow it's the best thing since peanut butter & jelly sandwiches." Frazier added that this clearly aligns the Democrat incumbent with "fiscal irresponsibility" and mounting deficits and debt.

Frazier touched on other specific issues: "I believe that in a Republican primary the issue of immigration will play a role.... That said, ultimately only practical solutions to the issue of immigration I think will win the day." Among the ideas he touted were scrapping the 3-year and 10-year rules for re-entry to create an incentive for voluntary self-deportation, and establishing a non-immigrant visa for service workers. He recognized that the issue is a strong suit for primary opponent Ken Buck, but is counting on a move toward smart solutions over heated rhetoric to hold his own.

As to the big deal that has been made out of his apparently unorthodox views on social issues, Frazier had a couple important things to say. First, he denied rumors that his views were anything but "pro-life". While we didn't have time to dig deeper into more specific issues in the abortion debate, he did state: "When it comes to the issue of life, I'm very supportive of strict constructionist judges....You can argue about Roe v Wade and the outcome. But if you look at it just on the basis of the law, the fact is the Constitution is silent on the matter, and as such the Tenth Amendment should apply."

Second, he stood firm on his position in defense of granting employee benefits to same-sex couples. "It doesn't mean I'm abandoning my principles." As he also stands against the idea of gay marriage, we don't see this position as being any sort of deal-breaker with the vast majority of conservatives in Colorado.

When asked about the importance of getting his early strong endorsement from the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Colorado -- very early, and the first for anyone in the race -- Frazier said: "Their support early on is instrumental to 1) continue to build support and 2) to raise the money it's going to take to be competitive to win." Frazier earned the endorsement not just for the contested Republican primary, but for US Senate, period. The association of businessmen and women on the western side of Colorado believe Frazier is a pro-business, free market candidate that will "aid in returning our economy to an emergent, healthy and vibrant environment," and will not simply be "a no vote."

Frazier did observe from his early fundraising calls, however, that the state of the economy has affected the amounts certain donors traditionally have been able to give. The race may require 20 million dollars to win, but a less than optimal fiscal climate might skew those numbers. On the other hand, Frazier noted, the numbers could rise if the race is perceived as strongly competitive (a necessary retention for Democrats, a viable pickup for Republicans) and is pushed into the top 2 or 3 Senate races nationwide in terms of visibility and swing potential as the “eyes of the nation are focused on Colorado.”

As far as the economy's possible effect on the broader success of his campaign themes and electoral chances, Frazier adroitly noted: "Certainly there are going to be those if the economy gets better they're going to say the Democrats are in charge when it got better. But I would always remind people that when the Democrats were in control it got worse, as well. It's not a matter of the Democrats, it's a matter of confidence by the American people that the economy can and will get better tomorrow than it is today."

“I believe it will come down to this in 2010—who has the best ideas and who can connect with the people—these will ultimately be the deciding factors,” concluded Frazier.

Frazier closed out our talk with an emphasis on the fact that he is "solutions-driven", clearly a theme that appeared throughout his answers. To address what keeps him going on the rigorous campaign schedule that hampers his business and family commitments, he eloquently summed up the case for his candidacy: "I do want to see a better Colorado and a better America where our taxes are low, where our rights are protected, our Constitution is upheld, and our country is defended. Those are the things that motivate me."

Undoubtedly, the young Aurora city councilman, entrepreneur, and father of three has a lot of work cut out for him, but as he begins to make a national impression, Ryan Frazier is on track to make a strong showing.

Thanks to Ryan for making time, and thanks to those who helped set up the meeting.

Colorado's Ryan Frazier: A New Face For GOP

Whereas folks in the know have already taken notice of Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier's ascent in Colorado politics, he is just beginning to catch the attention of those in DC:

Ryan Frazier is not a well-known entity in Washington political circles.

But that may change soon -- and if it does, the Republican Party may have a new face to showcase in 2010 and beyond.

Frazier, a 31-year-old African-American city council member from Aurora, Colo., is running for the US Senate next year. He offers youth and diversity to a party that's lacking in both these days.
. . .
"Principles mean something, principles help guide decisions. At the same time, you know, we need to apply, I think, Reagan's 80-20 Rule," he said.

Frazier talks gubernatorial appointments, illegal immigration, and gay marriage/domestic partnership benefits.

(Full video, interview around 3 minutes in):



The Weekly Standard has also taken a look at Frazier, and notes his address to the Tea Party in Grand Junction on April 15.

Union Goons' Alleged Intimidation At Event Attended By Sen. Michael Bennet Caught On Tape

"You gotta delete that."


Michael Ramirez

From CompleteColorado.com, an update on the event attended by Sen. Michael Bennet where a GOP operative alleged intimidation by union members who forced him to delete the contents of a video shot at the event as a condition for leaving:

CompleteColorado.com is first to obtain and publish the full 911 calls made by GOP operative Matt Milner at a union event featuring Senator Michael Bennet.

On April 25th, Milner went to a meeting at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' Local 68 union hall on North Logan Street. Milner admits he was being paid by the Colorado Republican Party to video tape remarks by Democrat U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. However, Milner claims he was prevented from leaving the union hall of his own accord for a period of time after some union officials became interested in how much information Milner had recorded. Milner called 911 to report that he felt as though he was being intimidated.

The story was originally reported by Jessica Fender of the Denver Post.
. . .
"You gotta delete that." Milner responds, "I'm taking my camera with me," to which the unidentified voice apparently responds, "Well, just delete what you...taped."

The event appears to have been open to the public, and by all accounts, Milner had taped the event without incident until confronted as he tried to exit the venue.

From Fender's Post report:

State GOP aide Matt Milner dialed 911 because he said union organizers blocked his exit and demanded he erase a video recording of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet on Saturday afternoon following a townhall meeting sponsored by the AFL-CIO.

Mike Cerbo, executive director of Colorado AFL-CIO, said Milner came looking for trouble, but he wasn't forced to erase the tape or barred from leaving. It's now a matter for the Adams County Sheriff's Office, where authorities Sunday confirmed that they received a complaint from Milner. Police also confirmed his Saturday emergency call.

"I feared for my safety. Period," the 25-year-old Milner said Sunday.

Neither Bennet nor his staff was present at the altercation, said both Milner and a representative for the senator.

Milner has been a familiar face at about a dozen official Bennet events. The state Republican Party confirmed that it pays him to shadow and videotape the freshman senator in a practice known as "tracking."

There was no reason to think Saturday's gathering at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' Local 68 union hall — billed as an "everyone's welcome" affair on the invitation — would vary from the typically uneventful routine. And for several hours it didn't, Milner said.

But Milner, with his tripod and video camera, garnered the attention of event organizers just as Bennet bid his adieu to hundreds of audience members, some of whom had grown passionate over politically tricky labor issues, such as the Employee Free Choice Act.

CompleteColorado.com also has audio of Milner's interview with local radio hosts, relating his impression of events, some of which appears to be clearly corroborated by the 9-11 audio.

This story should be considered "in development" as the investigation is still "active." Colorado law requires only one party give consent (no illegal wiretapping) in order to tape conversations, and appears to give new organizations the ability to record at "public," "newsworthy" events:

However, nothing in these statutes "shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-305.

Should Milner's recording be in the clear (the event was touted as open--"everyone's welcome"), anyone demanding that he erase video as a condition of release can be considered "false imprisonment."

Sen. Bennet faced a tough crowd at the event. Are these thuggish tactics--employed by a Democrat constituency, big labor--indicative of what we as Coloradans should expect to influence a vote on EFCW, and a window into things to come with a Democrat win in 2010?

"Both Ways" Bennet Looking Vulnerable In 2010

The Denver Post has picked up on the troubles Gov. Bill Ritter and Sen. Michael Bennet will face going into the 2010 election.

They aren't the first to notice, especially in Sen. Bennet's case, what happens when vacillation over issues like EFCA (card check) is combined with weak poll numbers, as Ben DeGrow pointed out over a week ago.

Ritter's own indecision and weak governing has earned him a similar outlook for 2010.

Sen. Michael Bennet's First Reviews--A Mixed Bag

Coloradans' support for President Barack Obama and Sen. Mark Udall may be slipping, but neither will face voters in 2010.

Sen. Michael Bennet, on the other hand, faces his first election test after having been appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to fill a vacant Senate seat. Public Policy Polling's April 17-19 phone poll results are not that encouraging (pdf):

Three months into his appointment as a Senator, Michael Bennet isn’t making a strong positive impression on Colorado voters.

41% say they disapprove of his job performance so far, with 34% approving. 25% don’t have an opinion one way or the other. He is meeting with approval from 59% of Democrats but only 11% of Republicans, and his overall reviews from independents are negative as well, with 32% approving but 43% disapproving.

Bennet does lead three of his most mentioned possible Republican opponents next year in hypothetical match ups. He’s up 39-35 on Ryan Frazier, 40-34 on Ken Buck, and 41-34 on Josh Penry. He trails former Congressman Bob Beauprez 43-42.

There’s still some indication within the numbers that Hispanic voters might be angry that one of them was not appointed to replace Ken Salazar. Bennet’s spread with Hispanics is 36/45, much worse than Barack Obama’s 58/36 and one he’ll have to improve with that Democratic leaning demographic if he’s going to be reelected.

“These numbers for Michael Bennet are not very good,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “The good news for him is that he still hasn’t had the opportunity to define himself the way he wants to the voters in a campaign, and when he has the opportunity to do that next year he may fare better than he is now.”

The Rothenberg Political Report, on the other hand, moved Sen. Bennet into a "Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party" in a report updated on April 21.

FiveThirtyEight.com puts Bennet's seat in 10th place in likeliness to change hands in 2010 in its April update, and Chris Cillizza's "The Fix" at The Washington Post had nearly the same positioning in March's update (at #9).

Not a great start, but certainly not horrible either--and the eventual winner of the emerging GOP field will have his work cut out for him, given Bennet's early fundraising prowess.

Big questions remain for Bennet, however:
**Can he maintain his early fundraising juggernaut?

**Will continuing to waffle on major issues--ones like EFCA, cited consistently in the analsyses above--not only anger some segment of the potential power structure (labor unions vs. businesses), but prove accusations that Bennet, like his appointer Ritter, is ultimately indecisive?

**Will he able to build name recognition without also elevating his negatives (see previous question)?

**And will Bennet prove to be an effective campaigner and stump speaker, not only on the rubber chicken dinner circuit and $1000-a-plate galas but also on the campaign trail throughout the state?

Bennet's potential reelection hinges on a couple factors--how the state perceives him as an appointment (effectively a referendum on Ritter and Bennet simultaneously) and how well he has distinguished himself in office between this January and next November. While the Democrats want to push the idea that the Senate race is over as early as possible for fundraising/recruiting/turnout purposes while citing a "weak" GOP field, they have a long way to go before the next election in proving that Sen. Bennet is the best choice of the people for the state of Colorado.

Colorado 2010 US Senate Race Update: Ryan Frazier's Ascent

**Update--Buzz from Douglas County Lincoln Day dinner indicates that Frazier won the night's straw poll--exact numbers to follow this evening.

From Chris Cillizza's "The Fix" at the Washington Post:

9. Colorado (D): Appointed Sen. Michael Bennet has made a solid debut so far although his wishy-washiness on the Employee Free Choice Act has turned him into something of public punching bag on the right and the left. Bennet, a virtual unknown before he was named to replace Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, is clearly vulnerable in 2010. But, there doesn't appear to be a serious primary challenge in the offing (does former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff really want to risk his "rising star" status on a race against a sitting senator?) and the Republican field has been slow to take shape. The most likely GOP candidate seems to be former Rep. Bob Beauprez but his disastrous 2006 run for governor raises questions about his political strength. Some within the GOP are excited about the possible candidacy of Ryan Frazier, a 31-year old African American member of the Aurora City Council. (Previous ranking: 10)

The seat could quickly become a real toss-up as Frazier's visibility within the party increases. GOP grassroots activists, many of whom supported Leondray Gholston's successful vice chair candidacy at the state level (Gholston served as Frazier's reelection campaign manager), have identified Frazier as a strong contender for the GOP's 2010 U.S. Senate nomination. They believe that Frazier carries none of the negatives of the other potential candidates whose names have been bandied about for the seat, and argue that he has a greater potential for reestablishing and mobilizing a "big tent" for conservatives/GOP/libertarians in the state. His main task will be in establishing brand awareness across Colorado in the coming months, along with building a sufficient campaign war chest to tackle a contested primary and Sen. Bennet in 2010.

SP has been tracking Frazier's potential candidacy for months.

"Senator Who?" Michael Bennet Facing Possible Primary Challenge

From twice-passed-over Andrew Romanoff, ex-Speaker of the House. And he may not be the only one.

But them's the breaks for Senator "who the hell are you?"--whose selection by Gov. "Blue Ribbon" Bill Ritter has befuzzled everyone from Democrat insiders to political observers of all stripes.

Should Bennet face a primary challenge, real doubts about the electability of Ritter's selection will become clearly evident, and the rifts within the party structure from disgruntled constituencies and passed-over contenders will only serve to weaken Ritter's own reelection bid. Bennet's possible primary failure will only highlight Ritter's shortcomings, and a stronger Democrat running for U.S. Senate will force more attention onto the Governor's own race.

Senator Who? Michael Bennet And Russ Feingold's Planned Constitutional Amendment

As Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Who?) continues his whirlwind "Getting To Know You" tour of Colorado, state Dems are busy propping up the still-puzzling choice of appointee:

"He's doing everything he needs to do," said Colorado Democratic Party chair Pat Waak.

"He is really treating this like it is a campaign." she said. "He is spending every single available moment he has meeting and talking to people. He understands he needs to appeal to everyone in this state, not just Denver. He is making personal connections with people and that's how you get elected in Colorado, so I think it's great."

He'll need those connections if he is to buck the rather daunting historical odds of winning election on his own in 2010.

So what does this have to do with Russ Feingold (D-Campaign Finance Reform)?

Looks like he plans to introduce an amendment to the Constitution barring gubernatorial appointees and mandating elections for all future Senate replacements:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, issued the following statement today on plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by state governors and require special elections in the event of a Senate seat vacancy.

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

Just last week, Colorado State Sen. Mike Kopp announced plans to introduce a bill that would achieve the same objective for the state (and which would have a much lower threshold of passing) in calling for special elections to fill a vacant Senate seat. The lefties at ColoradoPols called it a "gaming" move of "political expediency" that is ultimately "self-serving."

So, what will they think of Feingold's proposed Constitutional amendment?

The widely discussed appointments in Colorado, Illinois, and New York--all three in which Democrat governors appointed Democrat replacements--have elicited reactions from puzzled bewilderment (Senator Who? in Colorado) to scandal (Gov. Rod Blagojevich, D-Highest Bidder) to entitlement (you know, New York, you know). After these well-publicized fiascos, why not require special elections for open Senate vacancies?

Colorado's newest Senator was appointed by an indecisive governor predisposed to calling for "blue ribbon" panels for just about everything, and even soliciting the public's input on who should replace the outgoing Sen. Ken Salazar, who had been tapped for President Barack Obama's cabinet. Apparently that input went largely ignored.

Exit question: Will the fact that the party responsible for bringing so much attention to this generally infrequent procedure diminish or augment public support for such a measure?

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.

Latino Angst Over Democrats' Political Appointments In Colorado

Guest post by Meg.

A statement jumped off the front page of the Sunday Denver Post at me: "This will have legs down the road, I swear to God it will." Upon further examination, this hot-headed and mildly blasphemous statement was not made by a grade-school student, but by a man who was once duly elected by the people of Colorado, former Democratic state senator Paul Sandoval.

The issue? Colorado's Latino political and business leaders believe that they have been left out of the recent slew of political appointments and turnovers at the state level. Former U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar has moved on to Interior, but the man that Gov. Ritter chose to be his replacement? Michael Bennet, the Denver Public School superintendent, a white man. Then the man Ritter tapped to take Bennet's place at DPS? Tom Boasberg, DPS's chief financial officer, also a white man. The Colorado secretary of state position, vacated by Republican Mike Coffman, was also Ritter's to fill. His choice was Bernie Buescher, recently rejected by Grand Junction voters in his state House re-election bid. You guessed it… Buescher is a white man.

All of this has caused much angst among the Latinos in the state. Former Denver Councilwoman Ramona Martinez joined the chorus. She reminded "those who feel we are not good enough to fill positions of power" that "no more will we be taken for granted. No more will our numbers be only counted on Election Day. No more. No más."

The Latino leaders' main issue is said to be that they were not consulted before the appointments were announced. In the case of DPS, they specifically asked the president of the Denver school board, Theresa Peña, if she would meet with them beforehand. The request was ignored. They sent Peña a subsequent letter chastising her for her inattention, and seeking a discussion of "the creation of an open and transparent process for this and future appointments within the Denver Public Schools." The Latinos also disagreed with the "secret" process to appoint the secretary of state of the Senate seats.

Ritter asked a blue-ribbon panel, as is his wont, to give him three names for the secretary of state finalists. The three names were white men. The Post jumped on the critical bandwagon today by blasting Ritter in an editorial, saying that it was "unfathomable" that Ritter did not "ensure" that Rosemary Rodriguez was one of the finalists. The Post's rationale was that Rodriguez has more election experience than those who were recommended, and suggested that Buescher's appointment "seemed to be a nod to the Western Slope." They were similarly critical of the Boasberg appointment. The Post editorial board made a token concession that the selecting officials "can and should hire the candidate who best fits their needs" and that they shouldn't be "intimidated by any person or group." They even declared that they "like Boasberg… [he is] well-versed in district operations." But then they return to the complaint that the Latinos were not involved in the process.

The Latinos' response is wildly out of proportion. It is entirely Ritter's prerogative to decide who is nominated to empty state positions (Article IV, Section 6, Colorado state constitution). He does not have to involve anyone else whatsoever in the process. The Post editorial called the shutout and the "secret" process "bad politics and even worse policy." My guess is that if a Latino had indeed been named using the same secrecy, there would be no outcry. As a Latina myself, I am well acquainted with this notorious double standard.

It is not the "secret" process that the Latinos don't like. It's their perception of losing ground, of being disrespected, of being left out. Latino culture is very heavy on demands of respect. When this respect is not forthcoming, they become vocal and agitated, even when, as in this case, the process was completely correct. Both the Post and the Latino leaders seem to be arguing for a quota in state appointments. They seem to be suggesting that although a Latino did not originally hold two out of three of those positions, they should have been top contenders for the appointments—solely on the basis of race.

The Post plays into this by not criticizing Ritter for appointing Buescher, a Democrat, to fill Republican Mike Coffman's shoes. All is fair in politics, but when it comes to race? Then the Latino community is a "growing constituency" who must not be ignored. We're not supposed to remember the majority who elected a Republican secretary of state.

The Latino leaders are unseemly in their endless demands for "respect," even to the point of vague "No más" threats in Spanish. Many of them fought hard to be elected to office. Why are they clamoring for jobs to be handed to them for free? They should look inward and work to put forth quality candidates for public office in the future. If their growing constituency is as outraged as they say, such candidates should be quite competitive in future political races.

Senator Who? Weekend Edition

Word on the streets--can Bennet woo Hispanics?

Bennet faces the anti-war, anti-Israel crowd on his introductory tour of Colorado.

Bennet "political"--inflating his own record?

Bennet a "blue dog?" EPIC FAIL.

Or is he already "saying all the right things" in his first policy speeches?

More On Senator Who?

Last night's RMA 2.0 Blog Talk Radio featured a discussion of the appointment of DPS Superintendent Michael Bennet by Gov. "Blue Ribbon" Bill Ritter, including theories on the appointment and analysis of his chances in 2010.

Ben DeGrow questions Bill Ritter's judgement on the Michael Bennet pick--self-delusion or subtlety?

Rocky Mountain Right reminds us that Bennet has a very poor chance of winning election on his own in 2010 based on historical examples, and notes the similarities in experience (none) between Bennet's selection and the Harriet Miers nomination.

Folks around the state are still scratching their heads over who Bennet is and what he might represent in the Senate--he has been called an "ardent" supporter of President-elect Barack Obama, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks he's "got the goods"--but Bennet faces political reality when he sets out on his first tour of the state to introduce himself and try to get a handle on the "economy and other challenges."

Good luck with that Senator.

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.