Holtzman v Beauprez

The RMA is going to represent 0.05% of the delegates at the Republican Party state convention this year, as both Clay Calhoun and I have been elected.

I can say that the only effort made to sway me last night was by a Holtzman man. There was remarkably little politicking, most people left for the Town Hall portion of the evening, and the only speeches were by a couple of black ministers in favor Marriage as We Know It.

With Ben for Marc and Clay for Beauprez, and myself still officially uncommitted, the debate is now officially on.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 07:30 AM | Permalink

I had a chance to see the first face-to-face debate (although not the first joint appearance) between Marc Holtzman and Bob Beauprez, and my first impression was that it stengthened my previous impressions. Holtzman is more of an ideas guy, while Beauprez has a somewhat more governmental approach to things. Holtzman is less comfortable speaking in public, while Beauprez is polished enough to allow himself some humor. Holtzman, running an outsider's campaign, is working harder to establish contrast, while Beauprez is working harder not to offend anyone just now.

While my heart's with Marc and his efforts, the campaign is starting to look a little like the Mike Miles-Ken Salazar matchup. So any pressure that can be brought on Beauprez to force him to talk more about ideas is good for the party. I sent an email with some of the following observations to Holtzman, not because they haven't thought of them, or because I'm declaring for one side or another, but because I think a good primary is good for the party, and helps win the battle of ideas.

First, about that speaking style. Holtzman has gotten better, but Beauprez's humor is still disarming. Holtzman really sees himself as continuing the Reagan revolution, but while the words are optimistic, the voice and facial expressions are a little too strained and earnest. It leads to Beauprez walking away with a higher Q-rating, even though there's no need for it. Instead of saying, "I have a plan, and I know what I want to do," Holtzman could earn points by getting out from behind the lectern, gesturing to the crowd, and telling them that, "you already know the answer," before telling them what it is. He's not tall enough to lean over the lectern, but doing that would really compliment his audience.

A terrible moment came at the end of the debate, where Beauprez was responding to some of Holtzman's comments, invoked Reagan, and Holtzman lost his cool and interrupted Beauprez. While the look on Beaprez's face was worthy of Al Gore in the first debate, Holtzman lost any advantage by breaking the rules and giving Beauprez a chance to stay in command, and put Marc back in his place a little. I'll have audio of that (and other portions) loaded up this afternoon.

Second, on issues, Holtzman is full of ideas, but needs to work harder to connect them with themes and with items that matter to people. On the other hand, his ideas are appealing to a Republican crowd, and are more specific that Beauprez's on water and transportation. Beauprez wants to address transportation through roads, rails, and airports. Honestly, that ought to sound terrible to a Republican audience. The Denver railyard is already slated to be moved out east, and airports are largely private enterprises alread. People want to hear about roads, and this talk about "studies" to "get ahead" of the curve sound like expensive boondoggles that don't address specific problems that we're familiar with.

On health care, Holtzman ought to be winning hands-down. Again, there's a limit as to what the state can do, but if you start with the fact that the government has turned the health-care "market" into a pretzel, things like HSAs and federal waivers are no-brainers. They should be at the top of the list, not where Beauprez has them, down at the bottom after, "encourage electronic recordkeeping."

The biggest difference, though, the one that Holtzman kept hammering on to create contrast, was immigration. Holtzman repeatedly banged on Beauprez for not being tough enough on illegal immigration, including references to a bill to crack down on sanctuary cities. Beauprez cited Tom Tancredo's endorsement, and given Tancredo's willingness to be a one-issue candidate and one-issue endorser, that does carry some weight. And the fact is, while Beauprez can't cite the same 100 and 95 ratings on immigration that he can on more general issues, Vote-Smart has him doing pretty well, there, too. Still, it's clear that Beauprez would rather not talk about immigration as his top issue, and Holtzman seemed to get under his skin a little there.

One area where I just flat-out disagree with Holtzman is on CAFTA. My only western-hemisphere free-trade regret is that we didn't get a chance to extend the thing all the way down to the South Pole before Latin American governments started going Left and looking to China for succor. Beauprez's right on this one, and Holtzman is wrong, and we can deal with immigration without ditching free trade.

Look, it's not like Beauprez has no ideas about what to do. He's probably looking ahead both to the general and at having to govern, possibly with a minority in one or both state legislative houses. And Colorado's governor has, at some level, less power than Denver's mayor. The two candidates are probably identical on that issue, except that Beauprez can draw on legislative experience dealing with other states on the issue. Colorado's centrality comes from geography and population rather than any particular talents Beauprez has, but it's still an advantage for him.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 11:05 AM | Permalink

The Dead Governors appear to be the first on the story of alleged conflict of interest going on in the Republican primary. And there's a LOT of disinformation floating around in the comment section, as usual. There is only one essential disagreement between the Holtzman campaign and the State Republican Party: is it proper for a professional political vendor to work for two clients with overlapping interests?

I hate airing dirty Republican laundry like this, but when you are close enough to the sources to know what's going on, and the whole thing needs to be cleared up, well... the choice was easy.

The story came to life when the highly trustworthy Sean McCarthy of Pueblo County gave the following account to Holtzman's staff:

Re: Telephone solicitation, Tuesday, March 1, 2006 I received a phone call from a telemarketer at approximately 8:23pm on the aforementioned date. The caller said she was calling on behalf of the Colorado Republican Party. I listened while she went through her prepared pitch. She asked for my donation of $600. I told her that I was not able to donate that much at present, as I was focused on local elections, but, I intended to donate at a later date. She immediately went into her “overcome the objection” pitch. She told me that she understood, but that timing was critical as every dollar carried the weight of two dollars during this particular period. She said that we were winning in the polls, “Bob Beauprez is ahead 58% to 13%.” This last statement caught me off guard, but she continued her line without allowing me to question her. She continued by saying that any contribution would help us win this election. At this point I asked her if she was calling on behalf of the party, or Bob Beauprez. She seemed to stumble a bit. By this time I was very agitated. The call had interrupted my preparations for bed, and this caller was not making sense. I told her that I was supporting Marc Holtzman, and that I was not interested. I hung up the phone.

When confronted with the facts, State Party officials conceded that they had contracted with the same telephone fundraising vendor as the Beauprez campaign. They claim that the problem was with one rogue caller employed by the vendor who stepped over the line, and nothing more. The Holtzman team was not aware of any evidence to show that the problem had been more widespread than the one caller, though they have received numerous reports from supporters who had a similar experience.

There are no serious allegations of which I am aware that charge either the State Party or the Beauprez campaign with malicious intent. However, the Holtzman team does have a legitimate concern about conflict of interest, and no guarantee can be made that further incidents like this will not occur. It's standard best practice within the field not to do work in overlapping cases. Regardless, it reflects poorly on the GOP, some of whose operatives appear to have learned nothing from the disastrous seeds they sowed during the 2004 Coors-Schaffer Senate campaign. Holtzman's people should be praised for shining the light of day on the situation (read running mate Lola Spradley's letter to State GOP Chairman Bob Martinez) , not cowing to underhanded tactics used by one or more to pressure them out of the race, and running strong on a platform of internal state party reform.

I hope this is just an isolated incident of an overambitious caller and poor judgment by State Party officials. But if it can be shown that more extensive elements operating within the Republican Party structure are concerned enough about Holtzman's candidacy to run underhanded tactics like these against him, they must have someone quite formidable on their hands.

One final note: it's cases like these that have tremendous potential to push good people from participating more actively in the political process. And that, my friend, is sad, indeed.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Posted by Ben at 09:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)