Holtzman v Beauprez

Following the lead of state party chairman Bob Martinez, 31 sitting Republican state legislators and 9 Republican candidates for state legislative office sent a letter today to Marc Holtzman asking him for the sake of party unity (about which he spoke eloquently at the Assembly) to withdraw from the race.

While these kind of things don't happen every day, at least
Republican leaders from Routt County agree.

And so does a first-time delegate from Boulder County, who has brought up an excellent point about the Holtzman campaign's earlier spin, which frankly disappoints me to see in retrospect:

Holtzman estimated that more than 2,500 Holtzman delegates were elected to state and county assemblies in the statewide caucus proceedings Tuesday night. “We will clearly reach our stated goal of sending at least 30 percent of the delegates to the Republican State Assembly in Colorado Springs on May 20th, assuming we receive fair treatment,” said Dick Leggitt, Holtzman’s Campaign Manager.

I have yet to see any real evidence to show Holtzman received anything but "fair treatment" at the Assembly - I was there. And let me tell you, 902 is nowhere near 2,500.

I hope it isn't true, but with each recalcitrant response to voices of reason from all over the state party it appears the Holtzman campaign is becoming more about Marc Holtzman than anything else. He can prove otherwise, doing the party and its principles, platform, and policy priorities a favor by stepping down and running in the future.

This recent Holtzman-delegate blogger was one of the very first to ask him to do just that.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Posted by Ben at 09:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

As the Denver Post highlights this morning, tomorrow is the big "showdown" in Colorado Springs, also known as the State GOP Assembly. I along with several other center-right Colorado bloggers will be on hand for various official duties and will give you updates as possible.

There are a couple salient points I wanted to bring forward about the Assembly, as raised in the article. First, both Republican gubernatorial candidates have focused an extraordinary amount of effort in seeking to persuade delegates from across the state to give their support. Neither candidate has been shortchanged in opportunities to control and direct their messages to this important audience, to make their best case for why their respective candidate should be the Republican nominee for governor.

The Assembly's delegates represent a cross-section of the Party's more conservative voters. Both candidates have fought for ground on the political Right to woo the delegates into their camps. Failure to attract a significant amount of support among this crowd would show that despite the best, well-funded efforts, a candidate has a nearly impossible case to persuade primary voters on Aug. 8 to choose them. That is why the Party's rules stipulate that a candidate who does not earn a 30 percent share of the vote from the Assembly's delegates does not get on the ballot.

Of course, there is the petition option. But such a route seems primarily reserved for a candidate who got a late start in the race for various reasons and did not have sufficient time to raise money and deliver their message to the Assembly's delegates. Such is not the case with either Bob Beauprez or Marc Holtzman. And why I was disappointed to see earlier this week that Holtzman is determined to petition onto the ballot if he fails to achieve 30 percent at tomorrow's Assembly.

The utmost efforts have been made by the State Party to address concerns about the security, fairness, and objectivity of the balloting process. Assuredly, the delegates do not want a repeat of the 2004 debacle that enabled many to vote twice and some to vote not at all. And as the Post story today points out, those concerns have been addressed:

A team of about 150 - including 35 El Paso County sheriff's deputies, 35 ballot-box judges, 70 ballot-distribution judges, four computer experts and five ballot-machine experts - will watch the voting. Cellphones have been banned, and delegate credentials will be closely monitored.

The major upgrade in security is primarily due to Holtzman, who for months has expressed concerns that Republican Party leaders might block his ability to get on the ballot. However, he is not expecting any voting problems now, said spokesman Jesse Mallory.

While I have given my support to Holtzman, I have repeatedly said that both candidates have the conservative, character, and leadership credentials to carry the Party's banner into the fall election. I also believe that the will of the Assembly's delegates should be honored and that if either candidate earns 70 percent support there, the Party should rally around the winner. I am not in favor of either candidate at this point ignoring the delegates they have worked so hard to persuade and choosing the petitioning process to get on the ballot.

But if both candidates can pick up the requisite 30 percent support in this fair and secure election process, let the primary campaign continue. And may it be a battle of ideas.

Posted by Ben at 08:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Courtesy of Real Clear Politics, the latest Rasmussen numbers in Colorado's race for governor show that none of the 3 candidates has gained any traction in the past month. The narrow teeter-totter between Republican Bob Beauprez and Democrat Bill Ritter has tipped slightly in Beauprez's favor (essentially because Ritter's numbers dropped), but still within the margin of error. Ritter's lead over Holtzman remains steady at 5 points.

Here were the rolling averages of head-to-head matchups for March:

Bill Ritter (D) 41%
Bob Beauprez (R) 40%

Bill Ritter (D) 41%
Marc Holtzman (R) 36%

Rasmussen released the April averages today:

Bob Beauprez (R) 39%
Bill Ritter (D) 37%

Bill Ritter (D) 41%
Marc Holtzman (R) 36%

Perhaps most telling are the individual candidate's favorable vs. unfavorable ratings:

Ritter is viewed favorably by 52% of likely voters, unfavorably by 25%. Beauprez is viewed favorably by 48%, unfavorably by 31%. Holtzman is viewed favorably by just 35% (a five-point drop since late March) and unfavorably by 33%, with 32% Not Sure what to think of him.

Among Republicans, Beauprez is viewed favorably by 69%, Holzman [sic] by 51%.

Voters appear to have less clear opinions of all candidates than a month before. Ritter's favorable rating held steady while his unfavorables dropped by 5 points. Beauprez's favorable rating declined 4 points and his unfavorable rating by 3 points. Holtzman's favorable rating fell 5 points and his unfavorables fell 1 point.

Bottom line: recent developments in the campaign appear to have generated more confusion and/or apathy about the candidates than anything else. The recent intraparty mud-slinging has definitely heightened since the end of the polling period, but its April effects appeared to have benefited no one and to have hurt the Democrat Ritter (who remains outside the fray) the least.

The numbers for all candidates have reached a plateau - at least temporarily - and neither Republican contender appears to have gained a rhetorical edge in their case for electability.

While Beauprez is the only Republican to have a survey showing him leading Ritter (though slightly), he still has the smallest "No Opinion" factor & presumably will have a harder time breaking through the ceiling.

Some negative press looks to have taken steam out of the Holtzman engine. But if he can emerge unscathed from the recent legal proceedings he has the greatest potential of any candidate to win over independent and undecided voters.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Posted by Ben at 12:44 PM | Permalink

The Rocky Mountain News sheds light on yesterday's radio ads. According to the report, the ads were produced by "Coloradans for Freedom and Opportunity," or the political henchmen of the pro-tax increase power brokers in the state Republican party.

Last year Marc Holtzman challenged their stand on Referendum C, and they throw buckets of mud back - mostly innuendo. I wonder where the preponderance of the GOP's grassroots - who are scheduled to convene in Colorado Springs on May 20 - stood on Ref C. Well, let me tell you: with Holtzman, not with Katy Atkinson and Bruce Benson. I have a hard time explaining the timing of the release of these ads, except that the anti-Holtzman crowd are attempting to curb a defeat at the State Assembly, or at least to take their negative appeal to a broader audience.

Holtzman and his team had to have anticipated the escalation of these sort of vitriolic assaults. How they respond in the coming weeks will say a lot about the quality and character of the campaign. If done well, they may be able to rally more of the party faithful to their banner.

We have 16 days to see which candidate earns top line at the Assembly. Depending on which side you listen to, you get drastically different stories of where the levels of support are. A lot of jockeying is going on for the narrowest cadres of support. What I hope for, more than anything, is a fair and untainted vote at the Assembly (unlike the clouds of controversy that swirled in 2004).

While I tend to disagree with John Straayer in most cases, his analysis quoted in the Rocky that a "civil war" has been taking place in Colorado's Republican Party is not far off.

Make no mistake, however, that this "civil war" has roots far deeper than Holtzman and Beauprez and 2006. I can only hope that the candidate with fewer primary votes can urge his cohorts to lay down their arms come August.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Posted by Ben at 08:17 AM | Permalink

Primary campaigns do tend to get ugly. A sure sign that the assumed frontrunner senses his rival gaining ground is the significant amount of mud being slung back. Such is the case in Colorado's Republican gubernatorial showdown, as Bob Beauprez's campaign manager John Marshall recently has sent around an email with a list of claims to demonstrate a trend of dishonesty by Holtzman. Some of them don't even merit responses, but of the few that do, the Holtzman team has fired back on one. Says Marshall:

Marc Holtzman claimed President Ronald Reagan appointed him executive director of Citizens for America, but the truth is President Reagan did not.

Holtzman's camp has staked its honesty on hard evidence by producing an actual copy of a letter from well-respected former Attorney General Ed Meese that they claim refutes Marshall's assertion.

I hope that Holtzman responds to some more of the charges with such evidence, but for now, he and running mate Lola Spradley should stick to a more positive message than their opponent.

We've also seen a Beauprez supporter file an election complaint against Holtzman attempting to quell his free speech. Is that what Republicans stand for? For some, when it's convenient, yes ... unfortunately. Don't think the other side isn't paying close attention to the hypocrisy:

Bob Beauprez’s gubernatorial campaign is going after Marc Holtzman’s campaign manager for making false statements to the press, and the statute they are citing is the same one that Democrats have complained has been violated by The Trailhead Group in robocalls designed to hurt targeted Democrats. If Beauprez gets his way, does that put new scrutiny back on The Trailhead Group? Two of Trailhead’s founders, Gov. Bill Owens and oilman Bruce Benson, are two of Beauprez’s biggest backers.

The bright side at this point is how few of us there are actually paying attention. Maybe a campaign of ideas is too much for this amateur pundit to hope for, but could we save just a little bit of mud for the other side... please?

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Posted by Ben at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Rocky Mountain News has a fine editorial this morning about the intra-party mess that Beauprez is making of the primary:

Colorado law says no person may "knowingly" make a false statement "designed to affect the vote" for anyone running for public office.

We have a somewhat different take on this matter.

If Holtzman wants to employ someone who lies to the press in such brazen fashion, that's his business. Journalists will adjust their reports depending on whether they feel they can trust anything he now says. For some, the answer will be no.

But as for there being an obligation to fire Leggitt, that's nonsense. The Colorado law is - or at least should be - unconstitutional. You can't outlaw false campaign rhetoric, intentional or not. Indeed, we can hardly think of anything more destructive to free speech than inviting courts to rule on political truthfulness and honesty.

Then this, on the "substantive" complaint:

Holtzman appeared in a TV ad attacking Ref C, a 2005 issue campaign in which there were no contribution limits. But those ads did not mention he was running for governor. Why shouldn't a candidate enjoy the same free-speech rights to support or oppose a statewide referendum as any other citizen - whether or not it elevates his public profile?

It's bad enough these laws are on the books. It's worse when a Republican betrays party principle and uses them for their intended purpose - to squelch political opposition.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 10:29 AM | Permalink

Am I the only one who notices the multiple ironies in a conservative Republican, ah, encouraging, cough, other conservative Republicans to attack a third conservative Republican using campaign finance laws none of us likes, over his opposition to taxes that, nominally at least, we all opposed?

I'm not the biggest Dick Leggitt fan in the world. But Beauprez has done nothing but confirm his image as someone willing to fight on the politics, but not on the ideas. The fact is, he's tried to short-circuit things at every level, to his and the party's detriment. If he had simply fought a stand-up fight on the issues, he would almost certainly have won the primary vote, regardless of what happened at convention in a few weeks.

Instead, he send out emails with taglines like this:

Prior to his arrival in Colorado, Marc Holtzman was an international financier where, according to his campaign, he "made millions off investments in Eastern Europe."

I know that farmers don't much like bankers, except when they happen to be bankers, but this sounds more appropriate for today's May Day festivities than for an intramural battle among people who know something about how wealth gets created.

The final irony is that in fighting this way, Beauprez is helping to re-open the Schaffer-Coors wounds from two years ago, and to make the primary fight as damaging as he and his supporters predicted when they asked for our support at the outset.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 05:54 AM | Permalink