Holtzman v Beauprez

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 latest reliable Rasmussen poll shows momentum is with the Marc Holtzman campaign. Back in February, Rasmussen showed these numbers in matchups between the sole Democrat candidate and his two Republican contenders:

Bill Ritter (D) - 40%
Bob Beauprez (R) - 33%

Bill Ritter (D) - 41%
Marc Holtzman (R) - 28%

The March results show positive movement for the Republicans, while Ritter is stuck standing still:

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

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

And Rasmussen concludes with this summary:

The rolling average of the last three Rasmussen Reports polls shows Ritter leading Beauprez by 3 percentage points, 40% to 37%. Ritter leads Holtzman in the three-poll average by five percentage points. These figures confirm the tightness of the race at this time. With seven months to go until Election Day and more roughly 20% of Colorado voters undecided, this looks to be a wide open campaign. [emphasis mine]

Beauprez has an insignificant two-point edge over Holtzman in head-to-head matchups with Bill Ritter - and this despite other polling information that shows many more Coloradans have yet to frame an opinion of Holtzman than of Beauprez. So what do these data suggest?

The overwhelming concern I hear among friends and others who support Beauprez is the question of electability. Consider the reliable Rasmussen poll as a piece of evidence to challenge that concern and show that a principled, hard-working Republican candidate with strong fundraising and a clear, positive message can and will keep the statehouse in the party's hands come November. Marc Holtzman continues to upset the armchair pundits who dismissed his campaign and said it would be dead months ago. On the contrary, his campaign is still building momentum on its way to the State Assembly on May 20 and beyond.

Also in the news, you can tune in today to hear Marc Holtzman at 10:00 AM on the Amy Oliver Show (1310 KFKA in Greeley).

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Posted by Ben at 08:24 AM | Permalink

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

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)

Apparently, state Democrats figure that since they supported the Ref C tax increase, they get to decide how it gets spent:

Republican state lawmakers who opposed Referendum C are lining up with ideas on how Colorado should use the extra money the state will collect over the next five years, raising eyebrows among some of the Democratic leaders who fought hard to pass the measure.

Just two weeks into the 2006 legislative session, several Republican lawmakers who opposed lifting the state's revenue cap and pledged to be the state's fiscal guardians are pushing bills that would use some of that Referendum C money.

...

That litany has caused some Democrats to complain that those lawmakers don't have the standing to say what should be done with the money.

"These people chose not to be part of the solution," said House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder. "Part of me says, 'Too little, too late.' They're a day late and $300 million short."

This explains why Alice Madden isn't House Speaker. And may soon be Minority leader.

In fact, it also indicates at least the second time that the majority Democrats have had to re-iterate that fact, indicating more insecurity than they'd like to let on. After all, the House rules are such that if the Dem caucus were united, this sort of browbeating wouldn't be necessary. The only way any of these ideas gain traction is if some Democrats support them, making the target of this outburst obvious.

It also suggests that the Republican gubernatorial nominee has a chance to carry down-ticket seats with him, if he chooses to.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 01:27 PM | Permalink

The new reliable Rasmussen poll on the potential matchups in the upcoming Colorado governor's race has created a stir among the state's Republican insiders. Former University of Denver president Marc Holtzman benefits most from the news: his bona fides as a credible statewide candidate have been established. Not only is the ground game among GOP activists from the Plains to the Front Range to the Western Slope gaining him momentum with the party's base, the new Rasmussen poll affirms his legitimate status as a potential successor to Governor Bill Owens. Michael has some initial RMA analysis of the survey you should check out.

As a Holtzman supporter (full disclosure), I'm certainly pleased by the news - which is generating some buzz out there in the blogosphere:
- Of course, the Dead Governors started quite a conversation -
- Students for Holtzman comes to life with the good news that their candidate beats the currently declared Democratic frontrunner Bill Ritter in a head-to-head matchup -
- Over at Red State, partisans spread the polling news from the Centennial State and provoke some bickering between supporters of the two candidates -
- A discussion thread is underway at Free Republic on the same topic -
- Terri at GOPUSA Colorado has posted the information -

The earliest echoes of national interest into the important Colorado gubernatorial race... you know where you need to look to stay updated on what will be going on. The next important date on the calendar here is March 21, when Republicans convene in their caucuses to select delegates to the State Assembly - scheduled for May 20. A candidate needs to earn at least 30 percent of the delegates' support to get on the primary ballot. And then the Beauprez-Holtzman showdown likely will gain a lot of steam. Stay tuned.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Posted by Ben at 05:40 PM | Permalink

Surprising Governor's Poll

Rasmussen has a poll out showing some surprising early numbers regarding the race for Governor.

Matched against Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez, Hickenlooper leads 43% to 38% in our survey of 500 likely voters. Matched against University of Denver President Marc Holtzman, Hickenlooper leads more comfortably, 46% to 36%.

No other Democrat pursuing the nomination currently does as well. Former Denver district attorney Bill Ritter is neck and neck with Beauprez. Ritter narrowly trails Holtzman, 39% to 35%.

What I find most interesting is how, looking at the GOP numbers, it would appear that the primary race is basically neck-and-neck. Beauprez appears to be about +5 relative to Hick, but -3 relative to Ritter. Though a very imprecise way to read numbers, it does look very interesting on the GOP side. And if you factor in what would appear to be a fairly advanced ground game already in place for the Holtzman campaign, you have the makings of a hotly-contested race.

Posted by Michael at 12:40 AM | Permalink

Unlike most Coloradans, I am in the state less than full time these days. Unlike the election of 2004, I am less involved in the up-close-and-personal, inside baseball actions of the committees aligned behind the Beauprez for Governor and Holtzman for Governor camps.

Like most Coloradans, I've come to rely more on the electronic than print version of the news. I don't use the term media on purpose. News is what I'm after -- not hype. Thus I turn to a few reliable sources (pure blogs of which I know or can specifically identify the author(s)) and some less so (online versions of newspapers, etc.). That's where I get my info. You should consider it as well. Both operate based upon an agenda. One pushes their agenda while the other is fairly adept at hiding theirs while professing not to have one. I think it's easier to filter out the agenda than to try to determine where it's hiding.

As I've mentioned, I participated -- well, really just listened in as my question never made it to the top of the queue -- in Marc Holtzman's reverse conference call Monday evening. One of the good things about these calls is that I have to do less planning in order to attend. Your phone rings as you're driving down the road, you answer and push a button or two, and you're in. I wasn't familiar with the name of a single person asking a question. Not such a big deal -- probably. Colorado is a big state -- approaching 4.5MM. I freely admit that I don't know everyone. Besides, that's a lot of names; although not as many unique identifiers as you might think. There are a lot of Bens and Bobs and Jims and Michaels out there, not to mention Sues and Nancys and Lisas and Judys. Could just mean that the Holtzman camp has adopted the Coors strategy of '04 -- focus on the independents and undecideds as the traditional R's and D's aren't going to go your way. Worked for Coors in round 1... But then there's that 'workhorse' comment from the other camp. Interesting. Deep Thoughts material? The only reason I bring this up -- and believe me it's only a thought based upon absolutely nothing -- is that the question popped into my head "...some of the questions sound awfully rehearsed...the topic keeps changing...the total message is getting out there...all within a restricted timeslot...interesting..." Push the # sign, wait for 45 minutes, see if your number comes up...oh well, maybe next time I'll win...

Today the question that is foremost -- well, not really, but as far as this post is concerned -- in my mind is "...why did Bob Beauprez pick the 17th of January to kick-off his campaign..." I doubt that it's a date that holds any significance but why? And at The Grizzly Rose? Oh that's right -- almost forgot -- The Stockshow's in town! Good idea! The reason for the question probably comes from the level of frustration experienced from repeatedly, over the last month or two, asking the question "Where's Beauprez?" Really. You probably don't ask yourself those questions, but then again you don't have a blog to keep up with. Holtzman has been on the trail, driving around the state, speaking to groups, rallying support, and building a team. One of the things that was drummed into my mind in Grassroots Activisim Class was 'get your name and face out front early and often.' Seemed to be working for Holtzman. Then again Beauprez, by virtue of his elected position, draws media attention like bees to honey. And by combination of his position and the fact that everyone knew he'd be in the race for governor...well, you just get lots of media attention for no cost. That could turn out to be a very good strategy. Especially if you believe the press releases on the websites as to who has earned how much money and how much money they have left in the bank. Not to infer that the checks have stopped coming in, but you build your campaign budget backwards. You adjust the current to assure that an adequate balance remains for the final drive.

Speaking of the drive, Hugh Hewitt will be at the LPR's Broadmoor Retreat in the Springs on January 27th. He's a big Cleveland Browns fan. I wonder if anyone will ask him about the Broncos and the drive?

Like I said...rambling if you like...

Cross posted on ClayCalhoun.com

Posted by Clay at 06:56 AM | Permalink

The RMA (in the persons of Ben DeGrow, the Kestrel, and me) had a chance to interview Governor Owens after yesterday's State of the State address, and the last question asked was about his role in the ongoing Republican gubernatorial nominating process. In short, whether or not it made sense for him to have a role.

His answer can be summarized (not quoted) as follows: He intends to keep a low profile, but is backing Rep. Beauprez. His main purpose in doing so is to preserve party unity, since he sees a practical need for the conservatives in the party to work with its more centrist members, something that neither side always appreciates. Owens told Holtzman that he was backing Beauprez even before Holtzman decided to get into the race, and that Holtzman shouldn't be surprised. Owens seemed genuinely offended that Holtzman would run his campaign against him, and promised that "human nature would kick in," and he would defend his record. In any event, he'd like to be in a position to help whomever the nominee is to win the general.

Everyone wants to win - the Governor's Mansion and at least one house of the legislature if possible. Still, Owens was largely behind the whole Pete Coors thing in 2004, and in the two interviews we've conducted so far, it's clear that Holtzman has more ideas ready to go than Beauprez does. If John Kerry in 04 or the British Tories over the last decade hold any lesson, it's that electability isn't enough to get you elected.

That's not to say Beauprez can't or won't win. It's not to say that by the time people start paying attention, he'll have enough well thought-out policy proposals to fill Ken Salazar's pick-up truck. But Dick Wadhams - remember Dick Wadhams, Governor? - is a big fan of primaries, figuring it makes a better candidate come October. Getting outside help is liable to fool the nominee into thinking he's a better candidate than he really is.

I'm not sure the Governor should be involved here. (Recall the 1988 Presidential race, where the Republicans held neither house of Congress, and yet Ronald Reagan simply refused to insert himself into the nominating process.) I realize he genuinely believes that Beauprez is the better candidate, and he's certainly got the stronger presence in the state. But a debate about the party's character and direction is more or less inevitable upon the retirement of a popular governor, and using the considerable power of the governor's office to short-circuit that debate is likely to breed resentment rather than unity.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 09:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

We know Colorado's Democrats have been straining to find a gubernatorial candidate. With each passing week of press and fundraising for former Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, it gets a little harder for a primary opponent to nudge into the race. Like a row of performers at the end of a play, most all of the Democrats' big hopes to run have bowed out: Ken Salazar, John Hickenlooper, Mark Udall, Joan Fitz-Gerald. Ritter has posed a problem for his party's base with his open admission of his personal pro-life stance.

Well, you know the prospects for another viable Democrat candidate must be fading into the twilight when you read an opinion piece like this in today's Denver Post. Authored by three prominent liberal Democrat women of strong abortion-rights credentials, the column is a prize example of moral incoherence married to political expediency and ambiguity. They write:

Let's be clear about where Ritter stands on the issue of abortion. Based on his faith and after years of reflection, he is personally opposed to abortion. However, Ritter isn't interested in undermining Roe vs. Wade. It isn't part of his agenda. Nor is he interested in criminalizing women or their doctors over this issue. He will enforce the law just as he did when, as Denver's district attorney, he prosecuted those who violated the "bubble law" and damaged medical clinics and doctors' offices.

We share important common ground with Ritter, including his goals to reduce the number of abortions, unintended pregnancies and unwanted children. We are in complete agreement over the need for: government funding for family planning; ensuring that all women have access to emergency contraception; providing responsible and age-appropriate sex education; and enhancing the state's adoption programs.

One of Ritter's greatest strengths is his willingness to listen and understand all viewpoints. He respects that a great many people hold differing and equally strong opinions on the issue of abortion. It should give all of us great comfort to know that each perspective will always have a seat at his table.

But rather than focus on the differences that divide us, it's time to zero in on what unites us. Ritter's vision is one we share: to create an environment that gives every Coloradan a chance to realize all of the promise that the state has to offer. His priorities include improving health care, education and the economy; protecting our natural resources; fixing our transportation infrastructure; and supporting job creation and keeping good jobs in Colorado.

Ritter offers the best chance for a Democrat to recapture the governor's office. Polls and fundraising results show a broad base of support for Ritter. He's moderate. And even more important to those of us who know him personally, he's an extraordinarily principled person. He's ethical, has high standards and treats people with respect. He has just the right mix of integrity, spirit, courage, compassion and intelligence to become the next governor. [emphases added]

To me, a big point hinges on the meaning of the phrase "government funding for family planning." Since the byline goes out of its way to mention that one of the authors used to work at Planned Parenthood, could we assume this "family planning" service includes providing abortions? If so, what are we to conclude about Ritter's pro-life leanings? That he has no qualms about using taxpayer dollars for a highly controversial - at best - procedure, one that many citizens (allegedly, including himself) who pay taxes have concluded is the taking of innocent life?

If "family planning" is not the typical euphemism here, then which organization would Ritter support with taxpayer dollars? They certainly can't mean Catholic Charities. It seems to me a more "moderate" stance would be a laissez-faire approach to abortion that didn't favor criminalization but withheld public funding.

And may we also presume by its omission from this column that Ritter would favor some restrictions on abortion rights - such as parental notification or a waiting period? If not, then the appellation "pro-life" would not seem appropriate to describe Ritter. Perhaps that's what the column's authors mean when they say he isn't "interested in undermining Roe v Wade."

Can you imagine it being said of one of the prominent civil rights leaders of more than a generation past that he was personally opposed to segregation but wasn't interested in undermining Plessy v Ferguson or Jim Crow laws? Your everyday cynic would conclude that such a person must have been running for office in the Deep South circa 1950.

Is Ritter forging a position based in political expediency? One would be well-supported in making such a case, but the column is too ambiguous to leave us any lasting clues. If the candidate really does favor some abortion restrictions, then signs are coming in that Colorado's liberal Democrat base is starting to think the former DA is their best shot at the governor's mansion, and is willing to concede one of its more cherished tenets for the implementation of its broader agenda.

The state's Democrats have time to decide whether they really like Bill Ritter as a candidate and what he stands for.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Posted by Ben at 01:19 PM | Permalink

The Denver Post's political column takes note of this project this morning:

Holtzman v. Beauprez

Every candidate has a website, but how many races have their own blogs? Political junkies who can't get enough of the 2006 governor's race - it's now just 351 days away! - can visit the Holtzman vs. Beauprez blog at holtzmanvbeauprez.jsharf.com. It's a collaborative project of the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs. Congressman Bob Beauprez and former University of Denver president Marc Holtzman are the only declared GOP candidates for governor.

See, now this is the kind of editorial we're glad to see the Post running.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 07:40 AM | Permalink

Last night was the Independence Institute's Founders Dinner, and while the LPR-types were much in evidence, Bob Beauprez was not. I came a little late, but Marc Holtzman had put in an early appearance, before heading off to court the Republican Women, so to speak. It's a natural constituency for Holtzman, perhaps not so much for Beauprez, but it still represents a powerful force within the party, and one that Beauprez should at least be seeking to placate, if not win over outright.

While John Andrews had a little fun at the governor's expense, he did gently continue his campaign of reconciliation, reminding the group that we still probably have more in common with Bill Owens than we do with, say, Jared Polis. Beauprez would probably not have found a hostile reception, and would have earned some points just by showing up.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I haven't quite decided where my vote will go in this race. I am inclined to vote for Beauprez simply because (at this point) of name recognition. That's not an informed vote though. One thing is for sure, I will be taking a close look at where both candidates stand on the issues. My main concern right now is making Colorado and the rest of the nation safe from islamofacists during the GWOT. We cannot do that if we are pandering to illegal immigrants.

Colorado needs a tough illegal immigration policy. For one, we need to take away the incentives business's have in hiring illegal immigrants. Second, we need tougher penalties for businesses that insist on hiring illegals. Next, we need to make sure that we replace illegals with Americans and make sure they can make a living wage. Finally, we must secure our borders to stop the inflow of illegal immigration and set up policies to allow for legal and safe immigration to this country. Much of this will have to be done on the national level rather than the state level, but the next Governor of Colorado could and should be a leading voice on this issue.

Over the coming weeks myself and the rest of the RMA will be keeping an eye on this issue as well as many others.

Cross posted @ Thinking Right

Posted by Jim at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

At this point, it also appears that the Holtzman campaign website is much more substantial than the Beauprez campaign site The Beauprez site is little more than a bio and beg, where the Holtzman site actually tells you something about the candidate.

Still, in 2006, after a statewide campaign won by a hispanic candidate, neither site has a Spanish-language version. Maybe they think of it as principled, maybe they haven't thought of it at all, but there are far too many voters out there whose first language es en Espanol for them to be campaigning strictly in English.

We can go on about immigration forever, and I'm sure we will, but if you've got citizens out there voting, you need to be able to talk to them, and if you can't, if you choose not to, they're not going to vote for you. This is going to be hard enough, let's not make it harder still.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 06:26 PM | Permalink

To Holtzman v. Beauprez, a follow-up to our successful Salazar v. Coors project of 04.

We already disagree about this race, and we still have a couple of hundred days to go until the vote, so things can only get worse. Especially if it's close. Which makes better copy, so we all hope for that.

Through the primary, we'll be adding commentary on the campaigns here, as well as on our own sites. And after the primary, look for another blog.

Posted by Joshua Sharf at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)