gop rewrites history (again); puts faith in people forgetting what’s real

I didn’t live in Colorado in 2010. I was living in Sarasota, FL, pregnant with my third son and fighting the Obama regime with the Sarasota Tea Party. Ah, memories.

I am not a huge fan of the term RINO because the Republican name just isn’t what it used to be. I’m gonna go with CREEP from now on. Look at this guy…it works.

Now that we hear the Colorado Republican Establishment Echo Propagandists, or CREEPs, talking about how Danielle Neuschwanger is going to do a “repeat of 2010,” I jumped in the internet time machine to see what they were talking about.

“Dan Maes says he could have pulled it off. If it hadn’t been for Tom Tancredo, Maes says, he — and not John Hickenlooper — would be governor of Colorado. ‘If everyone would have circled their wagons, put the money in, and fought the good fight, we would have won 51-49. But it became a three-way race with just three months left, and everything changed overnight,’ Maes writes. ‘A victory would have been possible with the withdrawal of Tom Tancredo, which would have been paramount (sic) to negotiating with a terrorist.’ …He faults a number of people and institutions for his loss, including former Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams, a variety of Republican funders, some Tea Party activists, a liberal press and even former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who he says did not throw him any support despite his e-mail conversations with her father-in-law.”

The Denver Post, September 10, 2011

OK, so this Maes guy was big mad about losing the election to Hickenlooper.

I met Tom Tancredo briefly at an Arapahoe County Tea Party meeting last summer. We both spoke, he had a dog with him, and that was the same meeting where I met Stanley Thorne for the first time. If I recall correctly, the consistent theme at that meeting was “party unity.”

The article continues:

“Tancredo laughed off Maes’ accusations, maintaining that he only got in the race because he thought neither McInnis nor Maes was capable of winning, and he wanted to force them out so a viable candidate could get in…Tancredo says Maes had no chance of winning and added that he didn’t think Maes was really a conservative or had any real political philosophy.”

The Denver Post, September 10, 2011

We know for sure that Mesa County Commissioner Scott McInnis is absolute trash when it comes to governing for the people. Maes, based on the synopsis of his book, seemed to be proud of NOT identifying with rural Coloradans and their choice of footwear. That’s a real winning combination of candidates you have there, CREEPs.

This guy got 11% of the vote and claimed he was robbed. 

As an uninvolved observer, and as history would tell it, Tom Tancredo appears to have been the better choice for right-leaning Coloradans in 2010. Indeed, the right-leaning Coloradans agreed. Tancredo received over 36% of the vote to Maes 11%. Hickenlooper won handily with 51% of the vote.

I don’t know (or care) what Maes is up to these days, but to hear the Republicans talk about this election 12 years ago, Tancredo split the vote and now Neuschwanger is going to do the same thing in November. 

What they hope you don’t focus on is that Mr. Maes, their candidate, got just 11% of the vote. The GOP needs to secure ten percent of the votes to maintain their status as a major party in the state. 

The people were done even back in 2010.

how are these creeps still around?

what is the purpose of the party?

Had the GOP read the room, and decided to stand with the people in their party, they would have secured at least 47% of the vote – and who knows how many hearts and minds they might have changed if they put all the resources of the party behind the candidate that most closely aligned with the people. 

It would have been a closer race. Maes couldn’t even secure the conservatives in the party – leaving no hope for the Americans in the middle who are finished with the two-party system, many of them former Republicans. 

Spoiler: They chose party over people (again).

Trump’s victory in 2016 reflects the trend of Tancredo’s 2010 candidacy: Clinton received 48.2% of the vote, to Trump’s 43.3%. Right around a 5% margin, and that’s with all the cheating baked into the gold standard system of election fraud. 

Further, Trump, like Tancredo, was fighting not just “democrats,” but a uniparty establishment of country club Republican CREEPs like Ken Buck, George Brauchler and Kristi Burton Brown. 

Had the party supported the will of the people, Trump could have won the state. He probably did win the state.

We’ll likely never know, because the uniparty is focused on distracting you with fentanyl legislation and student loan forgiveness while they run out the clock on their destruction of evidence. #TrustedBuild

what if we just ended it?

After what I witnessed at the Colorado Republican Assembly, I have been trying to figure out how we can neutralize the impacts of the out of touch, deeply unpopular Republican wing of the uniparty.

I have no influence on the left wing of this monster – and I am deeply concerned about their level of brainwashing – but I am fully aligned with the majority of people on the right who are rejecting the machine picking winners and losers in their elections. That’s 61% of the people on the right, if the assembly results are to be believed (and many believe those numbers are low). 

Sure, calling out their corruption, hypocrisy, and authoritarianism is fun – I know I love it – but how can we neutralize the power they have…?

OK, I am just going to come out and say it:

What if we just ended their “majority party” status?

Hear me out.

Colorado Revised Statute 1-1-104 subsection 22 defines a Major Political Party as, “any political party that at the last preceding gubernatorial election was represented on the official ballot either by political party candidates or by individual nominees and whose candidate at the last preceding gubernatorial election received at least ten percent of the total gubernatorial votes cast.”

Danielle Neuschwanger is running on the Constitution Party ticket. When I spoke with her last, she said to me, “This was never about winning or losing. It was always about the People.”

Tancredo brought the Constitution Party to Major Party Status in 2010 – which they then complained about in 2012, but what if they actually prepared to step into that status and operate seriously?

The Libertarian Party of Colorado is trying to become a more serious contender by ditching that open borders nonsense, but I can’t find much about their gubernatorial candidate Kevin Ruskusky online. I wonder where Neuschwanger would shake out on the Libertarian platform.

Greg Lopez and Heidi Ganahl seem like relatively decent choices for Governor. But based on historical data, I don’t think the Republican label carries a whole lot of weight in Colorado. The Republican Party has repeatedly put up deeply unpopular – largely elitist and already corrupted – candidates, year over year since at least 2010, and they continue to lose. 

They’ve lost the trust of their base and the broader electorate.

Both parties are unpopular. Why do we let them keep their power?

If the Republican candidate for Governor gets less than 10% of the vote – which is a real possibility based on how party support is trending – then the People can feel free to reorganize in a way that represents their communities rather than the elite few.

The illusion of the left vs. right divide in Colorado will be shattered. Minds will be freed. Trumpets will resound. 

And all the people said, “amen!”

the obvious objections

Yes, the Democrats might win the executive branch of government in November. But I’d wager Danielle has a better shot with the middle than either of the Republican challengers, especially since she isn’t running with an “R” next to her name. And the Colorado Legislature is definitely in play, assuming we can get a free and fair election (or turn out enough to break the algorithm). 

Republicans that are unwilling to fight for the people are useless to us – we’ve now watched them stroke each other about decorum for two legislative sessions while systematically destroying our state. Then they shrug and tell their base, “Sorry, you guys didn’t give us enough money. Give us more money and maybe next time we will win.”

If several parties were to attain 10+% of the vote, we could actually change the dynamic under the golden dome and remove the vice grip that the uniparty has on our freedom.

As it is right now, the Democrats are hacking apart the Republic while the Republicans run interference. 

And the people continue to lose.

the road less traveled

I don’t endorse candidates (other than Todd Watkins for Sheriff!), and I am not going to tell you who to elect for your Governor. I am focused on free and fair elections so that the people can truly choose.

But I absolutely advocate for change in Colorado.

Voting for (the same) Colorado Republicans this November is the known, predictable path. We know what we will get: The systematic and overtly respectful management of our decline.

The slow march to the gulag.

more of the same.

My father always said, the worst thing a person can be is predictable. 

We won’t get another chance to reclaim our freedom.

Vote wisely.

Vote wisely, but vote. Don’t you dare not vote. Turnout breaks the algorithm. I don’t care who you vote for, but make sure someone else can’t steal your vote by using it yourself. 

17 thoughts on “gop rewrites history (again); puts faith in people forgetting what’s real

  1. Ashe, as a former Tea Party Republican and now registered Unaffiliated voter (2016) who does vote in primary elections, I really enjoyed reading your column on the 2022 GOP State Assembly. I also enjoy your emails. Having been active in the 2010 Colorado election, we supported Dan Maes all the way till the end just because we hated how the GOPe did everything they could to get rid of him, even if it meant a Democrat Hickenlooper win. We also know Tom Tancredo personally but did not support him for that race in 2010. You are right, he would have been the better candidate for the position based on his temperament, experience, and knowledge of policy/issues especially our porous southern border. But we believe he got the 36% based on his reputation and name recognition. I am not sure Danielle would get near that % based on those two things (and I say that as one who would love to see the Colorado Uniparty leveled).

  2. 100%, that’s exactly what happened! Great article, Ashe! Of course Dan Maes had absolutely no charisma and was completely unlikeable and unimaginable as the whiner-in-chief of CO. I like Danielle, but I do NOT DISLIKE Greg Lopez. I think many will actually like him.

  3. Another home run, Ashe. I’m a big fan now. By the way, love the CREEP acronym. I’ve also used DORCs: Democrats Operating in Republican Clothing. Bottomline for me is RINO gives them too much credit since it implies they may bear some semblance to Republicans, which they rarely do.

    1. I may be dating myself, but the original CREEP was Nixon’s Committee to Reelect the President 🥰

  4. I have not spoken to Danielle. However, her intemperate reaction at the Assembly to KBB was telling, at least to me. Her shoot first, ask questions later, was not a good look, and makes me question her ability to govern in the real world. It is easy to say who you are and what you stand for, but to me, words have little meaning unless they are backed up by actions. As far as her running on the Constitution Party ticket, how does that work? Looking at the SOS site and TRACER, I see her still registered as a republican. And thanks for this thoughtful article 🙂

    1. She is supposed to be making a formal announcement on this tomorrow. And I think there are additional facts to consider. I haven’t been able to connect with her yet — phone tag — but I’m reserving all judgment before the facts play out. It’s not boring, that’s for sure!

  5. I commented recently on Gab that people should stop voting for strangers. Almost everyone we ever vote for in our lifetimes are people we’ve never actually met or spoken to face to face. All we know of them is what their image makers would like us to think we know. I like your recommendation to gammysparkles: talk to her. Imagine that. Go to a debate, a campaign stop, an appearance and try to spend at least a few minutes face to face with someone before you actually give them your vote. It couldn’t hurt.

    1. Exactly — especially in local government. I say it as “I need to look them in the eye.” How can a stranger represent you?!? #StopVotingForStrangers! Love it!

    1. I like her. I am hoping to spend more time with her but I’ve chatted with her a couple times and I’ve watched her in a few different circumstances. Let her have a fair look is all I’m saying. Talk to her…

    1. The observations of time, positions taken and outcomes, proves the logic presented is sound! The question is, do people learn or repeat old mistakes? Somewhere in there is the defining of truth versus rhetoric. Personally I think the Constitutions purpose in structuring political discourse by party affiliation was flawed. It presupposed a moral, honest forum for debate. It is little more than a propoganda mill today. Not given to information but disinformation! Great write up!

Comments are closed.