You’re Invited to Candidate Debate 2010!
Lana Fore-Warkocz | Jan 09, 2010 | Comments 37 | Share: More
A publication written by "We the People," The Constitutionalist Today is comprised of articles from a range of writers, journalists, and bloggers. As such, the opinions herein may not reflect the opinions of our staff, management, or editorial board.
Filed Under: We the People
No related posts.
Why are there no candidates at your candidate forum?
@JJ: There will, in fact, be candidates at the candidate forum.
All gubernatorial and senatorial candidates have been invited; many have accepted, and we’re still waiting on a few. Once we have a final list of candidates, I’ll get it posted right away!
I was at a meeting Saturday morning that Scott McInnis was the guest speaker. When asked directly if he would debate the other GOP candidates he flatly refused. His tactic seems to be to convince Colorado that he alread is the GOP candidate. I was less than pleased with that. Frankly, I was irritated as hell! I’m not about to elect somebody who will not defend his positions in opend debate. Daniel Maes deserves to be heard, head to head, with McInnis. We need to pressure McInnis until he does.
Will Ken Buck, Tom Wiens, and Jane Norton be there? If they will be I will spread the word. I think this is an important race that needs to see these candidates in a forum!
Ken Buck, Jane Norton, Cleve Tidwell, and Dan Maes have confirmed.
.
I guess that its out of a sense of nostalgia that you have invited Republican candidates to the forum. For many years, the GOP was a conservative institution, but not any more.
There are three political parties with guaranteed ballot access in Colorado: the Constitution Party, the Democrats and the Republicans. One of these is an authentic conservative party, and its not controlled by corporate interests. Why don’t you invite that party to send their candidates ?
.
Unfortunately, Colorado has a 2-party system, if we are going to change that we need to do it before the 2012 election year. This year is too late. We have invited and have confirmations from many candidates with strong morals and Constitutional values and Principles, come to the debate and you will see…
.
Um, Lana,
Colorado does NOT have a 2 party system. If you voted in 2008 you would have seen 3 parties on the ballot.
Only one of those 3 parties supports a constitutionalist take on governance, the American Constitution Party.
Only one of those 3 parties is truly conservative, the American Constitution Party.
This year is NOT too late, the ACP is alive and well, thank you very much, and will be on the ballot in November.
If you support the goals of the Tea Party movement, then you will want the ACP candidates at your forum. If this is all just a GOP subterfuge, then you will want to pretend that there is no constitutionalist, conservative alternative.
I don’t question the morals or values or principles of GOP candidates, I question the values and morals and principles of the GOP itself. Tea Party folks see it the same way.
If this website is just a GOP tool, why not be honest about it ?
.
Yes there are three parties on our ballot, and you should be inviting all of them, if your not, then shame on you for not be open to all of the conservative candidates. I want to see all of them not just what you decide I should see…please invite the American Constitution Party to your event!
If you do invite them then I will see your debate as fair and truly looking to put the best conservative candidates forward for Colorado and our Country, if you don’t then I think I concur with the gentleman before me.…just call yourselves the GOP.…thank you.
Brian Scott: in regards to the “caucus system” Lana is correct. Only the Republicans and Democrats may caucus. And she is also correct in that there are only two parties on the ballot before the general election. There are Republican, Democrat, and undeclared (not a party). In Colorado for the general elections there are six STATE POLITICAL PARTIES:
American Constitution Party of Colorado (* Minor Political Party Status) [listed as a third party]
Colorado Democratic Party (Major Political Party Status)
Green Party of Colorado (* Minor Political Party Status) [listed as a third party]
Libertarian Party of Colorado (* Minor Political Party Status) [listed as a third party]
Colorado Republican Party (Major Political Party Status)
Unity Party (** Qualified Political Organization Status) [listed as a political org]
http://www.elections.colorado.gov/Default.aspx?PageMenuID=1422
I believe Lana was referring to the status prior to the general elections and as well as her referring to the status that Colorado is a two major party state i.e. the rest are minority parties. Again only the two major parties may caucus.
You should invite Rob McNealy, he is running in CD-6 and a HUGE advocate of the constitution, he is running a strong race and growing stronger, he is also a great speaker, and great debater.
Now that we are four days from this event, can you update the list of candidates who have accepted the invitation?
The two-party system is the problem. Big Government Republicans are the problem. Voting for Big Government Republicans because they have an “R” by their name is the problem.
R’s and D’s have had control of this country since 1864. The belief that R’s are the solution in 2010 is not backed up by history.
David K. Williams, Jr.
State Chair, Libertarian Party of Colorado
The candidates that have confirmed are:
Scott McInnis
Dan Maes
Ken Buck
Jane Norton
Cleve Tidwell
Tom Wiens
Ali Hassan
JJ Ament
Walker Stapleton
Keynote Speaker: Matt Arnold– Clear the Bench Colorado
Wow, I love the way everyone sees this as “the only party that does the right thing is MINE.” Gee, last time I looked, I really thought that the goal was to present everyone so the PEOPLE could decide who they would vote for.
Doesn’t anyone get sick of the attempts to manipulate what people get to see and hear? I’m a Libertarian, and I think everyone should get to talk. I think people can decide on their own. Or is that what you’re REALLY afraid of?
I will be there with a table, however not speaking due to the focus on specific races. I would love to debate Rep Lamborn anytime.
It would also be great if Rob McNealy could be in attendance too.
Jerèll Klaver, Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives
Colorado CD 5
http://www.JerellKlaver.com
http://www.twitter.com/Jerell
If it wasn’t destroying the fabric of our once great nation, I’d find it comical that people are still pretending like the two major political parties are the answer. What’s it going to take for you to learn your lesson? Our country is, and has been, operating in an unsustainable manner. How long has our country been controlled by Democrats and Republicans? Has any generation in the twentieth century passed down a better country than they’ve inherited? With mindsets like yours, it won’t happen in the 21st century either.
Congratulations. Consider yourselves part of the problem.
P.S. It’s not too late to change your ways for the betterment of our country.
Jeffrey Schitter
Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives
Colorado’s First Congressional District
http://www.facebook.com/candlemanforcongress
As the comments keep getting nastier, I feel that some clarification is in order: The purpose of this debate (as evidenced by its timing) is to inform voters who will caucus later this month. As such, candidates from the Republican party were the sole invitees.
Everyone (our staff included) has his own view of the third-party conundrum: most will agree that the GOP isn’t the stalwart of conservatism it once was, but many would caution a repeat of the Perot fiasco. Some will argue for more parties, others want to revitalize the GOP à la Reagan.
I can assure you that TCT is NOT a GOP “tool” (I’m looking at you, Brian Scott), nor are we funded by any outside group at all (trust those of us who are putting in endless workweeks without compensation). Our volunteer contributors have many viewpoints, as TCT intends to be the “voice of the people,” and third party/libertarian/constitution party voices should feel VERY welcome.
In any case, feel free to continue the “third party” debate here or elsewhere, but come on, folks: those of us who love our nation as it was founded need to work TOGETHER to see it restored!!!
Jerell, thank you for your comment. Yes, you are welcome to showcase your information with a table. We are open to that and I personally think we are being as accommidating as we posibly can. There will be future debates that I’m sure Rep. Lamborn and you will debate…he will not be participating in this event.
This debate was set-up over a month ago, for the Republican candidates and one-week prior to the caucuses.
We will support, defend and cover any future debates that Jeffrey, Eva and David want to coordinate. Just tell us the time and venue.
We have done this all on our own, with our resources and our time. If you would like to host one, please feel free and let us know.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was confused from the main paragraph that advertises the event with “All of the Colorado Senate and Governor’s Candidates are invited.” and then again on Teddy’s 1/15/10 post, where he mentioned again that “All gubernatorial and senatorial candidates have been invited”.
Just curious, did the Democrats get invites or is this a purely Republican event?
We invited Bennett, but were shot-down instantly, didn’t feel like going on with Hickenlooper or Romanoff. Besides, we will MAYBE host one closer to elections for all parties.
You invited Bennett to debate, but not McNealy? What is this, are you just progressive republicans trying to pretend to be obedient to the constitution, and you invited the HUGE NEOCONS to your event:
Scott McInnis
Dan Maes
Ken Buck
Jane Norton
Cleve Tidwell
(not I did not mention Ali Hassan, JJ Ament, Walker Stapleton on that list because I am not familiar with them, not because i am certain they are not Neocon Trash as well)
Your candidates will continue to be weaker and weaker until you hold them to a higher standard, and hold their feet to the flames with tough questions. Shame on you, stop trying to control the process so much, and start promoting ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE to the CONSTITUTION. If you cared about the constitution you would expose the NEOCON trash in your own ranks for what it is.
@Jeffrey — You make an excellent point: the circulated invitation and posters are not very clear regarding the intent of this debate (tied to the caucus as it is). “Candidate Debate” is a bit broad! Furthermore, as the web guy, I felt I should respond to JJ’s initial question about attending candidates, but I obviously responded too quickly and without being adequately informed myself. I’m not sure when the decision was made to make this a Republican-exclusive event, but I suspect it was after one Democrat turned us down and we realized that with our finite time, we’d rather only hear from the candidates of the one “conservative” party that will be caucusing this month.
@Brian/J/David/Eva/Jeffrey/Jesse — I’m hesitant to respond to your collective tirades, but as I mentioned, this debate is meant to tie in with the caucus later this month, hence only candidates from the Republican party were invited. No need for the “shame on you” scolding, as you will find many among our ranks who share your values; indeed, we strive to represent, unite, and empower the “constitutionalists,” “conservatives” and “libertarians,” nebulous as those “right wing” labels are. Rest assured that we will expose “RINOs” and “neocons” when possible, but we want to take care so as to not fracture our majority vote. Remember who our enemy is, where the REAL danger lies, and take baby steps backwards with us until we find our America again.
Teddy, Thanks for the response and for all of the work you (and everyone else) have done on this event. I don’t mean to be a downer by any means, but now that we’ve established that the posters, invitations, and website, misrepresent this event, don’t you think that the organizers should do their best to remedy the situation?
After thinking about it, I’ve come up with two potential scenarios, but perhaps you all have a better one. My “fixes” would be to either change the event such that it reflects the posters and invitations as accurately as possible (In other words, open the door for other potential candidates to enter), or to change all advertising media possible (I know you can’t change the posters and invitations, but you could at least change this website), to reflect the event accurately, AND make it clear to all attendees of the event that “All of the Colorado Senate and Governor’s Candidates” did not actually receive an invitation and some legitimate candidates, who actually did want to participate, were actually denied admittance due to the fact that they weren’t Republicans.
Like I said, I don’t want to be a downer, but I also don’t want to have a bad taste in my mouth when thinking about this organization.
I hope your event goes well.
Thanks again.
@ Jesse. Do you understand who is even coming to this event? Do you even understand what races are being highlighted and presented? Do we need to spell it out for you? McNealy is coming, and WE ARE giving him a table. We do not have ANY candidates running for Congress participating in this actual debate? Who would he debate, himself?
@ Jeffrey– You are invited to set up a table, I don’t know how we misrepresented anything, everyone else seems to understand what we are doing (especially one-week prior to Caucus)…who would you debate, yourself? No one has been univited or denied admittance. This for the caucuses and then on to the primaries.
Like I mentioned in the above comment, please let us know about a debate that YOU are hosting, and we will give it the fair coverage just like we are doing for this one.
Thanks, Jeffrey…obviously the event itself won’t be changed this close to the date (we wouldn’t want to change its focus anyway), nor can the printed materials be altered, but I will update this page and post a clarification on Facebook. I was only dealing with the copy that was provided to me, and I think we’ve definitely taken from this a lesson to be much more specific when advertising future events.
Thank you for fighting for America…I’m sure our debate will go well, and all the best in your campaign!
We are in CD5, why would a candidate form CD6 expect to be invited to this debate. I am sure Rob McNealy is a great candidate and I am glad to hear he is doing well. I can’t see a valid argument as to why he would want to campaign in CD5. I would suggest you folks organize something in CD6 to give Rob McNealy a platform from which to deliver his message. I also noticed there is a candidate running in CD1 that has responded with some comments, I wish him well also.
I understand the discontent with the two parties as currently organized. I believe working from within one of the two parties provides the best opportunity to make the changes needed to push the country back in the direction of its founding. The question then is which party best represents that at this juncture. The answer residing in a third party is also not backed by history.
WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. This information that only the major parties “may” caucus is absolutely incorrect. As the chair, I will be filling out candidate nomination forms at the Libertarian CAUCUS in Delta County at the end of this month.
Now listen here–how can you possibly expect us to support you when you openly refuse to support us? All this blather about the 2 party’s and why only they should be allowed is nothing more than preserving the status quo.
I spoke at my county Tea Party protest. I was the 1st speaker up! People cheered and applauded what i had to say. And now I’m supposed step aside and pretend that what we all want is more of the same old same old? more of the Replundercans and Doomocrats? Look, if there are good R and D candidates, fine. But that has NOTHING to do with blocking access to the 3rd parties who can and do get elected (when they aren’t swept under the rug) and who actually mean what they say, instead of the “small government ©, low tax ™” platitudes for prosperity crowd.
I feared the Tea Party movement, which was for the PEOPLE, not “the major parties” would be co-opted by the lying Republicans, and so it is. What a shame.
Hey Guys:
Let’s be nice; we can discuss this without being rude. I think most of us want the same thing. Let’s figure out a way to work together, OK?
@Lana, try to understand, many Libertarian are very sensitive at the thought of being excluded from political participation. Often times, the Dems and RINO’s outright prevent Libertarians and other minor parties from attending candidate forums and debates. There has been a long history of dirty pool.
I myself have been a bit frustrated with not be invited to speak at the Castle Rock Candidate Search, where two of my opponents are speaking. No explanation has been given, so some of my supporters are upset. I am trying to take it in stride.
I am thankful that you are allowing me to “show my wares” and have a table.
If you have any future events I would love to participate. If you need any help in promoting your events, let me know.
Thanks,
Rob McNealy
________________________________
Rob McNealy, Candidate
U.S. House of Representatives
Colorado CD 6
http://www.RobMcNealy.com
http://www.Twitter.com/RobMcNealy
Join Our Groups:
http://www.meetup.com/voteMcNealy
http://www.facebook.com/RMcNealy
Perhaps I’m out of my league, and as an engineer and graphic designer, I’m learning this stuff as I go. Debbie, I did some research and it looks as though you are correct in that any political party may caucus and a registered voter may participate in their party’s caucus (independents are out of luck). I suppose there’s one last assumption we made that needs to be cleared up: in addition to this being a caucus-timed debate, it’s also a regional debate and I can’t find any evidence of a Constitution Party or Libertarian Party caucus in this county—have I overlooked it?
Finally, I must reassert Lana’s general point: this debate belongs to TCT and our partners. We welcome your polite suggestions, but please don’t presume to dictate the rules and feel free to host a debate of your own.
With that, I’ll defer future debate about the debate to my esteemed colleagues who are actually planning it. I’m “just the web guy.”
—
However, I take umbrage with this constant barrage of accusations from the third parties. In this comment thread alone, we’ve been accused of being a “GOP tool,” “shameful,” “fearful,” “comical” and “part of the problem.” I can assure you that TCT was founded by, for, and in response to the Tea Party movement. TCT is truly staffed by “we the people;” with the exception of a very few featured contributors, none of us are professional politicians or even involved with a party any more than perhaps being registered Republicans or Libertarians. For heaven’s sake, the TEA Parties are our partners in this debate!
You go so far as to argue that recent populist movements have been “co-opted” by the GOP; it seems to me that, rather, populist wisdom favors a “reconservatized” GOP as the more successful vessel for our message.
Regardless, the GOP tried to take credit for the TEA Parties early on and even Pelosi recently tried to align herself with them (after calling them Nazis, initially). Based on your statements, it seems that third parties aren’t much different when it comes to “claiming” populist movements as their own. I should have known that, by definition, not even third parties are immune to divisive PARTISAN politics; this only explains why NO party has been able to hang their hat on these recent populist movements.
Back to your collective barrage of accusations: I’m not sure if the vitriol comes from your disdain for our “amateur” grassroots efforts or is simply a response conditioned by years of feeling “left out.” In either case, please note that you’re not winning any converts with this behavior; perhaps your aim should instead be to inform and educate, understanding that a vast majority of Americans know little more than R’s and D’s.
While you may have a hard time convincing those of us who aren’t complete “noobs” of the viability of any third party, I’d certainly respect that approach more than repeatedly crying “foul!”
@ Lana, I am not writing because I feel like I deserve an invitation, and I don’t think Rob McNealy necessarily deserves one either. That’s the organizer’s call. You didn’t advertise that your organization invited all “Congressional candidates”; it was just “All gubernatorial and senatorial candidates”. For that reason, I believe that all gubernatorial and senatorial candidates should be welcome to join. Do you understand what I’m saying? There are more senatorial and gubernatorial candidates than just Republicans, and to inform the public that every senatorial and gubernatorial candidate received an invitation, when they didn’t, isn’t right. Only Republicans and Michael Bennet were invited. There are many worthy candidates out there who didn’t receive an invitation, including Maclyn Stringer, Jaimes Brown, John Finger, Doug Randall.… Thank you for the invitation to set up a table at the event! Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend. You are very kind to allow other candidates to do so.
@ Brad, I understand your perspective. I agree that history says the third party doesn’t have much of a chance to win anything or make much of a difference. At the same time, I disagree that history will dictate the future. I’ve been hearing the “history lesson” a lot lately from different debate organizers (the Republicans were probably hearing the same thing in the 1850s, when they were the third party). The ironic thing is that I keep hearing this history lesson from Republicans, who I think are trying to accumulate power and influence, using their history lesson as their reasoning. We’re all Americans, and we are all equal. One would think that if an individual or group were really FOR our country, they’d be open to an honest debate with everyone who was willing to sit at the table with ideas. After all, they might actually inspire to learn something that they might never have thought of before. I find it really ironic that many Republicans will negotiate with special interests, but they won’t allow another political party that believes in the Constitution and only wants to make our country better. As far as I’m concerned, political parties aren’t necessary, but since we do have them, the more the merrier. We definitely shouldn’t have just red and blue “teams”. We should all be working together to do what’s right for America, not just for our own party. Sharing ideas and information with those who differ from you, is a good thing. As far as third parties not making much of a difference over the past 234 years, you have a great point. Then again, we’ve never been able to share information like we can today. Live television is relatively new in comparison to the history of our country, and the internet.… In my mind, we’ve ridden the 2-party-train down the tubes for way too long, and I think it’s caused the problems that we’re going to be dealing with (and hopefully fixing) for the rest of our lives. Personally, I think our country would be better off if one of the two major parties dissolved, and the other was left to defend their ideas against everyone. At the same time Brad, we are on the same team, and I’m happy to hear that. I look forward to working with you, and if one of us is successful, we’ll both succeed.
@ Teddy, I’m not trying to dictate any rules to this debate. I would just like to see the organizers follow the rules they’ve set themselves, and the rules that they are advertising to the public. Am I missing something here? It’s a clear presentation of false information, and the people who might’ve been misled should be made aware of that. I apologize if you take my response to be part of the “barrage”. Trust me, I’m trying to get my point across in as few words as possible, and I don’t mean to use any words to offend anyone.
@ everyone, Thanks for putting your energy into such a great cause! I’m sorry if I caused you any distress. I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone.
Best of luck with your event!!
Looks like I’m a little late to the discussion, but would like to chime in with a comment regarding the restriction of the scope. When I bought my tickets in January, the presentation of the debate was “an opportunity for concerned citizens to evaluate the candidates aside from a political party.” “All of the Colorado Senate and Governor’s Candidates are invited.”
Only after asking is the actual speaker list announced, and it appears to be a single party event.
While I will certainly be there (since I am as yet undecided how I will caucus), I am disappointed.
Re-reading my comment, I sound more negative than I had intended. My thanks to Lana for responding with the list of candidates, and to all involved for the effort in putting toghether this forum.
Hopefully with an outstanding turnout tomorrow, candidates will not be so quick to dismiss this opertunity in the future.
.
First, apologies for not checking back for so long.
Second, my question whether TCT was a “GOP tool” on 12 February was in direct response to Lana’s 9 February comment that “Unfortunately, Colorado has a 2-party system …“
By “tool,” I meant “implement.” The word has another, impolite meaning,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tool
and I think its clear that I didn’t mean it in that sense.
From the website and the paper, which I’ve read through, its clear that the TCT team is really bright.
When I read the statement that it is a 2-party system, I was not making any connection between the event and caucuses, because my party, the American Constitution Party, does not have caucuses. There was no mention of caucuses.
The statement “only 2 parties” is false on its face. Colorado has at least 3 vibrant parties. Come November, Colorado will be represented in Washington and Denver by representatives of at least 3 parties.
But now that you’ve explained that it was meant in reference to caucuses, I can see that it was meant to convey something that is true. Now that the intent behind the false statement shows that Lana’s meaning was true, even if the words came out wrong, I am in the position of owing her an apology. I’m sure she’s too busy to check these comments before the event, but if I see her tomorrow I will apologize in person.
The icing on the cake is the statement that Congressman Lamborn will not be given a free pass to speak unchallenged, like he has at other Tea Party events that appeared to be co-opted by the GOP. Since he has no GOP opponent, his post is not contested in the Caucuses or Primary. He doesn’t belong at an event oriented on caucuses.
This is important because he is afraid to debate anyone, and has refused all debates since he fared so poorly in the 2006 debates. Since this is not a GOP event, if he won’t debate challengers, and won’t take questions from voters, he shouldn’t be allowed to speak.
Don’t get me wrong. The Congressman is a good man and a good conservative. The problem is that he serves a party that is no longer conservative.
.
.
Hundreds of paper ballots were collected, in addition to the cell phone test straw poll. Where can I find those results ?
.
I wasn’t aware of any paper ballots, but the cell phone results were posted on the overhead display during the event. Perhaps someone more closely involved with planning the event can give you the results from either or both polls.
As to the term “GOP Tool,” of course I knew you meant implement; the colloquialism never crossed my mind. However, your label according to the proper definition is equally offensive in its inaccuracy. Were we the GOP’s “implement,” then they would be able to use us to achieve their ends. Perhaps our net effect will eventually serve GOP ends, but, if so, this will be thanks only to the collective, grassroots voice of dozens of TCT contributors and tens of thousands of TCT readers. As the GOP itself has absolutely no involvement in TCT, we could not possibly be an “implement” for their direct use.
I suspect a more apt phrasing of your accusation would be that TCT is “playing into the GOP’s hands.” I may be wrong.
Official Poll Numbers: Total (Paper Ballot/Cell Phone Text Ballot)
Ken Buck: 195 (93/102)
Jane Norton: 125 (60/65)
Tom Wiens: 64 (47/17)
Cleve Tidwell: 32 (17/15)
Steve Barton: 14 (7/7)
Dan Maes: 191 (104/87)
Scott McInnis: 158 (47/111)
JJ Ament: 205 (47/158)
Ali Hassan: 51 (25/26)
Walker Stapleton: 18 (1/17)