Meet the author!

Do you want to know how Colorado turned from red to blue?

Do you want to know what YOU can do to flip it back to red?

Do you want to know what to expect from the LEFT in the general election this year?

You need to know their game plan from someone who knows, and that someone is Adam Schrager, co-author of The Blueprint.

Join me Tuesday, August 3^rd to learn the left’s election game plan from Mr. Adam Schrager.  Mr. Schrager is co-author of the book “The Blueprint – How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)”

ABOUT THE BOOK

The Blueprint takes you inside the smoke-free backrooms of progressive politics, where megadonors and savvy strate­gists created a plan to turn the tide of American elections.  With unprecedented access to players on both sides of the aisle, the authors offer what Netroots Nation chairman Adam Bonin calls “an essential, behind-the-scenes take” on the powerful but often invisible groups that are shaping public policy in sate capitols from coast to coast.

In four short years, Colorado Republicans experienced one of the most stunning reversals of political fortune in Ameri­can history.  It was, in the words of former Colorado Governor Bill Owens, “a wake-up call for national Republicans.”  In Colorado, Democrats believe they have found the blueprint for creating a permanent political infrastructure across the nation.  At a time when political stakes are higher than ever, the direction of the nation may turn on how well Democrats across the country replicate the model—and how well Republicans can respond to it.  Featuring up-to-the minute analy­sis, including an epilogue exploring the upcoming midterm elections, The Blueprint is the must-read political book of the season.

EVENT DETAILS

WHAT: Coalition for a Conservative Majority August Strategy and Progress Meeting
DATE: Tuesday, August 3^rd
TIME: 6:30pm – CCM Member Update, 6:45pm – CCM Strategy and Progress, 7:00pm – Keynote Speaker Adam Schrager, Q&A, Book Signing
LOCATION: Mason Jar North Restaurant, 5905 Corporate Center Drive, CSC  80919

DON’T MISS IT

Mr. Schrager has been a guest recently on the Richard Randall KVOR 740am radio talk show. If you missed it then, you don’t want to miss it now. If you heard the show, come learn more and meet the author. He is a powerful speaker who fully understands the current election battle. He will prepare you like no other.

The book “The Blueprint” will be available for sale at the meeting, and Mr. Schrager will be available for book signing.

Learn more about the recent history of Colorado politics so YOU can prepare for the upcoming general election.  This is critical information to understanding what it will take to return our state and nation back to a conservative majority.

You have a part in making it happen… come and learn what your role is and how we can all best prepare for this coming historical election of 2010.

See you there!

Michelle

Image via Wikipedia

The ballet term “chaines” is an abbreviation of the term ”tours chaînés déboulés,” meaning a series of rapid turns on the points. Seasoned political campaigns and their lead “ballerina” politicians are experts at dancing on the political stage, masters of the chaines. These ballerinas use lighting effects to create scenes which hide what would, outside the political theatre, be labeled a lie. Unfortunately, like all stage shows, once you can spot the strategic moves and turn up the natural light, the beautiful theatrical aura fades.

Let’s bring down the stage lights and bring up the natural light on a very compelling stage show. Several chaines, performed by Jane Norton, have become obvious to political observers. Let’s analyze a few spins Jane has pulled off.
In June, Jane Norton, Marco Rubio (Florida Senate candidate), and Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania Senate candidate) attended joint fundraising events. Each candidate agreed to take portions of the proceeds raised at the events. Afterward, the Norton campaign sent out an email stating:

“…conservative upstart Marco Rubio…is such an important figure in American politics: Rubio’s a conservative, and he’s running to shake up the status quo in Washington. Today, it was an honor to campaign alongside my friend Marco Rubio and longtime conservative, Pat Toomey…Rubio and Toomey joined me at campaign events and fundraisers in Colorado Springs and Denver today.”

There seems to be no problem with this statement. They did come to Colorado and were seen at events with Jane. On closer examination however, we can see the rapid turning on the point.

Rubio and Toomey are part of the Senate Conservatives Fund. The Senate Conservatives Fund has endorsed Ken Buck. Calls to Rubio’s and Toomey’s campaigns have confirmed that they have not, and will not, endorse Jane Norton. As far as Rubio and Toomey are concerned, they were at the events as fellow Republicans, not “with” her as conservative candidates. Neither campaign would give any further specifics except to say the candidates go where the money happens to be, and that is just good politics.

Technically, Norton never directly stated that Rubio, Toomey, or the Senate Conservatives Fund endorsed her. The implication was clear, and there was a photo of the three candidates for set dressing. One spin smoothly executed. Will Jane attempt a second one?

On July 20, another email came from the Norton Campaign. This time it was Josh Penry, who said, “A Washington, D.C.–based special interest group wants to buy this election. We won’t let this happen.” It looked like a good idea to find out just who this D.C. group was. The only D.C. based group this reporter could find that has spent money for Ken Buck is the…wait for it…Senator DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund. Again, technically, Norton never directly stated the name of the special interest group. So either there is another hidden group with scads of cash, or the Norton camp just landed their second spin, on the same point. A true work of political ballet beauty.

For Jane’s next spin we have to first go back and remember the scene from the June 29 debate at Stargazers Theater. While getting the logistics together organizer, Lana Fore-Warkocz, asked each campaign for a candidate bio. She received an email from Josh Penry in which he tells Cinnamon Watson, Jane’s campaign staffer, “For these debate bios I want to sex it up on the substance of our candidacy.” Did he miss the memo that said Jane doesn’t like that kind of talk?

The actual stage for the debate was going to be set with high stools and no table. Jane’s campaign was informed of a potentially embarrassing clothing situation so that she could dress accordingly for the event. Josh Penry asked in an email that the format be changed to standing because, “Yes, Jane does wear a skirt and heels—it’s the preferred attire for those who haven’t increased their budget by 40 percent in 5 years.” Amazing! Penry clumsily manages to assert Jane’s feminine appeal, and yet manages to land heavily on what must have been that day’s talking point against Ken Buck (budget).

Jane didn’t seem to mind using her gender to differentiate herself at the event. She was asked, “How are you and Ken Buck different?” Jane replied, “I would hope it was obvious…” at which point she got laughs from the crowd, then looked slyly at Ken who also laughed.

Fast forward to last week… When asked by a person off camera, “Why should we vote for you?” Ken was recorded answering, “Because I don’t wear high heels,” which got laughs and was promptly explained. Jane’s campaign quickly jumped on Ken’s joke. They are now calling for conservatives to defend the honor of their prima ballerina.
Jane sent another email to supporters that including a comment from State Senator Nancy Spence: “I was appalled to hear Ken’s latest and most ridiculous comment.” Spence goes on to finish by saying, “Will you join me and stand up to Ken Buck’s childish remarks?”

With that, Jane lands the most recent in a series of chaines. She doesn’t quite stick the landing—and I thought I heard Josh Penry’s back crack as he tried to work that Ken Buck slam into his routine—but the lights are on now. How much beautiful aura remains?

Image via Wikipedia

Tea Party Targets

Awakening slowly, the liberty movement initially railed clumsily against the expansion of government promised by the election of Barack Obama and the 111th Congress. However, as formerly-casual voters turned their attention away from the reruns of summer 2009 and towards basic Constitutional principles, they discovered that their beloved Republican Party was complicit in the steady march towards tyranny of the last centry. The strained loyalties were plainly seen in the conspicuously non-partisan targets of the rallying cries, “Vote the Bums Out!”, “Get Out of Our House!” and, “Remember November!”

Holding nothing sacred but the U.S. Constitution and the blessings of liberty it secures, the movement ultimately embraced George Washington’s early warning of political parties altogether. While one might suspect that this would drive its members towards smaller third parties or solely idealistic voting patterns, the leaderless, populist nature of the movement has rendered it surprisingly agile and pragmatic. As such, the reality of the two-party system led the movement to choose the Republican Party as their most effective political vessel, despite its questionable track record.
The resulting conflict was inevitable: citing “We the People,” citizens rightly saw themselves as the direct master of the government while the Republican Party was unwilling to relent its position as the broker of governmental power, fostered for generations. The grassroots sought responsiveness, but received only politically expedient doublespeak from the party: at times it would align itself with movement, and at other times suggest that the movement was a ragtag group of fair-weather idealists; “drunk drivers behind the party wheel,” one radio caller offered.

Like the Democrats, Republicans quickly found themselves squarely within populist crosshairs. Specifically, the movement’s newest target was the “Republican establishment,” and was not limited to just the party elites and insiders; it included any GOP loyalists who put party before principle and looked down on political rookies. Like the Democrats, the establishment has had little recourse against the decentralized movement, and resorted to misrepresenting them and lashing out.

Raging nationwide, this party vs. people showdown has rarely been more evident than in the 2010 Colorado Republican gubernatorial primary race.

Primary Posturing

Lines were drawn early in the primary race. Career politician and gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis appeared on Fox News in December, naively claiming to be the “the country’s biggest Tea Party candidate.” Outrage at this arrogant presumption further rallied the Tea Party around his relatively unknown opponent, Evergreen businessman Dan Maes. The establishment argued that Maes wasn’t “ready for primetime,” but as you’ll see, that presumption endeared him to the Tea Party all the more.

By spring, it became evident that McInnis and the establishment had no intention of so much as recognizing Maes’ candidacy. Despite dozens of offers, McInnis flatly refused to debate Maes, appearing beside him at only a handful of events. (McInnis very reluctantly attended TCT’s candidate forum in March and all but ignored a June debate co-sponsored by TCT.) “I’m running against Hickenlooper,” McInnis would say, further enraging the base.

Then, as if trying to pick a fight, members of the establishment began to baselessly opine that the grassroots’ idealism would lead them to abandon McInnis in the general election should Maes lose the primary, and would hurt the entire ticket as a result. Recent history points to the contrary: this is the same movement whose pragmatism helped elect liberal Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts and, even while in gestation, turned out en masse for moderate McCain in 2008.

The liberty movement responded to these provocations by redoubling their efforts, and Maes’ victory at the State Assembly rocked the establishment. Dick Wadhams, Colorado Chairman of the Republican Party, estimated that 40% of the delegates rose when “first-time delegates” were asked to stand at the Assembly; other eyewitness accounts placed that figure at well over two-thirds. Doing their best to appear unfazed, however, the McInnis campaign continued to ignore now-frontrunner Maes.

In early July, both candidates ran into trouble [see Hotchkiss, p17; Graybill, p20], and the party vs. people skirmishes quickly erupted into a full blown war.

Establishment Escapades

Once the McInnis plagiarism scandal deemed its gubernatorial candidate all but unelectable, the establishment acted precisely as it had faithlessly predicted the liberty movement would: it abandoned the remaining candidate. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise, as the establishment never attempted to hide its contempt for Maes; long before the plagiarism was revealed, one Republican asserted in mixed company that she would “never vote for Maes.” While the establishment’s ultimate motives behind abandoning Maes are shrouded, we can glean clues from the candid statements made and contemptible actions taken in the weeks since.

Immediately and not-so-subtly, the establishment began plotting to put up a third gubernatorial candidate. Politicians were named, state laws and party rules were pored over, loopholes were thoroughly explored, and scenarios of Maes and McInnis resigning were staged. Details remain murky, but McInnis’ decision to remain in the race may indicate complicity, and Tom Tancredo’s egotistical threat to run on the Constitution Party ticket demonstrates their “we know better” restlessness.

Now, under the guise of preparing Maes for the onslaught he’d be subjected to by the Democrats as the Republican nominee, the establishment has begun to call into question Maes’ qualifications and ruthlessly attempted to discredit him. Others have dispensed with the guise altogether and openly declared Maes unelectable. [see Getchey, p21] This assertion rang hollow, as Maes perpetually polled neck and neck with both McInnis and Hickenlooper. Obviously, they would see the assembly winner and people’s candidate stopped at any cost, which begged the question, “then what’s the point of the primary process?”

The actual reasons behind this stonewalling, of course, lie in the Republican Party’s position as power broker between the people and their government. Maes owes nothing to the Republican Party, has no political ties to speak of, and hasn’t looked for any favors. Maes isn’t a cog in the establishment machine, without which the machine would quickly sputter to a stop, unseating some, interrupting some back-scratching, and ultimately allowing the people more direct access to their government.

If the people’s choice for Colorado governor is unelectable, it is solely because the establishment abandoned him after their candidate came up embarrassingly short. The GOP establishment will again have the opportunity to back Dan Mae, but they have plainly demonstrated that they will not; not because he is unelectable as they’d have you believe, but because they have a substantial amount to lose should he win.

Populist Picks

As I mentioned in my editorial [see Otero, p4], our initial intention was to wait to endorse until after the primaries, if at all. Unfortunately, the establishment is foolishly backing the grassroots into a corner, and the staff of TCT knows which end of the soon-to-strike Gadsden rattlesnake we belong on.

TCT was founded to give a voice to “We the People.” As a natural extension of that purpose, we have decided to take a stand and remind Colorado that the grassroots have made their choices, are standing by them, and will not abandon their principles to a party.

Many muse that, without conservative results, the next federal Republican majority will be the last. If the party proves to be broken beyond repair, the base will depart en masse. However, tens of thousands of Republican cards will burn much sooner, and on the steps of our own state capitol, if the GOP shenanigans in Colorado lead to the people’s choices being usurped or the conservative vote being split.

Endorsement for Colorado Governor

Endorsement for U.S. Senate

Dan Maes

Republican gubernatorial candidate, Dan Maes, really ought to consider getting out of the race. After all, he is the only conservative that has been in the race since last year. He has put in countless hours traveling all over the state meeting with prospective voters, attending events, and logged a mere 80,000 miles on his car in the process. Oh, and did I forget to mention that he won the state assembly May 22, making him the top choice on the Republican primary ballot?

Regardless, now that the primary election is looming and McInnis has lost support in the wake of his plagiarism scandal, Maes really should drop out. At least, that is the message the Colorado Republican old guard has been trumpeting the past few weeks. Apparently, they really do not know what to do with themselves now that their designee “McIssn’t” going to cut it in the general election.

Walking into a back room deal last November, Scott McInnis, Josh Penry, Tom Tancredo, and no doubt some other prominent Colorado Republicans (including a certain radio commentator who comes to mind), thought it would be a good idea to put the fix on the next Republican gubernatorial candidate. They designated Scott McInnis the presumptive nominee. Leaving the meeting with the “unity platform” in hand, each then did his part to propel McInnis to the front of the pack.

For his part, McInnis began stumping by meeting with other high profile Republicans in the state who could fund his campaign, while avoiding the voters of El Paso County like the plague. Instead, McInnis sent proxies out to nearly every event where energized Tea Partiers were likely to ask him some hard hitting questions. Admittedly, however, this was an improvement over raising and spending money before announcing his candidacy, as he may have done earlier. [McInnis unwittingly left a message for a potential supporter in April 2009, wherein he signaled his connection to a 527 group (e.g. youtube.com search: McInnis 527)].

In the same vein, Josh Penry issued a press statement declaring the withdrawal of his candidacy from the gubernatorial race and his “enthusiastic” support of Scott McInnis. Similarly, “Chief” Tom Tancredo told the press, “Everybody is happy and satisfied and singing ‘Kumbaya.’” Finally, some of the behind-the-scene supporters who don’t like to tip their hand while working the microphone, got to work writing editorial columns in the Denver Post paying homage to McInnis for the unity platform, thereby lending him credence without a direct endorsement. The only problem with all of this is that the conservatives comprising the grassroots movement were not buying Scott McInnis—damn!

In all honesty though, the Tea Partiers were not that much of a concern to the Republican establishment. Sure, if the grassroots conservatives sat out the election, the Republicans would obviously lose big in the general election. In the end however, the old guard would have rallied that great silent majority to once again come out and hold their collective noses while they voted. They know the drumbeat and it is a simple one: “Hey! You don’t always get what you want! We can’t let the Democrats win, can we?! So, get out there and vote for the hand-picked Republican with the non-conservative voting record.”

In the wake of McInnis’ plagiarism scandal, all has gone awry. Now all we hear coming out of the establishment machine are cries of concern: “Who will we get to replace, Scott? Oh, my word! What will we do?!” Uh…Establishment Republican Party? Hello? This is your base calling. We just wanted to tell you that we are not happy with Scott, which is precisely the reason why he is not the top name on the ballot. No need to worry about getting a replacement. We already picked one a few months ago at the state assembly. Maybe you have heard of him—we can’t be sure. His name is Dan Maes (not Don Maes).

Unfortunately, the Colorado Republican old guard is still not taking our calls. So, Dan, you gave it a good run, but you just have to go now, Chief Tom says so. In case you had not heard, Chief Tom said that if you do not get out of the race, then he is going to step in and take it from you. Only…because the Republican Party has this ridiculous rule about not jumping in as a candidate at the last minute, Chief Tom is going to have to run as an American Constitutionalist Party candidate. Now, you can imagine how that will look. We don’t want those Republicans, err…Democrats to win, do we?! Go get em’, Dan.

Image via Wikipedia

Everyone knows that by running a third party ticket, Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton and Teddy Roosevelt gave us Woodrow Wilson. Compelling as those third party candidates were, all they did was split the conservative vote. The last time a third party managed a win on a national scale was Abraham Lincoln in 1860 when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs.

The left knows this. Lacking a natural majority, the left can only win big when conservatives lose their way.

Think about it: when, in the history of the republic, was there ever a split on the left? Conservatives are of an  independent spirit, fractious and opinionated. The left are true believers in the socialist utopia and they naturally march in lockstep. Their cause only advances when conservatives cannot unite. They talk about bipartisanship, they chide conservatives for not compromising, but they never compromise.

In the Florida senate race, Republican Marco Rubio barely leads newly-minted Independent Charlie Crist 35–33, with Democrat Meek trailing at 20%. (Rasmussen, July 21.) Crist would never have won the primary as a Republican; He’s been widely criticized for putting himself before party.

In Colorado, Tom Tancredo seems to have ambitions to become the Colorado Crist. The situation here is a little more complex and it won’t work the same way. No one can doubt either Tancredo’s or Maes’ conservatism so we will have two conservatives battling it out against the leftist Hickenlooper. That’s a scenario Pat Walk and the Democrats must be absolutely giddy about.

Here’s my assessment. The left is the left and they will march lemming-like off the cliff with the Looper. The Colorado electorate is roughly one-third each Democrat, Independent and Republican. (See Secretary of State stats for June.) But while Democrat is increasingly synonymous with the socialist left, there are three somewhat overlapping groups of voters who will decide: true independents, conservatives, and Tea partiers. Here’s roughly how that looks:

The boxes are roughly proportional to the numbers of voters in the 2.4 million Colorado voter pool. I have no statistics on the numbers of voters who consider themselves both Tea Partiers and conservatives, but recent polls show about one-third identify with the Tea Party movement and most of these are fiscal and constitutional conservatives. Nationwide, about 60% of voters consider themselves conservative, so the dark blue box under-states conservative voters.

How does Tancredo expect to win? The American Constitution Party has 1453 active voters–not much of a base. He is not supported by the Liberty Movement: an open letter signed by 21 of the states’ groups was released yesterday in opposition. Republican activists are not too happy with his last-minute entry into the race either, bypassing the assembly process–especially as he had considered then rejected a run early on. Social conservatives not strongly connected to the GOP and Independents? Independents are not likely to resonate with his far-right agenda and social conservatives can find all they want in Maes.

Maes is highly popular among Tea Party groups. If he can unite GOP stalwarts and the new activists, he can win. He’s neck-in-neck with the Looper already.

Tancredo cannot win. He can only allow Hickenlooper to steal the show.

Image via Wikipedia

When TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky criticized the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) as being ineffective, he blamed the Treasury Department for not setting clearer goals for that part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Only 390,000 homeowners “have seen their mortgage terms permanently modified since the $50 billion program was announced in March 2009. That is a small fraction of the three to four million borrowers who were supposed to receive assistance under the program.”

Barofsky testified that “one of the program’s greatest failures” was the absence of clear goals for the program. Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and Richard Hillman from the Government Accountability Office both agreed. Hillman said the program “made limited progress in preserving homeownership.” Warren added: “Fifteen months into this program, for every one family that appears to have made it to a permanent modification that’s likely to [keep] that family in that home, 10 more have been moved out through foreclosure.”

That all of this posturing was just a deliberate distraction became clear, however, when Barofsky pointed out that the entire federal government’s support for the mortgage industry has grown to more than $3.7 trillion, which included government promises and guarantees not only to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association (Freddie Mac), but also to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginny Mae), the Veterans Administration (VA), and the Federal Insurance Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Barofsky said that the estimated $3.7 trillion cost to the taxpayers increased by $700 billion in just one year, “the equivalent of a fully deployed TARP program [all by itself].” Furthermore, these increases more than offset the much-ballyhooed “paybacks” from some banks that have repaid some of their TARP loans. He added that “Federal support for the nation’s financial system…increased…largely without congressional action.”

Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) was outraged: “The fact that the Obama administration is treating TARP like its own personal slush-fund is beyond egregious and a complete betrayal of what the American people were told…when their tax dollars were used to bail out Wall Street.”

Originally, TARP was designed to buy up mortgage-backed securities whose value had dropped so sharply that there were no buyers, in order to keep banks and other financial institutions holding those securities from collapsing. The first iteration failed because of overwhelmingly negative public reaction.

After some back-room arm-twisting, the second iteration was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Bush in October, 2008. Henry Paulson, one of the original architects of the TARP bail-out, immediately decided not buy those “toxic” assets after all, but instead injected nearly $350 billion into large insider banks by purchasing those banks’ shares. According to the New York Times, nine of the largest banks were given outright $25 billion each. Much of that money was then used by those insider banks to purchase weaker banks, and to bolster their reserves in the event of further declines in the economy. Two of those monster banks, Citigroup and the Bank of America, each received additional capital insertions in order to stay afloat.

Continued use of TARP funds as a “slush-fund” further outraged the public, which began to vote TARP supporters out of office. Daniel Mitchell, writing for the Cato Institute, called those removed from office “TARP martyrs” because of their continued support of such government intervention and self-dealing in the face of increasing political resistance. Senator Bob Bennett (Utah) and Representative Bob Inglis (South Carolina) lost their own Republican primaries, and the list of such martyrs “will become much larger this November as voters have additional opportunities to express their unhappiness about the massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to poorly run by politically connected financial institutions.” Says Mitchell:

Beltway insiders and members of the political establishment are mourning these developments, asserting that the TARP martyrs are noble and courageous officials who did the right thing despite the risk to their careers. The obvious implication is that ordinary voters are a bunch of yokels who did not understand the steps that were needed to rescue the financial system and the economy from collapse…

TARP was also a terrible piece of legislation because it meant that politicians, rather than market forces, determined which companies survived. It also was a moral abomination. Government-coerced redistribution is never a good idea, but the worst type of welfare is when poor people are forced to subsidize rich people. That’s a good description of TARP, and the politicians who voted for it should breathe a sigh of relief that they are getting bounced out of office instead of [being] tarred and feathered.

Premiere Issue, February 2010

Early on, the TCT Board of Directors made a policy to not endorse candidates. While we didn’t go so far as to cater to the third parties, we didn’t want to alienate the Republican Party at large from the liberty movement. Despite our careful and measured editorial stance, we quickly found ourselves marginalized from all sides. The Libertarian and Constitution parties viewed us as “GOP tools,” and some Republican campaigns would not give us the time of day. When we honestly and fairly reported this behavior, we were promptly labeled the “pro-Maes publication.”

I fought the charges of bias frequently and honestly, and stand by my reasoning to this day:

• Co-founder, publisher, and part-owner Lana Fore-Warkocz, had been a Dan Maes supporter all along, but she became ever more ardent as the McInnis campaign marginalized her efforts to hold candidate events in Colorado Springs. She was even approached by Dan Maes to chair his campaign in El Paso County, but turned it down to keep her focus on TCT. Regardless of her affiliations, Lana doesn’t now, nor has she ever, had any editorial control whatsoever.
• On the other hand, managing editor and part-owner Julie Ayers certainly does have editorial control. Before joining the TCT team, Lana recommended her to the Maes campaign as El Paso county chair. She is as invaluable an asset to his team as she has been to ours. Committed to a fair look at the candidates, however, she never allowed her interests to conflict: Not once did she turn down a story critical of Maes, and if ever an article was at all critical of McInnis, she’d contact his county chair for a rebuttal before running it. It is a simple exercise to peruse our first six issues and note the absolutely fair coverage of the various races.
• Rounding out the board are two other co-founders and part-owners, myself and Editor-in-Chief Bill Gillin, neither of whom have any political affiliations to disclose aside from our Republican registrations.
• The liberty group leaders and politicians we had tapped to write for TCT generally had their favorite candidates, as did the members of the grassroots who submitted articles. Opinions are inherent in the articles of an opinion journal, after all, but need not indicate an editorial slant.
• Finally, we are a printed publication whose website took a backseat due to limited resources. (We were mistaken for an “online newspaper” by many radio hosts after we posted Dan Maes’ taxes on our website, but obviously you hold our flagship in your hands.) Like the Peoples Press Collective, we tapped a few bloggers and aggregated their posts for timely, easy content on our website. Many of them post entries favorable of certain candidates, but a disclaimer on every post explained our online situation and held that their opinions were not necessarily ours.

The Colorado Springs Independent labeled us the “freedom rag” early on, which we appreciated. Somehow, however, in our effort to extend a hand to the GOP at large, we stepped a little too far from our roots in the liberty movement: we are not the “GOP paper” that the Libertarian and Constitution Parties accuse us of being, we are the “Tea Party paper” that the moderates and liberals accuse us of being. We don’t just have our finger on the pulse of the liberty movement, we, alongside the Tea Party, 9–12 groups, and countless other liberty-loving organizations, run through its veins! After thoroughly considering our position as the voice of the grassroots, we have decided to adopt their overwhelming endorsements as our own:

Endorsement for Colorado Governor

Endorsement for U.S. Senate

Ken Buck

Despite being the target of a negative campaign, Ken Buck has remained focused on his message: he wants to represent Colorado’s conservative voice in the U.S. Senate by fighting for term limits, smaller government, a balanced budget amendment, and the repeal of Obamacare. He has said he’ll go to Washington without friends, and return without friends. His position as district attorney in Weld County has prepared Buck to work hard, stand on principles and resist pressure. Winning the state assembly in a landslide, Buck has emerged as the solid choice of the grassroots.

“If it’s not in here,” Buck has said, holding up a pocket U.S. Constitution, “I won’t support it.” For these reasons and many more, The Constitutionalist Today endorse Ken Buck for U.S. Senate.

Dan Maes

Dan Maes emerged from the grassroots, and was embraced by them: he works hard, pinches pennies, goes to Church, and is a devoted husband and father. Maes has been a model of accessibility, attending every event possible and responding to any and all media requests. Through tireless work, unwavering dedication, and consistent conservatism, he earned the people’s trust with a win at the State Assembly.

The flurry of incoming attacks have only further endeared him to the people: He started a small business and made very little at first? That’s how it’s done. He grew that business over several years before it was hit hard by the economic decline? We can relate. He decided to step up and be the change in his government? So did we! He was fined for a bookkeeping mistake because he was running a campaign on a shoestring budget? We all take responsibility for and learn from our mistakes!

The Constitutionalist Today enthusiastically endorses Dan Maes for governor of our state of Colorado.

Choose your preferred format below, but whichever you choose, please PASS US ON! Pass your paper copy on to your local friends, and invite your friends from across the country to like us on Facebook, to read any of our digital issues, or to visit our website!

Print Edition: Available at over 650 southern Colorado locations.

Subscriptions: Delivered to your front door for less than $3 per issue!

Digital Edition: Right here! Enjoy, and let us know what you think! (Also available under the “Latest Edition” tab on our Facebook page.)