Opinion: Of enemy lists and State Party Chairs

It appears Chairman Call is preparing for Christmas and conflating himself with an evil Santa--making his enemy list and checking it twice.

In reports I've had from three Colorado Executive Committee Members, Ryan Call said at their September meeting that my husband, myself, Rich and Laurie Bratten, Ken Clark and Jason Worley (of Grassroots Radio), and Debbie Healy are the "six (sic) most detrimental people to the Republican Party in Colorado." (yes, if you can actually count, there are seven names there)

In fact, I spoke on Grassroots Radio back in September about this.  You can listen at the link.

Well, now I've seen it in writing, in the official minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting (email me if you want to see the entirety of the minutes, there is a lot more in there than just this, a fascinating read).

"Chairman Call said that folks like Jason Worley, Ken Clark, the Bratten's, Debbie Healy and the Arnold's are no friends of this party."

Not quite as... powerful, perhaps, as what was reported to me from three independent sources, but nonetheless it appears Ryan Call is making his enemy list (and he very well may have talked about us being detrimental--at the very least, apparently we aren't friends...).

Oh, but wait.  These aren't the official minutes.  It appears that yesterday, at their November executive committee meeting that EDITED minutes were submitted by the Chairman and his toady, the Executive Director, and put forth as the "real" minutes (you can email me for those as well, to contrast with what was submitted).  

Then, the Secretary was (according to reports I've received from several sources again) instructed to only write minutes in bullet points going forward by a vote of the Executive Committee.  I reached out to Lana for comments, but she declined.

Bottom line is this: something hinky... very hinky... is going on.  What does Ryan want hidden?  Of what is Ryan afraid?

Because the Republican Party can't get their act together, and because Ryan Call continues to declare all-out war on the Colorado Conservative, Liberty Groups, Tea Party, and Libertarian (big "L" and small "l" alike), I have a hard time seeing electoral successes in our future.  Any conservative victories in Colorado in 2014 will be IN SPITE OF the Colorado GOP, and certainly not because of.

Opinion: Myths and Reality about the Colorado Recall Elections

There has been a lot of misinformation promulgated by far too many Establishment Republicans (and parroted by sheeple who haven't bothered to do their research) in this recall election.  We already have to fight Democrats--it's even more frustrating we have to keep fighting the false statements on our own side as well.  Here are several of those myths--debunked.

MYTH #1: "Owen Hill lost Senate District 11 in 2010 by 360 votes because of the Libertarian; therefore without a Libertarian in the race we are guaranteed a victory!"

Facts:

1. This is NOT the same district as it was in 2010.  In 2010, Senate District 11 was a fairly evenly matched district that had been held by a Republican until Senator Morse's first win in 2006.  On 1 November 2010, the registration numbers looked drastically different than they do as of the latest numbers from the Secretary of State (1 August 2013).  See the first set of charts below for a comparison.  Please pay attention to the Active Voters % --  that is the most telling voter registration statistic, especially now because there will be no mail ballots this election.  Yes, SD11 picked up total Republican voters--but you'll notice they also picked up total voters overall, and Senate District 11 now has one of the largest contingents of Unaffiliated voters in the state.
2. Not only have the voter registration numbers changed, the district performance numbers have changed, too.  Senate District 11 went from "leans Democrat" in 2010 (which, in my estimation, was a significant understatement based on the numbers) to pretty solidly Democrat now because of reapportionment.  The district performance went from D+1 in 2010 to D+6 in 2013.  See the second set of charts below for the reapportionment district average performance (for statewide races), and keep this in mind: 2010 was a wave Republican year, so that is likely a high-water mark for Republican performance.  It is unlikely, unless we see similar circumstances once again, to ever see that kind of Republican performance again until at least reapportionment in 2021.  And, you'll notice, even in that wave Republican year, both districts' reapportionment numbers underperformed the state GOP average and significantly outperformed the state Democrat average.

REALITY: Basing any assessment of Senate District 11's performance now, in 2013, on the old district's numbers doesn't prove any point other than that you are ignorant of the reapportionment process and it's ramifications.  They simply aren't comparable as they are not the same district.

Voter Registration Charts for Senate District 3:

As of 1 November 2010:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	32,483	49.27%	11,079	43,562	46.52%
Republican	16,345	24.79%	5,568	21,913	23.4%
Unaffiliated	16,790	25.47%	10,907	27,697	29.58%
Total	65,930		27,706	93,636

As of 1 August 2013:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	38,327	46.83%	5,685	44,012	45.36%
Republican	19,081	23.31%	3,202	22,283	22.97%
Unaffiliated	23,798	29.08%	6,168	29,966	30.88%
Total	81,846		15,184	97,030

Voter Registration Charts for Senate District 11:

As of 1 November 2010:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	16,186	33.99%	5,968	22,154	33%
Republican	15,160	31.83%	3,798	18,958	28.24%
Unaffiliated	15,845	33.27%	9,502	25,347	37.76%
Total	47,623		19,502	67,125

As of 1 August 2013:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	23,257	33.7%	4,524	27,781	33.29%
Republican	18,097	26.22%	2,902	20,999	25.17%
Unaffiliated	26,447	38.32%	6,752	33,199	39.79%
Total	69,016		14,427	83,443

Reapportionment District Performance Averages vs. State Averages in 2010 and 2012:

	Reapportionment Average	2010 Statewide Average	2012 Statewide Average	Difference 2010	Difference 2012
SD3 DEM	58.22%	44.39%	47.15%	+13.83	+11.07
SD3 REP	40.2%	52.58%	46.76%	-12.38	-6.56
SD11 DEM	53.1%	44.39%	47.15%	+8.71	+5.95
SD11 REP	44.5%	52.58%	46.76%	-8.08	-2.26

MYTH #2: "If a Republican wins now, we only have to win one seat in 2014 to have the majority in the State Senate!"

Facts:

1. While technically true if you do the math, this makes the (I think bad) assumption that we hold those two seats in 2014.
2. What is far more likely is that we lose Senate Districts 3 and 11, but gain Senate Districts 5, 16, and at least one of 20, 22, or 24.  Any three of those five and we have the majority.  All five of those seats have a much better chance of a Republican winning than either Senate District 3 or 11.  I'll discuss those districts more in-depth in a later post.

REALITY: Even if a Republican takes these two districts in 2013, there is no guarantee the seats are retained, and I think there's a great likelihood they will be lost in the 2014 General Election.

MYTH #3: "Those meddling Libertarians!  Their lawsuit to make the State of Colorado follow their own Constitution will derail the recall election!"

Facts:

1. Most of the arguments about why this lawsuit was a good thing have already been laid out: in my post earlier on the subject, by this great analysis, and in an excellent article today from Media Trackers.  Please read those so I don't have to repeat myself or redo the work of others who have summed it up so well.  The key takeaway, if you don't want to spend the time reading them, is that this lawsuit not just about ballot access, but just as much about eliminating mail-in ballots from this election
2. Lazy, low-information voters who otherwise wouldn't get off their duffs and vote can't sit in the convenience of their homes and not having mail-in ballots gives the recall proponents a significant advantage.  Incumbents have a much easier time winning with low-information voters.
3. Without mail-in ballots, it is much harder to cheat in elections.  Worse than uninformed voters, mail=in ballots lend themselves to fraud, such as voters being coerced or otherwise threatened by union thugs, or having their ballots filled out for them.  

What still amazes me is that Republicans are upset about this lawsuit.  In fact, Republican Party Chairman Ryan Call put out a press release parroting the same talking points as John Morse!  That is all shades of screwed up, and should be a wake up call to Republicans everywhere.

REALITY: This is proof positive that Republican apparatchiks no longer care for the Constitution, but push whatever they think will create "victory" (meaning money in their pockets) for them.  No wonder they have been consistently losing in this state since 2004.  Moreover, surprise, surprise--it not only didn't "derail the recall", it actually gave the recall a fighting chance by removing mail-in ballots from the equation.  How about them apples?

MYTH #4: "Those meddling Libertarians!  So they didn't derail the recall, but they did disenfranchise military voters!"

Facts:

1. You know what... I'll just let Secretary of State Scott Gessler do the talking for me here.  You can find his whole release at this link.

"As someone who served overseas in the Army and consequently missed an election myself, I’m particularly concerned about our military and overseas voters who want to cast ballots. Currently, El Paso County has 645 and Pueblo has 287.

Colorado is ready to serve them.

Last year I deployed a statewide electronic mail ballot delivery system for military and overseas voters. It worked extremely well, contributing to a 65% jump in turnout, even while most states saw a drop.

That system is already at work in the recall elections. The large majority of our military and overseas voters have already signed up for electronic ballot delivery. They have already received ballots. If more candidates qualify, we will work with El Paso and Pueblo to get them new ballots quickly, through electronic ballots, fax, and expedited mail. Forward deployed service members can even radio their votes to their commanders, and we can accept those ballots eight days after the election. Finally, we’ll take additional steps, if necessary." (emphasis added)

REALITY: As Secretary Gessler points out, there are other, better ways of reaching military voters--with electronic ballots (something for which he won an award for in 2012).  No one is disenfranchised, and, in fact, it is now more likely these service men and women will have their vote count, since there was no guarantee they would recieve their mail ballots in time, even though they were sent 30 days in advance (already a violation of UOCAVA standards).  You can also look at the comments on Clear The Bench Colorado's coverage for more on military voting.

MYTH #5: "Those meddling Libertarians!  Maybe they didn't derail the recall or disenfranchise military voters, but with a Libertarian on the ballot, they'll split the vote and ensure Morse stays in office!"

Facts:

1. As of right now, no Democrat has declared in Senate District 11, and no Libertarian has declared in Senate District 3.
2. The recall vote is a two part process: first, a yes or no vote on the recall, and then if yes, a vote on the replacement candidate.

REALITY: If there is no Democrat on the ballot in SD11, it would be impossible to "split the vote".  In fact, the more peole you can turn out to vote "yes" on the recall, the greater the likelihood of success.  

Let me repeat that, since it is the most commonly promulgated lie I've heard this entire recall election process: a Libertarian on the ballot not only doesn't split the vote, it actually makes it more likely that Morse gets recalled.

Update: typo in one of my charts fixed--thanks to Kevin J. for the catch!

Parts 2 and 3: Political Parties and election tools

I started this post back after the 2012 election, and worked on it again some more last March.  It fits well into what I wanted as parts 2 and 3 of my series, and I didn't feel like I could chop it up.  So here it is.

I've been in politics far too long for my age.  If you'd like to read about how I got here, check out the "About Me" page.  The short of it is this: my mom has said time and again that she knew I'd be in politics since I was very young.  I was lucky enough to be homeschooled so my education could be geared towards that end.  I volunteered for the Republican Party for the first time in 1998, as a 9 year old, and it's been all downhill since.  I spent my high school years as a volunteer at the Colorado State Capitol.  I've volunteer far too many hours doing many things, particularly walking more precincts than my feet care to remember for more candidates than I could list.  And, as if that wasn't bad enough, I got into the management and consulting side of politics.  In other words, over the past 15 years, I've done more in politics than most people do in their entire lives.

Politics is frustrating, annoying, disheartening, disappointing, and down-right obnoxious most of the time, but somehow the masochist in me keeps coming back for more.  It's made me incredibly jaded, which is a sad thing to say for a 24-year-old, but it's true.  I'm a pessimist by nature, and have become increasingly cynical, which doesn't help much.  It does help me, however, to be much more realistic than the starry-eyed folks I often come across in politics on every side of the political spectrum--those kinds of folks annoy me more than anyone else in politics.

I've always been a Republican.  My parents were always Republicans.  My great-grandmother's grandfather was a Republican President of the United States (Benjamin Harrison).  This Party runs through my blood, very literally.  I haven't always been the "type" of Republican I am today, that's been quite a journey in and of itself, but this Party has always been my home.  Politics in general, and the GOP in specific, have also allowed me to meet most of my dearest friends... and my husband.  And, while I have yet to find someone I agree with 100%, I've found many allies and like-minded individuals along the way, so it isn't all bad.  I've had victories and losses, and learned much more by doing than I ever would have in a classroom.  Politics, strategy, and sometimes even my political philosophy, is an ever-evolving beast (the latter often because I've come to a better understanding of an issue rather than my mind actually changing about it, though)--but it's always been based on one thing for me: core principles.

Limited, Constitutional government.  
Free markets.  
The rule of law.  
Personal responsibility.  
NO EXCEPTIONS.

If I can agree with you on those issues, we can be political allies.  If I can't agree with you on them, we might still be able to be friends, but I don't compromise on those issues--and that hasn't ever changed, nor do I see that as being likely to happen in the future.  I believe there is, theoretically, room in the Republican Party for people who disagree on a whole slew of issues, so long as they can agree on what makes us all Republicans.

Except...

That no longer seems to be the case.  Those in power in the Republican Party keep pushing us closer and closer to the "middle"--or more specifically, closer and closer towards big government--and many have become out and out Progressives.  That is simply not acceptable.  We haven't had a truly limited government Presidential nominee in my lifetime.  Even Reagan, the paragon of "conservativism," wasn't totally limited government.

I'm all about a big tent, but without a foundation, that tent will just flap around in the wind.  And we wonder why we continue to lose in Colorado--something we've been doing badly since 2004.  It's not the message, it's how we message it.  It's not needing to catch up with the Democrats and their strategy, technology, etc. (we're 10 years behind them on that as it is, and yet we still use 30+ year-old campaign strategies), it's needing to surpass them.  It's not that we should move more to the "middle", it's that we should rebuild the trust in our brand that has been so thoroughly tarnish, people are leaving the Republican Party in droves--not because it isn't center enough, but because it isn't limited government enough.

At this point, I'm fairly sure my opinion of what's going on (and has gone on) in Colorado is no big secret.  Nor is it a big secret that the "elite" in power and I don't get along at all.  I can't imagine why, since I like winning and they seem to like losing... over and over and over and over...

And that's just it--the bottom line.  They keep losing.  Some of us on the ground--the ones they despise--have started winning.  We beat their "moderate" candidates in primaries.  We have been, slowly but surely, taking over spots of leadership in the Party.  But they don't want us in the Party.  Many have told us as much.  Sure, they try to look welcoming and preach far and wide about being so open to everyone, but anyone in the Republican Party who is not in lock-step with the Karl Rove types knows just how "welcoming" they are--and what they do to you if you don't agree with them.  Case in point.

It is beyond my ability to comprehend that those at the top still haven't figured out why they are losing, either.  Could it possibly be that they keep doing the same thing over and over?  That people keep leaving the Party as it moves more and more towards big government?  That their candidates suck?  They truly can't be that stupid... can they?  Worse yet, some people are so blinded by "power" and "access" that they continue to elect these buffoons to "lead" us into another electoral disaster--which makes them equally culpable in those future losses.

We can't afford that anymore.  By we, I mean WE THE PEOPLE.  Parties are simply tools.  There are many tools in the political arsenal.  I am, by no means, under any illusions that any third party is a viable option right now--let's be honest, the numbers just aren't there.  But I'm also tired of being taken for granted, kicked in the teeth, and ignored by a Party that is supposed to represent ME.

I haven't left the Republican Party (yet), but the Republican Party has left me--and I'm not the only one they've left, either.

I've been saying for quite some time that the results of 2012 would determine my affiliation in some form or another with the Colorado Republican Party.  The State Party Chairman's election back in March was an extension of that, and just proved once again that the Republican Party, especially in Colorado, is not only the Party of Stupid, but the Party of Insanity (per Einstein's definition).

While I make up my mind about future Party affiliation (the new deadline being 2014, proving once again I'm just a sucker for punishment), let me be perfectly clear about one thing: the GOP does not have my "loyalty".  Party does not trump principle.  My vote must be earned, and trust must be rebuilt.  Right now, the Republican Party is nothing more than a tool to elect limited government candidates when we can get them through the process.  It could be much more.  It should be much more.  But it won't be anything but that until there is a paradigm shift in leadership and attitude.

Everyone in the Colorado State Republican Party leadership is part of the problem, and the majority of the State Central Committee who put those people (two of the three back there, one is new) in power are entirely culpable for the results of the 2014 election--for every single loss we suffer.

Any win a Republican in Colorado might have will be entirely in spite of the Party, not because of it.  We can't take a losing strategy, dress it up in lace and pink bows, and expect it to be anything other than a hideous monstrosity that will also continue to drum up more of the same--sustained losses in this state.  I've seen absolutely no indication that this Party, under the leadership of a loser, Ryan Call, will go in any other direction than continued losses across the board.

We have other tools in our arsenal to advance liberty and limited government ideals besides just the Republican Party.  We need to start making better use of those, because continuing to rely on the Colorado Republican Party is naïve at absolute best, and, as far as I'm concerned, just plain stupid and insane.  The Party can't help us anymore, it's simply one of the many tools (and essentially only there now for ballot access).

Opinion: What is the role of the State Party?

It appears I'm doing a series on the State Party, specifically the Colorado Republican Party.  That wasn't quite my intent when I started with my post about a week and a half ago, but another needed to be written... and now this one is here.

For those who don't know, on 2 March (this Saturday), the Colorado Republican State Central Committee has a choice between the Status Quo and a much-needed change (not that I have any opinion on the matter whatsoever).  My hope, in this post and the two proceeding it, is to lay the groundwork for why change is needed.

I don't get a vote, but it is the duty of all Republican Party members to let those who do have a vote know where we stand--and that doesn't mean you have to agree with me.  This is our Party, after all.  We should let those who represent us know how we feel, much like we do when we send letters to legislators on bills or testify before committees.  This election affects all Republicans in Colorado, not just those who can vote on it.

But maybe I got ahead of myself with the last two posts.  So let me back up a little bit with this one.

A question I often hear asked, and rarely answered simply, is: "What is the role of the State Party?" or "What is the role of the State Party Chairman?"

To those, I would add another question: "What is the measure of success for a State Party or State Party Chairman?"

To the previous questions, I've heard many answers, from the old and tired "fundraising" to "beat the Democrats at their own game" to "infrastructure" and "networking"... but all of them fall short.  All of them, to be sure, are part of the answer, but the answer is much, much more simple than any of those.  You want to know what it is?

Win elections.

That's it.  No more.  Nothing else.  Fundraising, technology, strategy, infrastructure, networking, ground game, recruiting, training and supporting candidates and staff, etc. are all a part of that, but they aren't enough alone.  They must work together, or we get the failures we've seen since 2004 in this state.  And it still amazes me that a Party supposedly all about individual freedoms and personal responsibility seems to think that a top-down, Denver-centric, one-size-fits-all approach actually works in every state, in every county, in every precinct, and in every race.

When will the National GOP learn its lesson?  When will the Colorado GOP learn its lesson?  Hopefully, this Saturday, at least in Colorado.

As to the second question, the measure of success, the answer is also pretty basic...

The measure of success is if elections were won.

I know, call me crazy.  That's too easy, isn't it?  There's nothing in there about fundraising!  Unfortunately, in Colorado, the Republican Party seems to be in the business of losing elections pretty consistently since 2004.  I don't know about you but I'm getting kind of tired of losing.

I've said it several times, so I probably don't need to rehash the total loses or plugs in the dam across the board again, but 2012 was not a great year for us.  Some of it has to do with how we message.  Some of it has to do with being way behind on the technological times.  It certainly wouldn't hurt if we had actual useable data, and that data was given to the people who need it when they need it.  A lot of it has to do with lacking strategy (or, at least, a strategy that isn't over 30 years old).

From my perspective, some of it has to do with where we chose to spend money in 2012 as well.  We can raise all the money in the world, but if it isn't put to effective use, it's nothing more than a tool buying our continued losses.

The Colorado Republican Committee summary page on TRACER for the 2012 election cycle, reflecting that $443,453.97 was spend in-state during that election cycle.

This picture and the previous picture are screen captures from the FEC website for the Colorado Republican Committee, reflecting the money spent on Federal (Presidential and Congressional) races and operating expenditures for 2012.

This shows the 2014 cycle (since 1 January 2013) on the FEC Website for the Colorado Republican Committee, reflecting operating expenditures for the cycle so far.

To look at these more in-depth, go to the TRACER website and search for committee number 19991500072, and the FEC website and search for committee number C00033134.

While I understand that Federal races tend to cost more money, are higher profile, and that they are indeed important, the State Party's first responsibility is to the State of Colorado.  We cannot keep sacrificing our state just to lose federal elections.  Colorado can't survive total Democrat rule any more than the country can, but we've allowed that to happen in this state because we focus our time and attention on national races.  Some of this is an education problem--let's face it, the undervote for down-ticket races is huge.  That doesn't make them any less important, as we are learning the hard way with the far-left agenda being jammed down Colorado's throat in the State Legislature right now.

I was recently reminded that we saw the highest delegate badge fees (at least in my recollection) this year, and candidates for President had to pay for the privilege of being on our non-binding straw poll ballot.  I wonder what the hard working and dedicated Republican activists who paid those increased fees think of having hundreds of thousands of dollars left unspent in perhaps the most critical election in the last century, if not our nation's history?  This one is none too happy.

For those who know me, you probably remember the hubbub I caused in El Paso County as the GOP Secretary for daring to disagree with a policy put forth by a State Legislator.  The horror!  You would think if someone did something that relatively minor (I dare you to find me any Republican I agree with 100%--even my husband and I aren't lock-step on policy issues), a Republican County Party Officer donating to a Democrat during his tenure would have gotten at least the same response--scorched earth, character assassination campaign, a gag order, censured... and at the very least, threatened with removal for actually violating the By-Laws in their letter (not just the spirit as folks argued against me), right?

Turns out, not so much.  In 2007, while the Vice Chair of the Denver County Republican Party, Chairman Ryan Call maxed out a contribution to Bernie Buescher, a Democrat candidate for State Representative out near Grand Junction.

My understanding, from talking to many active members of the Denver GOP at the time, is that no sanctioning action was taken, and Chairman Call certainly wasn't removed from office for his violation.  And, in the interest of fairness, Chairman Call then maxed out to the Republican in the race, Laura Bradford--so that makes everything okay, right?  Here's my question... why did he not ask for the contribution to Buescher back, at the very least?

We could move on and forgive an indiscretion, certainly.  It becomes much harder to do so when that rule is then unfairly applied.  This Party, I thought, believes in the rule of law--rules are rules and apply to everyone.  So, in 2010, why were Tancredo supporters not removed from their Party offices (even down to precinct leader)?  Why did Chairman Call take the position he did regarding my censure (on something that did not clearly violate the By-Laws, unlike an out-right contribution to a Democrat), saying one thing in public and another in private?  Why did Chairman Call participate in the removal of three precinct leaders from voting earlier this month at the Eagle County Republican Organizational Meeting... for doing the exact same thing he did, publicly support a non-Republican candidate?

I'm all about everyone getting to vote their conscience, and to support whom they choose--in fact, I encourage it.  I don't believe Party always trumps person (most of the time... almost all of the time, even... but not every time).  But there is a standard for Party officers--and we should hold all to it, or none to it.  It can't be arbitrarily applied.  That, at the very least, creates the appearance of a ruling class and a "rules for thee but not for me" mentality that is dangerous and not very Republican.

And speaking of Denver County... it is my understanding that Chairman Call, when he left the Denver GOP and subsequently became State Party Chairman, left a parting present of nearly $10,000 in debt.  It seems to me ironic that Chairman Call, who frequently makes a point of discussing the debt that the State GOP was in when he took over (and to the credit of those raising funds, was taken care of), left a similar problem for his successor.  Again, this could be overlooked, but from what others have told me, this is a pattern dating back to his days in the College Republicans.  Being hearsay, I won't go into the details shared with me until I can get some physical documentation.  Regardless of whether this is a one-time incident, or a series of unfortunate events, there is great irony considering how Chairman Call begins most speeches I've heard from him recently--that he dug the State GOP out of the same problem with which he left the Denver GOP.

Not that anyone is asking my opinion, but let me offer it anyways: my advise to win elections?  Let's start with don't donate to the "enemy", spend your resources wisely, and don't leave entities in debt.