The Colorado Index

Smoking Gun: Schultheis Content in the Minority

In 2005, The Gazette wrote:

 A newly formed Republican cell in the Colorado General Assembly wants to purge GOP Statehouse ranks of those who aren’t true to the party’s “core values.”

The conservative-leaning Republican Study Committee of Colorado was recently started by Rep. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, and several other lawmakers. They say they would rather see a small group of pure Republicans operating in the Legislature than a Republican majority populated by lawmakers who support abortion rights, gay marriage or higher taxes.

Schultheis has recruited 13 or 14 other House Republicans — almost half the GOP House caucus — to join the committee.

This is unbelievable!  Until now, all I had were puzzle pieces that I put together.

I guess that I didn't understand what the RSCC was, either.

Edited to add.  Sometime between the time I published this on June 5th and June 23d, the staff at the Gazette saw fit to remove the linked item from their internet archives. They also removed a related letter to the editor.

Does anyone recall how dismissive the staff of the Gazette was about blogging ethics and blogs in general two years ago?

Edited to add.  The Gazette has replaced the article in a way that restores the links.  Good for them!

More Thoughts From the Campaign Trail

After the third day of my starting to walk precincts, I told my wife that I thought I would win.

Nothing since that day has happened to make me change my mind.

Our local politicians are completely disconnected from the voters.  There isn't a giant monolithic voting block of social conservatives out there who will, as Schultheis and company hope, reject any politician who is not a social conservative.

There is a small block of that kind of voter, but if Schultheis expects that they will save him in a Republican primary, he needs to check his medications.

I thought about it as I walked precincts yesterday.  Some of the key people in my campaign organization are social conservatives.  I didn't recruit them for that reason, but I didn't reject them for that reason, either. I recruited them because I thought they were the best people for the job I had in mind for them.  I thought they would be as concerned with the current condition of the Republican party as I am, and I was right

Yesterday, I was talking to a voter who owns a business and who wanted to volunteer for me.  I gave him my usual speech about not being a social conservative.  His response:  "I am a social conservative, but right now that is way down on my list."  

I think that at least half of the folks who have offered to help me are in that category--their social conservatism is way down on their list of priorities.

That is Schultheis' problem in a nutshell.

McDowellforSenate.com

The campaign site is now up.  It still needs some work, but it will do.

Here is the "Why I am Running Blurb:

My opponent is a small tent Republican who doesn't understand that fiscal conservatism thrives when Republicans are in the majority and fails when Republicans are in the minority.

While he claims to be a fiscal conservative, he has NEVER objected when his social conservative allies have handed Republican seats over to Democrats rather than allow a Republican social moderate to be elected or re-elected.

In 2008, he sat on his hands while an anti-war Democrat was elected in the district that includes Fort Carson rather than see a social moderate Republican be elected.  

When a politician likes a far left anti-war Democrat better than a Republican, he can't claim to be either pro-military or a fiscal conservative.

This was the seventh Colorado election since 2000 where social conservatives have tried to hand a seat to Democrats.  The Democrats still hold six of them.  And you wonder why Republicans can never win a majority and why the Democrats are running wild in Denver?  This is why.

It is also why I am running.

My opponent told a political publication that "only liberals will vote for" me.  When asked in a town hall meeting how Republicans could take back the legislature, he had no answer, perhaps because he sees no end to the divisive politics he and his allies want to play.

The sad thing is that I could use this same blurb against most (but not all) local social conservative politicians, against almost the whole social conservative blogosphere, and against the Gazette.  That is how short sighted social conservative politics have become.  All claim to be fiscal conservatives but many can't bring themselves to do the simple thing necessary to ensure fiscal conservatism prevails-preach and practice party unity.

Town Hall Meeting Part 2

It is traditional at town hall meetings to introduce any candidates who are present. There were three present at the Dave Schultheis, Kent Lambert, Amy Stephens town hall, but none were introduced.  Office holders were introduced, as is customary.  Care to bet that the candidate tradition was overlooked because I was in the room?

Amy Stephens glossed over in about 10 seconds the fact that she had been had on the law which cripples the initiative system.  You may recall that we commented earlier that we thought that she lacked the intellectual capacity (and the votes) to keep that from happening.  She mumbled something about ACORN and moved on quickly.  

I thought it interesting that she couldn't stay for the question and answer period.

Another comment that slipped out at the town hall meeting was that Mark Waller had replaced her on the Judiciary committee.

It hasn't been publicly reported, but Amy Stephens almost wasn't re-elected caucus chair when the house reorganized itself in 2008.  Some members thought she hadn't done enough to get new members elected.  I always wondered if Mark Waller threatened to withhold his vote from her if she wouldn't give up her judiciary seat to him.  Since vote trading is illegal, both would deny it, but the town hall meeting comment reinforced my thinking along those lines.

Edited to add:  I now have it on good authority that neither Stephens nor Waller had anything to do with the assignment of Waller to Judiciary.

Based on the presentation and his familiarity with the slides, it appeared that the slides and the presentation were a Kent Lambert product with the other two office holders throwing in side comments.

We Are Better Off, Or So They Say

I had to chuckle at all of the cluck-clucking about how Arlen Specter had abandoned his principles to stay in the US Senate.

Perhaps he has, but not a lot more than local and national Republicans who are willing to submerge their principles and any desire to eventually be in a legislative majority to stay out of Dr. Dobson's way.

It is as easy to argue that Arlen Specter is a man of principle as to argue that he is not, but I don't care to argue either side.

I just want to note that the Republican contingent of the US Senate is more conservative today than it was yesterday.  By Dave Schultheis' logic, we are all better off.

If social conservative Republicans continue to work at it, we can eventually be down to ten ultra-conservative US Senators.  Let's hope and pray and work for that day.  

We will all be better off, or so they say, though it is hard to see how.

Correcting a Misstatement About HD 17

The reason that I decided to run for office was disgust over the willingness of many in the El Paso community to surrender HD-17 to a Deomocrat rather than allow, let alone help a social moderate to win that seat.

The Colorado Statesman wrote about my run for office:

In 2008, it became clear that Roupe was pro-choice, representing a generally unpopular stance on abortion in the socially conservative district.

HD-17 is not a "socially conservative district," and there is no evidence that the pro choice position is generally unpopular there.  Quite the opposite.  Here is a description provided by one of the commissioners who drew the district lines.

Just one bit of info regarding HD-17:  I served on the reapportionment commission that drew district lines after the 2000 census.  HD 17 is peculiar in that it includes the population of Fort Carson, and although Fort Carson accounts for (as I recall) about 20,000 people -- almost one-third of a house district -- virtually no one in Fort Carson votes in Colorado because they are either residents of another state or haven't been in this state long enough to register.  It was a conscious decision by the Democrats who held the majority on the commission to combine Fort Carson with  Democrat-leaning or swing precincts in order to make it "winnable for them."  Had they combined it with 20 or so active precincts, the Republican advantage would have taken that district off the table for them  

That description suggests that once the Republicans lost the advantage of incumbency any candidate running as a hard core social conservative would face an uphill battle in that district.  

Except for political misconduct, there isn't a reason that Roupe shouldn't have won in HD-17.

Why I Expect to Win in Senate 9

My election will be about political misconduct.  Yes, Dave Schultheis and others will try to claim that my pro-choice positions don't match the district as perfectly as they might like, but this election and my reason for entering it doesn't have anything to do with pro choice vs pro life politics.

Rather, it is about pure political misconduct.  There are a lot of examples of political misconduct that I can and will cite as the campaign progresses.

Some social conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to misconduct.  They want to pretend that it hasn't happened and hope that the voters won't notice.

The voters always notice.  

Consider last year's contest between Dan May and John Newsome.  Dan May petitioned onto the ballot at the last minute after John Newsome was video taped getting into a county vehicle after drinking essentially two six packs in 4 hours.

Dan May essentially ran no campaign.  As so often happens when a social conservative gets into trouble, Greg Garcia tried to publicly defend John Newsome.  He claimed  that what had happened was no big deal.

The Republican primary voters didn't buy it.  They voted Newsome off the ticket 60-40. That was in Colorado Springs and that was last year.

Anyone who thinks that the same thing can't and won't happen in the 9th Senate District in 2010 is in denial.  

Lessons So Far on Running For Office

It has been a busy week for me.  

1.  I spoke to someone at the Secretary of State's office for 45 minutes yesterday.  I am trying very hard to get all of the paperwork exactly right.  The campaign finance laws have created a sport of harassing your opponent by lawsuit.

It is just as well that I waited until April to determine if my cancer treatment would impede my campaign.  The lady told me that someone had tried to file for office on March 31.  She told him to come back the next day to avoid having to do the first quarter finance reports for one day of candidacy.

2.  When I tried to open a bank account at my local credit union, it was clear from the beginning that their compliance officer had put bogus instructions in the system. I didn't know how bogus.  They think that candidates must stay at arms length from their campaign account.  SOS allows candidates to be the sole manager of their accounts and sole signatory on their account.  That is not a minor difference.  Oh, well.  My account is set up the way the credit union wanted and it is going to stay that way.

Also, accounts require an EIN from the IRS.  It turns out that there is a political category for EINs, so getting one was easy.  The credit union didn't know that.

3.  Here in Colorado Springs, my candidacy is a closely guarded secret,   Not a word has leaked to the public through The Gazette, but perhaps that will change this weekend.

A Tangled Web

I had two interviews in the last 24 hours. It was a learning experience.  Hopefully I will get better at it, but I didn't feel as though I had bombed either one.

Dave Schultheis got interviewed as well. He had some curious things to say that show his character, or lack thereof:

In response to an FTS report today about a Republican primary between state Sen. Dave Schultheis and Tom McDowell for 2010's Senate District 9 seat, Schultheis contacted Face the State, saying he welcomes a primary challenge but is surprised by the news.

If he was surprised by the news, he has been living in his own little world for months.  On December 8th, I first told his legislative sidekick, Kent Lambert, that I was considering a run but had to wait out my cancer treatment.  Cory Gardner was in the room and both left together.  I guess neither told Schultheis, which seems strange.

Last week I got an obligatory call from Kay Rendleman to try to talk me out of running. We had a nice chat.  It was a call I was expecting.  It was her job to make it.  I didn't feel bad about taking the call.  We talked about the fact that both Schultheis and I had a lot of respect for her.  We talked about my decision to petition on and why I was making it (see yesterdays post) and about my intention to support the whole ticket in the general election, whether I was on it or not.  It was a friendly call.

I suppose that she hadn't had the time to tell Schultheis, either, if his "suprise" is genuine.

The other interesting statement was this:

[McDowell] has never spoken to me in terms of dissatisfaction, and I believe my values and my votes reflect the conservative district that I represent."

At best, this is technically true.  I stopped talking to Dave Schultheis in February, 2006 when he put his finger in my chest (literally) and told me that he didn't have time for any issue but immigration and pro-life and certainly didn't have time to read any letter I might write him.  The week before, he wrote an answer to to a letter i had written.  In that answer, he pretended that he had read my letter and was responding.  His answer was intentional deception.  I still have it.

Five minutes after that conversation, I was a political activist and 2 1/2 years later, I find myself a candidate against him. 

It seems that Dave Schultheis might yet profit from Sir Walter Scott:

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

The reason the quote might be technically true is because he was so busy transmitting and poking his finger in my chest that I never had a chance to tell him I was unhappy with him, but I was, as events show.  He wasn't interested in listening.

It's Official, I Am Running For State Senate 9

This announcement would have come months ago but for a temporary time out while I determined if the treatment for my prostrate cancer would leave me incapable of walking precincts.  As late as mid-March, I didn't know if I would be able to run.  My treatment is over and my plumbing is mostly back to normal.  I can walk.

I need to clear some things up as I begin.

I am not a protest candidate.  Some have suggested that I am a protest candidate because I object to what happened in HD-17.  A protest candidate shows up to protest an event and is never serious about winning.  I am quite serious about winning or I wouldn't have announced so early.

The 9th Senate District.  Several folks who would prefer that I not run have told me that the 9th is too conservative to elect me.  I don't think so.  I am a hard core fiscal conservative.  While I am pro-choice, I oppose Roe because it lacks any Constitutional basis.  In September I met for an hour with Amy Stephens in the hope that I could get Focus to use a different anti-Roe strategy in alliance with people who thought like me.   I never heard back, suggesting that Focus wants an issue, not a solution.  

The two biggest employers in the district are Focus and USAA.  While Schultheis might lay claim to at least some of the Focus employees, he has never served in the military.  I have.

The last time Schultheis ran in an unopposed primary, more than 23% of the voters didn't vote for him-left the line blank.  That may or may not mean anything as the 5th CD contest inflated the turnout by a factor of three.  If it does mean something, it could mean that winning a primary against him won't be that hard. 

I will not go through the assembly process.  I have given a lot of thought to this.  I am good enough at recruiting volunteers that I could very likely flood the caucuses with newcomers who are anti-Schultheis.  I'd almost certainly be able to make the ballot.  If I did that, there are other candidates running for other offices who might be uncomfortable with the newcomers.  Since my goal is to avoid fouling up the Republican party for others, it is best that I petition on.  

While I will be petitioning on, I will ask my active volunteers to attend caucuses and begin to participate in the whole process.  If they are willing to work for me during the primary, I would hope that they would work for the whole party during the general election.

This primary is different.  I wrote often against the 2008 5th CD primary.  It was a primary of personalities.  When the two challengers were asked by The Gazette how they were different from Doug Lamborn, they had no answer.  There are too many differences between myself and Schultheis to list here.

My major goal.  Some elements of the social conservative faction of our party believe that they can take over the party by denying ballot access to moderates.  If a moderate does make the ballot, they prefer to see a Democrat elected.  This happened in HD-17. While they would like to believe that they can then replace the Democrat with a social conservative, they have never actually succeeded.  The biggest offender is Dr. Dobson and his "values voters," but there are others.

It has reached the point where local politicians and national politicians alike would prefer to be a part of a permanent legislative minority rather than risk their own careers by publicly objecting to what Dr. Dobson and others have done.  I plan to object. Further, I hope to create an environment where politicians, like Dave Schultheis, who feel safer tolerating and promoting party fratricide than objecting to it face a primary opponent.

This Site.  This site predated my decision to run by more than two years.  Win or lose, it will continue to exist after the election.  While it will continue to discuss Colorado issues as its name implies, it is not intended to be a part of the campaign.