Colo. Repubs Pick Tea Partier Over McInnis for Governor

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Sat May 22, 2010 at 05:13:27 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At the Republican Colorado Assembly today, delegates picked a tea partier named Dan Maes over conservative former Congressman Scott McInniss, who has been running for the job for what seems like years.

Maes says he is the more conservative of the two. I didn't know you could be more conservative than McInniss. As McInniss told the crowd today:

“On Day One I will reverse the executive order that unionized all state agencies,” McInnis promised. “I will stand by the governor of Arizona. I will stand by Tom Tancredo to protect our borders.”

So what does Maes stand for that McInniss doesn't? [More...]

He said he has been to more tea party events than any other candidate. “I have heard you speak loudly. You are tired of illegal immigrants running over your state. I’m here to help and I’m not from the government,” he said to loud applause.

“I am of Judeo-Christian faith. I will not give another inch on the sanctity of life.”

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, the Democratic candidate for Governor, will be a shoo-in against Maes. Both Maes and McInniss will be on the Republican primary ballot as Maes won by only 14 votes. I suspect even Republicans aren't dumb enough to run Maes against Hickenlooper, but one can hope.

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | Saturday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Colo. Repubs Pick Tea Partier Over McInnis for Governor | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

what the heck is (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Peter G on Sat May 22, 2010 at 05:24:01 PM EST

the "Judeo-Christian faith"? Do Jews a favor -- and the majority of Christians, too -- and leave them out of your make-believe ecumenism. Speak for yourself, since the meaning of "I am of Judeo-Christian faith. I will not give another inch on the sanctity of life." is perfectly clear. It means, "I am a fundamentalist Christian, and I intend to use my power, if elected as Governor, to impose my particular religious views on all Coloradans, to the extent I possibly can."

I've known quite a few Judeo-atheists, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by observed on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:31:50 PM EST

It also means (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jondee on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:40:19 PM EST

we cant get elected to office without the backing of SOME people from other faiths (who we will "save" later..or possibly after the Rapture.)


Hmm.. so is Schumer a (none / 0) (#5)
by observed on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:06:20 PM EST

Judeo-Christian too?


Actually, I think the term only properly refers (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by Peter G on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:18:07 PM EST

to these people, or to congregations like this one, down the road from me, or possibly (in historical terms) to these.


Well, I think McInis should (none / 0) (#8)
by observed on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:28:02 PM EST

show that he's had a Bar Mitzvah if he wants to call him self "Judeo"--anything.


It wasn't Cong. McInnis, obs, (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by Peter G on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:01:45 PM EST

It was the Tea Party guy, Dan Maes, who used that ugly, offensive expression.


: My mistake. I'm sure McInis (none / 0) (#17)
by observed on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:03:14 PM EST

calls himself that, too.

Maybe Rev. Moon should count, too. (none / 0) (#9)
by observed on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:29:47 PM EST

WTF? (none / 0) (#6)
by squeaky on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:07:56 PM EST

You'd think that a (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by observed on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:34:23 PM EST

Judeo-Islamic Christian would have the most moral authority of all.

not a Judeo-Islamo-Hindo- (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Peter G on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:13:15 PM EST

Buddho-Pagano-Yorubic-LongHousic-Christian?


: Well, to make heads explode, call (none / 0) (#19)
by observed on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:16:20 PM EST

yourself and Judeo/Moral-Relativist/Fundamentialist Christian

I always go with the Boy Scouts (none / 0) (#14)
by jondee on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:41:48 PM EST

and Girl Scouts of America.


So you're LDS? (none / 0) (#15)
by rdandrea on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:52:56 PM EST

n/t


: lol (none / 0) (#24)
by jondee on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:35:31 PM EST

For moral authority, you're saying? (none / 0) (#22)
by Peter G on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:53:32 PM EST

The Girl Scouts, surely. Or, maybe. The Boy Scouts, not so much.


: Yeah, you're right (none / 0) (#23)
by jondee on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:35:01 PM EST

I'd forgotten. They've taken some hits in the last few years.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by gyrfalcon on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:43:11 PM EST

Crying no tears over right-wing establishment Republicans getting thrown under the bus by the tea partiers they've spawned.

Well (none / 0) (#1)
by rdandrea on Sat May 22, 2010 at 05:20:24 PM EST

All Maes got today was top line.

At the rate he's (not) raising money, he'll have problems in the August primary.

I almost fell over (none / 0) (#3)
by christinep on Sat May 22, 2010 at 05:25:54 PM EST

a few moments ago upon reading the Denver Post article. Then, I guffawed...if only because Norton and McInnis will have their hands full in the coming months as we head into the primary. While not wanting to be too cavalier--since I harbor some superstition here, especially after the Kentucky results--here's looking forward to the trap for N and M as they have to move further right (or at least not move center) in order to assuage the State's angry Republicans before August. Meanwhile, the Bennet v. Romanoff Democratic Senate challenge seems to be going a lot more smoothly without the purging purism of the Right. Tho, again...Maes?!?

Tea partyand their weird candidates (none / 0) (#4)
by Saul on Sat May 22, 2010 at 05:31:22 PM EST

I think the tea party frenzy is producing a list of extremist candidates. However, that is not where the majority of voters are at. I predict they will be the biggest losers when November comes.

I see this as a good thing (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by jondee on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:31:43 PM EST

in some ways. It's not like we didnt already know they were out there. Now we're getting more of what David Brooks was fretting about: the hard right splitting off (somewhat) from the more moderate elements on the right, and exposing themselves to the harsh light of day, which reflects back glaringly on the rest of the GOP.

Next comes splits within the Tea Party itself, as the unhinged types like Paul create a Moonshine Party for the still-mad-about-the-Civil-Rights-Act folk. And organizers are now so worried about what their own constituents might say or do from one moment to the next, that they're doing preemptive damage control: warning the public that any racist signs or statements made at rallies are coming from left wing provocateurs.


: The problem I have with the (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Anne on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:56:56 PM EST

legitimization of the Tea Party and the candidates they are running is that they are hardening the "center" at some place where not so many years ago, we used to find rock-ribbed Republicans. Except that that's where we now find this "new" Democratic Party that was ushered in with the Obama win.
If there's a swing "back" to anything, it's not likely to go any farther than that new center.
It's a very disheartening realization to come to.

When Suther's Willie Brown... (none / 0) (#25)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:02:41 AM EST

...like problem is the lead story on the Sunday night local news, you know the Assembly stories have already peaked and faded.

A sitting AG releasing someone who went on to be a mass murderer, well that's the kind of story the news outlets love. Especially when his opponent is the one who actually convicted Scott Kimball.