Well said Ross. I am sure Ken's decision was not an easy one, nor do I think he made the decision based on whether Dan Maes was a nice guy or not.

I am glad that Tom Tancredo is on the ballot as I will not have to leave that race blank as I did in the Republican primary.

I had hoped Dan would bow out when it came time to have the ballots printed. Obviously, I have no idea what conversations were had with Dan, but they failed.

I guess my only recourse now is to vote for Tom. We need to make every push to get him elected.

As a formerly energetic Buck supporter, I have learned over recent months that he wears the stilletos in the Party. He has all the spine of a gummi bear: In his world, politics always trumps principle. And his latest move was eminently predictable.

"First of all, the Colorado Republican Party and I, as state chairman, support Dan Maes for Governor. Period. Dan won our nomination fair and square." Dick Wadhams. "[I am] very disappointed in the decision by Dan Maes to continue his candidacy for governor. Revelations before and especially after the August 10th primary have raised serious questions about the veracity of how he has presented his professional background and career and have virtually destroyed any possibility of running a viable campaign." Dick Wadhams, nine days later. For those who had eyes to see, the McInnis scandal was obvious before the Assembly, and the Maes problem (the Freda Poundstone rort notwithstanding) was obvious before the primary.

When the truth about his financial situation oozed out back in July, I lost faith in Dan. But before I did, I trundled over to the Jeffco Clerk to do a title search on his property, to ascertain whether there was some objective support for his claims to be a successful executive. What I found was not encouraging, but he was still far and away our better candidate, as I would respectfully submit that what Scott McInnis did to the Hasans regarding the fellowship constituted felony theft by deception. But at least, I am consistent.

When I was apprised that Bob Beauprez had taken $21,000 from a Russian mobster in the form of an expenses-paid luxury trip to Israel, I withdrew my support. Even if the junket was technically "legal," it was a grievous breach of public trust. People in the Party were mad at me, telling me that it was my job to support its candidates. Period. Kind of like what the Dick did in expressing his support for Maes.

When I learned that Jane Norton was being paid $120,000/year from Anschutz interests to run a charity with less than $500,000 in gross receipts -- the political equivalent of student-athletes being paid to watch the grass grow -- it became obvious that she was a captive courtesan of our state's plutocrats, and could be expected to do their bidding. But as she lost, I didn't have to make that call again.

Well, I got the Party poobahs mad at me again ... for reminding them that according to them, it was their duty to support Dan Maes.

I read this column, and decided a response like this was about as good as any to let-out some feelings about the mediocre Colorado response that Ken Buck personifies concerning his would-be trip to Washington, and the long-lost memory of the candidate that was ill-recognized by the powers-that-be or Norton supporters; Tom Wiens.

Tom Tancredo is a no-brainer - the man - for the stated Tea Party objectives of smaller Constitutionally-constrained government and individual freedom. He's the perfect Tea Party candidate. But the Colorado Tea Parties have been embroiled in a Cloward-Pivenlike inundation of candacy blowups, misrepresentative messages from their leaders, and skewed/missing coverage of all of this by major Colorado media, therefore lack of knowledge of many factual events can essentially be gained only by having a good AM-loop antana connected to a 630-KHOW-tuned radio.

The Hick is working off a fixed-percentage, so if Maes' support drops to around 10%; where it belongs, I guess the shrill, high volume coverage of his departure into pariahville will have surely elected the Tank to a high office for which his style is best-suited.

You say you've " been leaning toward voting libertarian in the governor’s race" so now that you've let that out, explain for me how, after you've had all your inputs by the first Mon. in Nov, you'd reduce your remaining input; the same as everyone else's, to the meaninglessness of only a principled vote. Wouldn't the example of 'Mr. Tancredo Goes to Washington' allow you to vote for him on principle?

I have had a lot of respect for you because of so many things you have written and said in the past, but lately, as I have heard you more often,I may be sensing in error your preparatory canned-responses. My jury's out though, about whether you will post this response:

Awshucks, I guess I'm just a "dumbass" because I think Colorado will be a little slower on the uptake to nominate truly Conservative candidates. Why should I be concerned with that? Or for that matter, why should a candidate for the Senate be concerned with matters of the heart for so many of his would-be constituents? Other states that have fowarded Statesmen that have shown true understanding of the threats facing our country today, but they must be anomalies, and surely non-essential. For one thing, if and when Ken Buck is elected to the Senate, we will all have achieved the objective to elect a non-dem in a year that almost presupposes that outcome. So we will have fulfilled that minimum standard, the one that satisfies 'Rosen's Goal'.

Big whuup!

Because, gone will be effect of the most revealing clues as to a candidates' understanding what's going on around him, a faculty for intuitive descernment of the public mood; one that is developed in an air of the 'change' that has been forceably brought about around them; that frankly, terrifies them. Mr. Buck was making statements about the need for "pragmatism", and the 'need' for Republicans not to be seen as "obstructionist". Statements about "working with the other side at the same time the enemys that he would face, and the body he covets, is ramming-through the Health Care Plan that he now seeks the priveledge to interminably address. I've watched him essentially ignore formulated-public-dispositions that reflect the relevance of the "following obama's economic policies" and "obama gone" countdown clock at the top-right of this page. and most importantly, clues about a candidate that reflect Mr. Bucks own understanding of how a U.S. Senator will need to oppose the forces that, though interupted for the nusence of a mid-term, have not shown abeyance in their ideological fervor, and will show up, bayonets drawn, to address Mr. Buck and others like him for at least two more years. There, pragmatism will have him looking sideways while he is overrun (on our behalf, of course).

So Rossputin, Give Ken the super-brownie-point that he so richly deserves for lethargically pulling his support for Dan Maes. At the same time, apply the appropriate mulligan to Ken's non-ability to zip those pragmatic expressions of "strongest support" until that moment.

Now you backstop Ken with praise for the no-brainer move that was probably brought about by one of his handlers grabbing his chin.

Mr Buck seems like a smart, honorable man that has been working within the system, thereby relying on it as we all have done. He may have understandably not seen some important aspects of the major shifting of circumstances regarding many of his voters' mindsets, and on the national scene, where he aspires to practice. When he comes back, he will need to show he's had a preferance for Tea Parties instead of the kind of Washington partys that have usually 'gotton it done' there.

My view is that he should have gotten out in front of this one. These scandals were percolating out in Republican circles for months before they finally hit the fan.

Wadhams' play was comical. First, he tells us that we should accept anyone the Party nominates regardless of our personal misgivings, and then, he does what he tells us not to do. Mark Hillman is every bit as hypocritical, arguing that we must overlook serious ethical lapses in Party-approved pols, but not upstarts like Dan Maes.

By way of example, your friend Jane Norton was paid $120,000 a year by Anschutz-related interests to manage a charity with less than $500,000 in gross receipts -- the political equivalent of a student-athlete being paid to watch the grass grow. Scott McInnis defrauded the Hasan family out of $300,000 (but knowing how this state works, he won't be prosecuted, or even punished by the state Bar). Bob Beauprez took $21,000 from a Russian mobster in the form of a luxury trip to Israel, and no one batted an eye. And then, there was Bob Schaefer with Jack Abramoff in the Marianas (where he decided that forced abortions were a good thing). Judged by an absolute standard, Maes' actions were deplorable ... but compared to his peers, his transgressions seem almost venial.

Rosputin,
I heard that interview with Tom yesterday. Call me shallow, but when I hear him speak, I can support him enough for the both of us.

I'll give myself kudos for expressing my own observations yesterday by jumping all over a column entitled "Ken Buck and Dan Maes", so likely those observations would contain my thoughts surrounding their candacies as a whole, how they end up standing where they are now, and how the voters ended up putting them there.

I critique your comments, mostly in the context as those being posted on Mr. Buck's Facebook page. I innitially wondered why you feel the need to go there, especially to run over, point-by-point, the kind of rationale that his supporters should be able to see on their own, or will be forced to see pretty soon anyway, so who cares? After all, Ken can explain this stuff to his own supporters, right? Or am I thinking wrong. But then I realized you said that you are a Ken supporter. So does your 'input' in this way have some meaningful dynamic for his candacy? I believe it does, so I see your effort properly reflecting "...I’m gladly supporting him now and have contributed to his campaign." But I also believe it has another, maybe not-so-subtle dynamic in the debate.

Pragmatism in politics has a finite and essential upside, and an infinite downside. It has been the disabler and ruin for many a good man, and the enabeleing excuse for many bad ones. But also, it is a pandora's-box, always close-at-hand for anyone manuevering in the world of public concern. I never accused you directly of pragmatism, so not an "excessive" amount either. But I could be wrong on that since your 'tidying-up' effort for the Buck campaign on Facebook and in your column, for such an unnecessary task, only increases the volume of the short-shrift given to Mr. Tancredo. Tip-toeing on Tom's face for such a trifle endeavor smacks of a kind of pragmatic misconduct, or just sloppiness. Even to me, that sounds like a stretch, but I must think it's important enough to say, for you to hear, nonetheless.

The elephant that left the room is Scott McInnis, leaving behind a pile of excrement named Dan Maes, with 'GOP' written in it. But this time there is another elephant in the room that has been told by the elephant-party that he's not an elephant. Maybe that's a badge-of-honor! I thought you of all people would have picked up on him to a greater extent than your cursory comparison of a choice between a hobby-vote, or a viability-firewall applied to the spending of such trifle-time as it takes to cast a single vote. But I got-on you about that yesterday, so sorry...well, kind of.

Still, as of today, the two quietest issues among the incessant talk and reporting of the governors race are:

1) The 'McInnis effect' in all this
2) The very existance of Tom Tancredo's contrasting candacy

Rossputin, Your importance is ever-increasing in the debate. In politics, lost opportunity is everything. There is little to work with than the potential to stay ahead of the curve in recognizing Statesmen, and forwarding them. When there emerges a Tancredo that holds to his own principles no matter how the principles of their party; or in this case, his disfunctional GOP, may vary from what he thinks is right. We must recognize him, and lean-into the load immediately once we see it for ourselves.

First of all, thank you. Points taken, and understood well.

Let me respond to your clarification to end this for now.

* Your first sentance gives me hope as it signals the garnishment for Tom of the votes of most Republicans, Conservatives, etc, only excluding some shameless power brokers(500-minus actual votes). I'd told Mike Rosen already a few weeks ago that he would "pull the lever" for Tom, to which I recieved 'mr. hold button' during a brief tirade frim him, with no denial if what I had predicted. Hah!

* I do agree that the downballot races are of utmost importance, so I believe one needs to place his support with Tom and leave it there, instead of expending "...energy and money", or at least "energy" explaining events surrounding the Maes-malaise using the ever-present caveat of 'the Tank-candacy's legitimacy at the moment'. Heck, if one would just say he's in his camp; like you pretty-much do in the first sentance, it would save the digits expended in the disclaimer. The important thing to do is to put things where they are in the governor's race, then leave it alone and concentrate on the downballot...Tom can handle the rest, but he doesnt need constant speculation about whether he can tie his shoes placed into conversations about other subjects. It really doesn't 'cost' much to put this issue where it should be, and it's very efficient.

* Thank you for trying to get some of Ken's suporters' "heads on straight", you're doing yeoman's work, and work that needs to be done - seriously.

* I'm sure the ratings for yesterday's Sun. eve. show on 710-KNUS (thank you) were enhanced by the presence of Tom. So it's always a quid-pro-quo with him on any media. Listenership is increased by his rabid followers, the 'waking-ups', and his considerable mortal enemies including mediamatters and all the other will-be-hatemongers tasked with crawling into the wormhole of Tom Tancredo-character-assasination. I gotta tell you Ross, we're all starving for more 'Tom' out here.

Since he qualify's for pro-bono, the lawsuit alone will be like a net hundred-grand in his advertising coffers.

* The 'McInnis effect' is relevant presently for those needing an explaination of why Dan Maes exists.

The 'The McInnis effect' needs to be acknowledged now, in short-order. Scott was pushed on us by the power-elite without vetting. It's lessons need to be learned now, fully digested and accepted...quickly. So they are already found-fact in our deliberations BEFORE THE NOMINATION PROCESS BEGINS FOR 2012! Not visited 'around' that time, or "in the long run".

'The McInnis effect'; it's relevance in the future is irrelevant to me. What are we going to do? Use it to explain again to the Republican party blue-bloods as to why we want to throw their butts out of the process? They know that! They wrote the book! It's the voters that need to learn the lesson, immediately, and get in front of this for the next time. What better vehicle than in the trashing of it's product, the candidacy of Dan Maes. This problem's been around since long before McInnis/Maes, which is now only another destructive reference point. And as long as we don't show up in sufficient numbers during the nominating process, the power-elite continue to laugh at us while they get their way.

* Ahead of the curve would be to be in Tom's camp...than uncharacteristically quiet if one feels he need be. That race will have inertia of it's own, it just doesn't need needless detraction. John Andrews and others in the Republican party may very well have been hearing residuals of non-stop demagoguery as was forwarded by Carol-Platt Liebau for three solid hours in a shrill attack of Tom upon his entry into the Governer's race. On the nationally-syndicated Hugh Hewitt Show, she attacked in the way we usually only hear from the left. The listenership of that show has heard a relentless effort to snuff-out Tom, every time he is referrenced. But the shrill, flailing, and hand-wringing statements made about him are never true.

Tom may be acused of improper political deliberation before he has said something, but although not always politically expedient, the idea he is forwarding usually passes intellectual muster. He understands the process of using the system and building coalitions as this process has been used so effectively against him for many years. He knows the power of a bully-pulpit for the same reason. He knows the power to bring about alliances through the threat of a veto pen, and I think he will deliberate fully and properly before using his pen either way as Governer.

Ross, there seems to be a quasi-denial about Tom's presence in the Governor's race. I'm not saying from you, although you seem to be grappeling with the prospect like many others. From the current perspective of Conservatives or Libertarians and maybe even some good-old Democrats, Tom is best-suited for the high office, John Hickenlooper is a very good fit for the Progressive Liberal Democrat side. This will need to be handled better than it is being handled right now to do all we can to avoid the latter prospect.
- Thanks