Well, you’ve probably heard that “Senator” Wonderbread won his primary, which means that I can no longer refer to him as never having won a vote. And it wasn’t even close! Andrew Romanoff called to offer his congratulations less than an hour after the polls closed. Being able to outspend your opponent by nearly 4-1 has its advantages, kids! Oh well–the guy who is liklier to beat him in November, GOP insurgent candidate Ken Buck, also won his primary narrowly against Jane Norton. Possible lessons of the Colorado primary? It looks like the GOPers are more likely to favor insurgencies, whereas there’s enough Dems satisfied with their incumbents (I know–go figure!) that they’re sticking with the status quo. (Remember, the two sitting senators to lose their primaries were Republican Bob Bennett in Utah, and Democrat-turned-Republican-turned Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, so we’ll count him as a half-Republican who didn’t have the confidence of Penna. Dems, and for good reason.) The GOPers are all about change this year. They also nominated a black man for CD-7, Ryan Frazier, voting for him by a margin of nearly 2-1. That’s quite a thumpin’.
Meanwhile, Don Maes narrowly edged out Scott McPlagiarist in the Republican gubernatorial primary. (Explanation of the plagiarism story here.) The buzz here among the Republicans is how to push both Maes and Tommy “the Tank” Tancredo out of the race so that the Rs have a prayer of beating John Hickenlooper in November. Yeah–good luck with that. (You all may have heard of Maes’s tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about what the Denver B-Cycle programmeans in terms of Hickenlooper’s plan for the worldwide takeover of the United Nations.) You thought they’d arrive in black helicopters, when apparently they’re going to arrive on little red bicycles!
Could this political season get any weirder in Colorado? Time will tell. One thing I don’t really understand was all of the hyperventilation over how “nasty” and “dirty” the Dem Senate primary was. If you think that was dirty, “Senator,” wait’ll you see what the Republicans unleash! Glass jaw, much?
Historiann 
Entertaining, but Colorado still loses out so far to South Carolina for sheer overwhelming primary craziness. Throw in some patently absurd accusations of sexual malfeasance, and your state will be back in the game!
LikeLike
Gagh… my condolences Historiann.
LikeLike
I agree- I didn’t think it was a dirty primary season at all! I was looking forward to the bloodbath, and was disappointed with all the complacent attitudes. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Crap. I don’t want to vote for either “B” in November. I guess I will save my usual volunteer time for Hickenlooper, not that he’ll need much help against Maes and Tancredo.
Oy vey.
LikeLike
This would be Ken “I don’t wear high heels” Buck? Perhaps one of the lessons is that Colorado GOPers will easily buy into gendered political warfare.
LikeLike
Remember, Buck said that after Jane Norton, in response to the question why anyone should vote for her, said “I wear high heels.” Now, I think it would have been perfectly fine to cast her candidacy as a historic possibility to elect the first woman U.S. Senator from Colorado, but her sideways way of suggesting that was just too, too dumb.
Buck made that comment only because Norton had presenting high heel-wearing as a credential. I thought the fracas over his comment was overblown, considering she had brought it up. (She also urged him to “be a man,” so if anyone was trying to use gender, it was Norton first.)
So, yeah: I’ll vote for Buck. He’s had a job for more than three years at a time (U.S. Attorney and Weld County D.A.), and jobs that earned him a lot of enemies.
LikeLike
And the vote last night was close: Buck beat her only by 3, which to me is an election played to a draw.
LikeLike
Oh, I totally agree. Norton’s comments were both personally uncalled for and an intellectual low. I guess my disappoint comes from my perception that all the ruckus was about what was said (by both candidates) and not *why* it was said or why it has been an effective campaign tactic of late.
LikeLike
Right on.
I wish Norton had articulated a clearer vision for herself as Colorado’s first woman U.S. Senator. But because women’s rights isn’t perceived to be a human rights movement, and because many Republicans are ideologically opposed to feminism, I think it would have been a difficult needle for her to thread.
But, geez: “I wear high heels?” She couldn’t do any better than that?
LikeLike
I’m a little confused, Historiann. I get that Bennet’s rise to power is icky and I get that he’s done some dumb things — some of which you’ve ably documented here and others have commented on as well — but I still don’t understand why you would vote for Buck. Yes, he’s held office before, but he also believes in a bunch of things you don’t seem to believe in and doesn’t believe in some things that you do. Maybe that’s a roundabout way of saying that he’s a Republican.
Immigration: He’s for spending more $ on the border and a big no for amnesty to undocumented aliens.
Guns: Loves ’em.
Abortion: Big no. Life of the mother is the only exception.
Healthcare: All about the free market “solution.”
And that’s just a little sampling from buckforcolorado.com, his woefully un-detailed website. He may have had a job before, but if he uses that experience to work for any of these issues, I don’t know why any Democrat would vote for him.
LikeLike
I’m with HA, Historiann. I hate Bennet as much as the next guy, but Ken Buck? He’s faaaar right! And you’re not. I have taken your classes.
LikeLike
I know, I know. I’ve been a loyal Democrat and a straight-ticket voter for 24 years. But, I’m over the notion that Democrats in Washington really make much of a difference. Their support for my issues (ZOMG ROE! ROE! ROE!, and gay rights, and union support) ends with their campaigns. Obama and 59 Dems got frack-all accomplished from my perspective, so who cares if they’re down one more Dem come January?
Plus, the Good Old Boy-style of politics sticks in my craw more than Buck’s predictable right-wing talking points. I don’t want to support the appointment of white men like Bennet who (in the words of the late Ann Richards describing the first President Bush) was “born on third base and think he hit a triple.” I don’t think people like Bennet–and Bennet specifically, given his voting record–are trustworthy guardians of my interests.
So, after this Nov., I’ll probably switch to voting for third-party candidates and write-ins, but right now I’m inclined to support the guy who 1) actually had a job for more than 3 years at a time, in the field in which he trained and where he was held accountable for his performance, and 2) bothered to campaign for an office instead of being granted an appointment. I think that’s worth something. I don’t have any illusions that Buck will vote the way I would have him, but I don’t think Bennet will either. Bennet will continue to disappoint, whereas Buck–a man about whom I have no illusions–might pleasantly surprise us once in a while.
The only thing that might change my mind is if the Senate brings up EFCA for a vote this fall and Bennet supports card-check. But of course, the reason most Americans find congress so loathsome is that of course they’re too cowardly to actually vote on the $hit they’re campaigning on DURING A CAMPAIGN! Ugh.
LikeLike
Pingback: More bad news for “Senator” Bennet; Ritter’s incompetence apparently not newsworthy : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present