The anti Tancredo thread..

Ok, so Tancredo lost before.. does anyone really think he can win again? How many politicians have ran winning campaigns after they have already lost once/twice?

Some argue that the vote was split, Hickenlooper got 50.7% of the vote, Tancredo got 36.8% and Maes got 11.1%.. Even if Tancredo got the entire GOP vote he still lost 50.7% to 47.9%...

Also if anyone thinks that anyone that truly voted for Hickenlooper and is now upset about it is actually going to now vote for Tancredo they are living in a fantasy world.

The Reps need a fresh (no history), young (anti-establishment old white guys club), articulate (can state a position without referring to a bible verse), open minded face.. running the same old same old is going to end with the same result. I have yet to see who that person is.


Tell me I'm wrong and FLAME ON.. [beatdeadhorse]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Ok, so Tancredo lost before.. does anyone really think he can win again? How many politicians have ran winning campaigns after they have already lost once/twice?

---

Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Teddy Roosevelt ... that's just Presidents I could think of off the top of my head, there's actually a long list (that includes more than Presidents). ETA: John effing Morse

Quote:

---

Some argue that the vote was split, Hickenlooper got 50.7% of the vote, Tancredo got 36.8% and Maes got 11.1%.. Even if Tancredo got the entire GOP vote he still lost 50.7% to 47.9%...

Also if anyone thinks that anyone that truly voted for Hickenlooper and is now upset about it is actually going to now vote for Tancredo they are living in a fantasy world.

---

GOP turnout was historically low too ... I believe the acrimony and in-fighting in the party coupled with a truly horrible GOP candidate (Maes is a liar and an idiot that should probably not be allowed to feed himself let alone ever been put on the ballot) caused a ton of short sighted Republicans to sit home and allow Hick to waltz into office. Furthermore I've talked to at least three Democrats that are so angry with Hick over the gun laws and letting Dunlap off the hook that they will be voting for whomever the Republicans put up no matter who, so yes there are Hick voters that will vote for Tancredo.

Quote:

---

The Reps need a fresh (no history), young (anti-establishment old white guys club), articulate (can state a position without referring to a bible verse), open minded face.. running the same old same old is going to end with the same result. I have yet to see who that person is.

---

As long as you're not saying that the GOP needs to run a moderate instead of a conservative I agree somewhat ... "open minded" is a bad thing if it means "no core principals" or "wishy-washy moderate that likes to reach across the isle".

Quote:

---

Tell me I'm wrong and FLAME ON.. [beatdeadhorse]

---

You're wrong [Flame] :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

As long as you're not saying that the GOP needs to run a moderate instead of a conservative I agree somewhat ... "open minded" is a bad thing if it means "no core principals"

You're wrong [Flame] :p

---

"open minded" and "no core principals" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Good flame though.. I am not a Tancredo fanboy by any means and it saddens me to think that he is our only hope. I would wait to see what those "ex" Hickenloopers voters really do at the polls next year though before forming to much of an opinion on them, I find that this is a frequent refrain that seldomly holds true. Much like all of the "undecided" voters in the last election the second someone brings up abortion at the 13th hour they will all be running back to the cause like their heads are cut off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Ok, so Tancredo lost before.. does anyone really think he can win again? How many politicians have ran winning campaigns after they have already lost once/twice?

Some argue that the vote was split, Hickenlooper got 50.7% of the vote, Tancredo got 36.8% and Maes got 11.1%.. Even if Tancredo got the entire GOP vote he still lost 50.7% to 47.9%...

Also if anyone thinks that anyone that truly voted for Hickenlooper and is now upset about it is actually going to now vote for Tancredo they are living in a fantasy world.

The Reps need a fresh (no history), young (anti-establishment old white guys club), articulate (can state a position without referring to a bible verse), open minded face.. running the same old same old is going to end with the same result. I have yet to see who that person is.


Tell me I'm wrong and FLAME ON.. [beatdeadhorse]

---

It always depends on turnout.

I'm thinking the conservative side is going to turn out well next election. Hatred is a very effective mobilizer. There was no pissed off conservatives last gov election.

The best way to make conservatives stay home is to run a moderate. You will always have the partisan republican voters who will vote R no matter what. What we need is the principled libertarian types that usually vote their principles only. If you run a moderate, the libertarians stay home and the lemmings go and vote as usual. If you run a principled conservative, then the libertarians come out and vote, along with the lemmings.

It's funny, no matter who runs for the Republicans, he or she will be assailed as both too conservative and not conservative enough at the same time. The Democrats are laughing and planning to increase nanny government in complete defiance of the Constitution while "moderate" Republicans are throwing tantrums about Tea Party Republicans, social conservatives are griping about RINOs, and Libertarians are crying about all of them.

OK YOU'RE WRONG.
Where were you when tancredo ran? I ask because hopefully you realize he was dissed by the R's over IMMIGRATION. SOME of the Moderate R's felt his stance was not in line with the potential hispanic voters who the R's thought would cross over based on the upcoming "Gay Marriage" bruhaha & Family Values.
What the R's didn't, or fail to realize is The Hispanic voter [ in general] is use to Big Government taking care of them. They are coddled in Mexico by BG why loose that "comfort zone" here in CO / America? Anyone other then a D will never garner enough Hispanic or Minority votes in the past or the future.

Since Tancredo is running, either they accept him [ which i doubt] and go with Brophy (a good choice) or gessler. They, like Tancredo, have baggage, which the D's and left wing smear campaign will flaunt every where.

If the R's snub T expect to see him run as a 3rd party candidate . Which unfortunately will give use more of the same. Come election day 2014, we will either remain in CO or be going to phase 2 of relocation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

It's funny, no matter who runs for the Republicans, he or she will be assailed as both too conservative and not conservative enough at the same time. The Democrats are laughing and planning to increase nanny government in complete defiance of the Constitution while "moderate" Republicans are throwing tantrums about Tea Party Republicans, social conservatives are griping about RINOs, and Libertarians are crying about all of them.

---

What you are saying is that Republicans are their own worst enemy.... You got it. Between woman like rape/can control pregnancy (woman are gone), no taxes for the rich claiming socialism/communism,etc (those caring about the economy are gone(BTW, it is not mutually exclusive to also rein in spending)), the bible says your'e not one of us (most of the young vote) and just your'e not one of us (calling people who agree with you on some things but not others libtards, socialists, etc (everybody else) the pessimists are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. Yup.... You got it.

Bryjcom..... You also got it. Single point issues have turned many elections because people were pissed about X issue. Turnout goes up for a base and the swing vote... Well swings. Assuming that just because a person previously voted one way they will ALWAYS vote that way...hum.... Again self fulling prophecy.

Republicans need to get a bigger tent not smaller. Run a candidate that brings more people in not chase them off expecting only the "pure bloods" to carry the day. Now watch them [Flame] .... And prove my point;).

No, anti-Socialists are their own worst enemies. With "friends" adopting Dem talking points like "no taxes for the rich" or "they say 'you're not one of us'" and citing individual idiots as if that was a party platform, why would the Dems need to do anything? Republicans haven't run as small as tent as you're claiming and got people claiming to be the base who refused to go because "John McCain/Mitt Romney isn't conservative enough". Republicans did more to put Hispanics in office than Dems, appointed more African-Americans to high office than Obama and still get morons claiming they're exclusionary.

People who repeat that garbage are as much a part of the problem as Obama, Pelosi or Reid -- hell, they're worse because they should know how bad the Dem agenda is but they still can't keep from taking pot shots because the Republican Party doesn't espouse all of their talking points. Some of you bitching about the direction the state or country has gone should look in the mirror, you'll find the reason for the decline there.

My personal opinion is that just like the dems constantly trying to do an end-around on the 2nd the repubs need to leave Roe VS Wade alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrymrc

My personal opinion is that just like the dems constantly trying to do an end-around on the 2nd the repubs need to leave Roe VS Wade alone.

---

They would pick up more voters doing this. For most of the women I know Roe V. Wade is a single vote issue and as long as they feel republicans are going to try and overturn it or have over turning it as a secret agenda, they will not even consider voting for the party.

I can completely understand where they are coming from. I feel the same about gun rights. I don't trust the democrats on the issue of gun rights, not even the "pro-gun" democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

No, anti-Socialists are their own worst enemies. With "friends" adopting Dem talking points like "no taxes for the rich" or "they say 'you're not one of us'" and citing individual idiots as if that was a party platform, why would the Dems need to do anything? Republicans haven't run as small as tent as you're claiming and got people claiming to be the base who refused to go because "John McCain/Mitt Romney isn't conservative enough". Republicans did more to put Hispanics in office than Dems, appointed more African-Americans to high office than Obama and still get morons claiming they're exclusionary.

People who repeat that garbage are as much a part of the problem as Obama, Pelosi or Reid -- hell, they're worse because they should know how bad the Dem agenda is but they still can't keep from taking pot shots because the Republican Party doesn't espouse all of their talking points. Some of you bitching about the direction the state or country has gone should look in the mirror, you'll find the reason for the decline there.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

No, anti-Socialists are their own worst enemies. With "friends" adopting Dem talking points like "no taxes for the rich" or "they say 'you're not one of us'" and citing individual idiots as if that was a party platform, why would the Dems need to do anything? Republicans haven't run as small as tent as you're claiming and got people claiming to be the base who refused to go because "John McCain/Mitt Romney isn't conservative enough". Republicans did more to put Hispanics in office than Dems, appointed more African-Americans to high office than Obama and still get morons claiming they're exclusionary.

People who repeat that garbage are as much a part of the problem as Obama, Pelosi or Reid -- hell, they're worse because they should know how bad the Dem agenda is but they still can't keep from taking pot shots because the Republican Party doesn't espouse all of their talking points. Some of you bitching about the direction the state or country has gone should look in the mirror, you'll find the reason for the decline there.

---

I think both parties have become too extreme. The blame is on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountainjenny

They would pick up more voters doing this. For most of the women I know Roe V. Wade is a single vote issue and as long as they feel republicans are going to try and overturn it or have over turning it as a secret agenda, they will not even consider voting for the party.

I can completely understand where they are coming from. I feel the same about gun rights. I don't trust the democrats on the issue of gun rights, not even the "pro-gun" democrats.

---

Agreed: Niether side has any trust of the other and we, as a country, are very divided. Nobody seems to be capable of listening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

No, anti-Socialists are their own worst enemies. With "friends" adopting Dem talking points like "no taxes for the rich" or "they say 'you're not one of us'" and citing individual idiots as if that was a party platform, why would the Dems need to do anything? Republicans haven't run as small as tent as you're claiming and got people claiming to be the base who refused to go because "John McCain/Mitt Romney isn't conservative enough". Republicans did more to put Hispanics in office than Dems, appointed more African-Americans to high office than Obama and still get morons claiming they're exclusionary.

People who repeat that garbage are as much a part of the problem as Obama, Pelosi or Reid -- hell, they're worse because they should know how bad the Dem agenda is but they still can't keep from taking pot shots because the Republican Party doesn't espouse all of their talking points. Some of you bitching about the direction the state or country has gone should look in the mirror, you'll find the reason for the decline there.

---

They should, but they won't. Many excellent points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound

I think both parties have become too extreme. The blame is on both sides.

---

I'd really like to see your explanation of this statement. I can see where the left has taken the democrat party to the extreme left (though most dems don't seem to see it that way). But, how exactly, has the republican party become too extreme? Most republicans I know think the republican party has moved to far towards the center and won't take a steadfast stance on traditionally conservative American ideals.

Right-wing extremism is usually associated with evangelical pandering, and I think they are in the minority. However the right-wing and left-wing extremism is different. Case in point: Jesus didn't arm guerrillas to fight the Romans. Yet guerrilla insurgency has become a core tenet of socialism.

The party needs to move back to the right to be successful. This middle of the road crap has been their doom. Tancredo more or less would take things right, which is what is needed. He would do well to maintain his stances but keep his faith to himself. He is also practical on the immigration issue, whereas other republicans have gone soft to pander the latino vote. They will never have the illegals "future votes" because they are not a party of free meal tickets. Tancredo realizes this and I'll take him over a Coors or Maes any day because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

The Reps need a fresh (no history), young (anti-establishment old white guys club), articulate (can state a position without referring to a bible verse), open minded face.. running the same old same old is going to end with the same result. I have yet to see who that person is.


Tell me I'm wrong and FLAME ON.. [beatdeadhorse]

---

Not that you are "wrong", just totally ignorant about how politics works, which is what got us to the terrible place we are. The "establishment" pays the bills...Young, articulate and open-minded...sounds like you are describing who the libs want to vote for...which will be a lib. People with principles, who know right from wrong and who will abide by the constitution and are NOT open minded nor anti-establishment. The majority of Americans don't want ANYONE to tell them what is right or wrong, unless they agree with it. That is the product of liberalism in our schools and courts. I see you are from Boulder, so maybe this concept of absolute right and wrong are foreign to you.

FWIW, if you look are core principles of the DNC and RNC platforms, the DNC has moved to the left more in the last 15 years than any party move in history while the RNC has moved slowly towards the middle. I get that some people hate Christians and want morality out of the RNC platform. However, I am not sure why a R candidate won't say something to the effect of...

"I will enforce the laws of the land through the appropriate Executive branch resources. The legislative branch creates laws and the judicial branch interprets those laws. I will work to lead the Nation (State) through the troubled waters created by those before me who have skewed the lines of the roles of government and increased the governments reach and power into our lives beyond what the constitution provided. My ultimate plan, to reduce the pressure on all citizens that government has created in the past 15 years..." That is it. Say it with conviction and honesty and that will be the WINNER!

All the "bad stuff" regardless of morality or political persuasion, decreases in times of prosperity and personal responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkCO

Not that you are "wrong", just totally ignorant about how politics works, which is what got us to the terrible place we are. The "establishment" pays the bills...Young, articulate and open-minded...sounds like you are describing who the libs want to vote for...which will be a lib. People with principles, who know right from wrong and who will abide by the constitution and are NOT open minded nor anti-establishment. The majority of Americans don't want ANYONE to tell them what is right or wrong, unless they agree with it. That is the product of liberalism in our schools and courts. I see you are from Boulder, so maybe this concept of absolute right and wrong are foreign to you.

.

---

Combine his location with the FIRST L&P thread 1 year before the elections, to attack a candidate without understanding why Tancredo did not get the Nod from the R's.Or why he ran ad a 3rd party candidate is why CO is in the political shitter today.

It seems [ to me] the newer members all have this "liberal / defeatist" attitude. Oh WOE is Me mentality.
Nor has the OP proposed R candidate that fits his ideologue. I'd like to know who the OP deems worthy for said position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkCO

"I will enforce the laws of the land through the appropriate Executive branch resources. The legislative branch creates laws and the judicial branch interprets those laws. I will work to lead the Nation (State) through the troubled waters created by those before me who have skewed the lines of the roles of government and increased the governments reach and power into our lives beyond what the constitution provided. My ultimate plan, to reduce the pressure on all citizens that government has created in the past 15 years..." That is it. Say it with conviction and honesty and that will be the WINNER!

All the "bad stuff" regardless of morality or political persuasion, decreases in times of prosperity and personal responsibility.

---

I agree that this would be a winner, but in modern politics you have to appeal to those willing to spend some coin on your campaign, and that means promises and all that to those financiers. The key is having a candidate that will know which ones to go with and which ones to turn down. I agree with Jim, so many people these days are ready to surrender before the battle even starts. We're still in the "I'm going to consider becoming a candidate" stage, not even close to the appeal to the masses parts. I honestly think this defeatist attitude is pretty cowardly. Almost along the lines of "They're eventually gonna win anyway, we might as well sell/lose/get rid of all our guns now and save a headache later." This time around could be completely different from last time, considering we've seen what Hick is capable of doing and people are pissed. You never know, there might be a huge backing for "anyone who runs against Hick"- if he even runs again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkCO

The "establishment" pays the bills...Young, articulate and open-minded...sounds like you are describing who the libs want to vote for...which will be a lib. People with principles, who know right from wrong and who will abide by the constitution and are NOT open minded nor anti-establishment. The majority of Americans don't want ANYONE to tell them what is right or wrong, unless they agree with it. That is the product of liberalism in our schools and courts. I see you are from Boulder, so maybe this concept of absolute right and wrong are foreign to you.

---

So you are saying that it is not possible for a republican to be young, articulate and open minded? Rand Paul doesn't fit this bill to you? OK, go ahead and push for Tancredo or vote for another old white guy, we will see where that gets you.

Have no idea what being from Boulder means or why it matters. Boulder has it's share of republicans and conservatives, just because I enjoy being close to the mountains rather than live in Brighton or Parker doesn't make me a liberal.

Rand Paul is anything but open minded! Jimmy Carter was probably the most open minded president we have ever had, and probably one of the worst. It is NOT possible for a solid conservative, nor a solid liberal, to be open minded. Children (and 42% of Americans) are open minded and thus impressionable, politicians running for elected office are anything but on both sides of the aisle.

Americans have increasingly voted for the image, the "Hollywood Factor" sans substance, and we are where it has gotten us. You just want to polish it to fit your image of where it should be, however you are still heading down the exact same path that brought us liberalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkCO

Rand Paul is anything but open minded! Jimmy Carter was probably the most open minded president we have ever had, and probably one of the worst. It is NOT possible for a solid conservative, nor a solid liberal, to be open minded. Children (and 42% of Americans) are open minded and thus impressionable, politicians running for elected office are anything but on both sides of the aisle.

Americans have increasingly voted for the image, the "Hollywood Factor" sans substance, and we are where it has gotten us. You just want to polish it to fit your image of where it should be, however you are still heading down the exact same path that brought us liberalism.

---

The OP's Tell. dead give away

vote for another old white guy,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkCO

Rand Paul is anything but open minded! Jimmy Carter was probably the most open minded president we have ever had, and probably one of the worst. It is NOT possible for a solid conservative, nor a solid liberal, to be open minded. Children (and 42% of Americans) are open minded and thus impressionable, politicians running for elected office are anything but on both sides of the aisle.

Americans have increasingly voted for the image, the "Hollywood Factor" sans substance, and we are where it has gotten us. You just want to polish it to fit your image of where it should be, however you are still heading down the exact same path that brought us liberalism.

---

Open minded in the political world does not mean open to orgys and pot dens. It means being able to come up with new political ideas that people simply can't say no to.

As for the "Hollywood Factor", it is what it is and apparently the republicans can't figure out how to play the game. The "Hollywood Factor" has always existed, hell people wanted to make George Washington King. Psychologically people are going to favor the good looking guy over the ugly guy when everything else is level and that relationship isn't going to change much even when you factor in positions. If you want to run an ugly guy you better have a platform that appeals heavily to at least 60% of the actual turn out voters if you want to go anywhere.

Tancrato got 45% of the vote and Maze got 10$ if he was running on the R ticket it would have been an easy win. I just want to hear what he's going to do about the gun laws that have been forced on us by our gun grabbing Governor? If its not a total repeal then he no better than Hickenlooper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Open minded in the political world does not mean open to orgys and pot dens. It means being able to come up with new political ideas that people simply can't say no to.

---

Only if you took the Bill Clinton course on English language obliteration. Then you stretch WAY beyond what I wrote. Open minded means no set conviction or opinion and willing to be influenced to arrive at an opinion or conclusion. Jurors are supposed to be open minded, leaders, NO WAY! You can't just change the meaning of a word or phrase because your post was ignorant of the actual definition. When you pass HS English, we can have a conversation. [fail]

def90, You're wrong.

Alright, you guys go right ahead and put all your time and money behind Tancredo and see where it gets us.. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOC

Tancrato got 45% of the vote and Maze got 10$ if he was running on the R ticket it would have been an easy win. I just want to hear what he's going to do about the gun laws that have been forced on us by our gun grabbing Governor? If its not a total repeal then he no better than Hickenlooper.

---

Not sure where you got your numbers.. Final results, Tancredo = 36.8%, Maes 11.1%, Chickenlooper 50.7% If you look at the polling results they had Tancredo at 43-44% running up to the election so he actually did worse in the actual election vs the polling results.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...redo-1677.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkCO

Only if you took the Bill Clinton course on English language obliteration. Then you stretch WAY beyond what I wrote. Open minded means no set conviction or opinion and willing to be influenced to arrive at an opinion or conclusion. Jurors are supposed to be open minded, leaders, NO WAY! You can't just change the meaning of a word or phrase because your post was ignorant of the actual definition. When you pass HS English, we can have a conversation. [fail]

---

You can if you're a liberal, they do it all the time.

def90, you're wrong.

Tom isn't the only guy to throw his hat the in the ring so we'll have other people to look at. I want someone who is willing to make the tough and unpopular decisions, someone who has courage in their convictions. An open-minded person isn't any of these things.

Hickenlooper is exactly what you def90 are looking for, a young, open-minded fop who refused to stand with the jury and judge in the Dunlap case. A coward who admits that the recent gun control legislation was stupid but put his own personal aspirations ahead of the citizens of this state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Not sure where you got your numbers.. Final results, Tancredo = 36.8%, Maes 11.1%, Chickenlooper 50.7% If you look at the polling results they had Tancredo at 43-44% running up to the election so he actually did worse in the actual election vs the polling results.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...redo-1677.html

---

That's the last numbers I heard before I tuned out completely.
Dickinpooper did do one thing right. He signed into law a revision of the Juvenile Expungement law that prevented all but the most privileged of people from sealing their records. But one right doesn't make up for 4 wrongs on the gun issue alone.
Go ahead and spread misinformation around if you want to. Liberals are the ones that are so naive as to believe something if it sounds good. Common sense be damned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Open minded in the political world does not mean open to orgys and pot dens. It means being able to come up with new political ideas that people simply can't say no to.

As for the "Hollywood Factor", it is what it is and apparently the republicans can't figure out how to play the game. The "Hollywood Factor" has always existed, hell people wanted to make George Washington King. Psychologically people are going to favor the good looking guy over the ugly guy when everything else is level and that relationship isn't going to change much even when you factor in positions. If you want to run an ugly guy you better have a platform that appeals heavily to at least 60% of the actual turn out voters if you want to go anywhere.

---

People wanted to make George Washington king because that was the only form of government they were familiar with. The idea of a 'representative republic' was new and foreign. Thankfully, GW and many others that were attempting to build this new government understood the hazards of following the same old path.

BTW, Tancredo voted YES on the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act, voted YES on Making the Patriot Act permanent, voted NO on government whistleblower protection, voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant, voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civilian oversight and voted YES on Federal drivers licenses/IDs.

Sounds like big brother control to me..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

Tom isn't the only guy to throw his hat the in the ring so we'll have other people to look at.

---

Yes, hopefully this time the Colorado old boys club including Coors will stay out of it, I would love to see a fresh face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Yes, hopefully this time the Colorado old boys club including Coors will stay out of it, I would love to see a fresh face.

---

I agree with you here, we don't need another old boys club member who thinks it is their "turn". Tom Tancredo is not a member of this club, the members of the old boys club HATE Tom.

The Coors family should stick to brewing "beer".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

The Coors family should stick to brewing "beer".

---

Why? They can't even do that right (which is why they sold it to the Canuks)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

Why? They can't even do that right (which is why they sold it to the Canuks)

---

But they sure can make some good ceramic........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

Why? They can't even do that right (which is why they sold it to the Canuks)

---

That's right, I forgot.

Tom T is a horrible candidate. His past voting clearly shows it. I'm not happy at all this guy is back into the mix. If I didn't know better, I would suspect he's working for Hickenlooper to fuck up another election.

The Republicans will nominate someone else and Tom T will throw another tantrum and run as an independent and we will still be in the same predicament we are in now. He needs to go away.