Club for Growth Endorses Coors

The Club for Growth today officially endorsed Pete Coors in the Colorado Senate race to replace BNH. An excerpt from the statement follows:

Pete Coors, Senate, Colorado

Yes, this is the former CEO of Coors Brewing Company. And, yes, we believe he is a strong pro-growth candidate in this crucial battleground Senate race. This election is to fill the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. We rate Pete as the third highest priority Senate candidate in the country because of his solid support for free markets, lower taxes, smaller government, and the closeness of the race.

In a Congress filled with too many career politicians and lawyers, Pete Coors would bring much-needed perspective from someone who has spent years in the private sector creating jobs, meeting a payroll, and delivering profits for investors.

You’re probably thinking, Pete’s rich, he doesn’t need my money to run a good campaign. But we live in a new world of campaign finance laws, including its new provision called the “millionaire’s amendment.” If Pete puts in more than $872,000 of his own money into the campaign, that would give his opponent huge loopholes around the campaign law’s contribution limits. And $872,000 won’t come close to paying for this expensive race.

Pete Coors and his whole family have been unwavering supporters of free market conservative causes for the past 25 years. Pete’s mother, Holly Coors, was one of the first founding members of the Club for Growth.

Our conference call with Pete a few weeks ago earned him rave reviews for his understanding of, and commitment to, the economic issues that the Club believes in.

While many Republican candidates know the economic theory, he has the experience of dealing with complicated tax laws and regulations and the stifling effects these burdens create on the free market system.

Pete favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent, creating Social Security personal accounts, tort reform, and controlling federal spending. In short, he is rock solid on all the key economic growth issues that will confront the next Congress.

The polls have this race very tight. The Democrats have nominated a popular Hispanic state attorney general, Ken Salazar, who is masquerading as a centrist. In reality, Salazar is a Kerry Democrat who wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, renew the death tax, and opposes tort reform. This is a classic good versus evil race.

Cross posted at ClayCalhoun.com

The Post Leans On the Table

The Post Leans on the Playing Table

Today the Denver Post ran an editorial giving the current state of the Senate race--at least, giving their view of it.

The first assessment reads like this:
Aside from the fact that both hail from old Colorado families, they provide quite the contrast. A moderate vs. a conservative. Pro-choice vs. pro-life. Prosecutor vs. businessman.
It goes on to introduce Salazar: Salazar, a popular attorney general, is a centrist politician ; and then to Coors: He's identified himself with GOP social conservatives, but seems to be most comfortable talking about economic growth, tax-cutting and building up the military.

I guess I don't mind the Post calling Coors a conservative; I'm not so sure the label "moderate" fits Salazar. To quote from his own website:

No one likes paying more taxes. But we must have a fairer tax policy that rewards work, not just wealth. We need to be realistic: we cannot fund a strong national defense, homeland security, continue the war and nation-building in Iraq, as well as address education, health care, infrastructure and other domestic needs, at the same time that we permanently and significantly reduce our revenue base.
In other words, I'll vote to raise taxes.

I believe the decision to have an abortion should be between a woman and her God. I will defend that Constitutional right. . . I do not support mandatory waiting periods, spousal consent, biased counseling requirements or other extreme limits on abortion rights Seems pretty moderate, eh? Somewhere between Justice Stevens and Tom Daschle (another good Catholic politician).

I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. I support expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation, . . . Well, that's clear as mud.

We need to re-gather our friends and allies to this essential international goal, a goal we all share. Our foreign policy is most effective when we act as the leader of a broad coalition of nations. Ah, yes, but first let's have some clarity about who our "friends" actually are.

In truth, on many issues Salazar makes a painful effort to strike the middle ground. However, the real questions are "would you vote to end the blockade on judicial nominations" and "would you vote to be proactive in the defense of the country, or do you support John Kerry in the position of 'striking decisively AFTER we get hit?"

It's hard to demonize Ken Salazar--he has a compelling personal story and credibly lays claim to some moderation. Certainly not to the degree that the Post intimates, however, and--more importantly--the effect of his winning would not be a moderating one on the Senate.

cross-posted at Best Destiny

Senate Polling Data

Salazar's campaign is touting the results of a poll showing him leading Coors 48-42. A Tarrance Group poll commissioned by the Coors camp had him trailing 47-43. The polls seem to be free of the Democratic oversampling we've seen so much of.

Nevertheless, both polls were taken before the Republican convention. Now the conventions focused on the Presidential nominees, and Coors's speech wasn't broadcast live. However, the Rasmussen tracking poll has shown a persistent bounce for the generic Republican Congressional candidate since the convention.

Clearly, this is still a very close race, but it's also almost certainly closer than the Salazar camp's email wants you to think.

Cross-Posted at View From a Height.

Coors ad makes bold turn

The Coors campaign has unveiled an intriguing ad and one that may strike the right posture as he scraps for every possible independent and undecided vote. According to today's Post, the commercial criticizes Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa for a $50 million pet indoor rain forest project.

Unlike one of Coors' friendly "flannel shirt" commercials or a traditional attack ad against his Democrat opponent, the Republican Senate candidate has decided to demonstrate his independent streak. Not a bad move for a political novice who is perceived as being in the Bush White House's pocket.

"Pete's going to Washington to represent Colorado," [spokeswoman Cinamon] Watson said. "He's simply saying that spending is out of control in Washington."

The Coors campaign is not only trying hard to show their candidate is his own man but also that he is a Washington outsider and a real reformer. These are real strengths they should continue to play up as they look for ways to define an already well-known candidate.

And despite the Post's efforts, Sen. Grassley understands the political and campaign processes enough not to be angry or offended at the Coors campaign. In the first few paragraphs, the article reads:

The problem: The Iowa rain forest is the pet project of Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.

Not only is Grassley a Republican, he chairs the Finance Committee, which Coors has said he wants to join if he's elected in November.

Later on we learn:

"Pete Coors didn't contact Sen. Grassley," said Jill Kozeny, Grassley's spokeswoman.

Kozeny said the senator wasn't offended by the Coors ad. She said Grassley backed the project because it would provide economic development and educational opportunities in Iowa.

The ad wouldn't affect Coors' committee assignment, Kozeny said, because Republicans assign them based on seniority. [Emphasis added]

But one legitimate question Coors should expect to face and be prepared to answer in upcoming weeks: will he be willing to stand up to the President on a budgetary spending issue?

Another question is raised in the Post article and include prospects for Coors' sponsored legislation, even in a Republican Senate. It's a quote from Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington non-profit watchdog group.

"If there are any Colorado-related tax bills, you can just say 'nada' for a couple of years."

No reaction from the Salazar campaign is quoted. Can we expect a similar ad showing that the Attorney General would be willing to stand up to Tom Daschle & Pat Leahy's filibustering tactics against Bush's judicial appointments? Stay tuned...

Cross posted at Mount Virtus.

Salazar & Colorado Springs & Miles

Ken Salazar opened his Colorado Springs office this weekend, and guess who showed up? Mike Miles. Finally. The Post presents this as a love-in, with the two "joining forces," and seems to take it all but for granted that any intra-party rivalry is over. At the bottom of the article, though, this:

On Saturday, Miles said the rivalry was behind him as he made his first public appearance with Salazar since the August primary, in which Salazar got 73 percent of the statewide vote and Miles got 23 percent.

"I have never been able to say anything bad about Ken," Miles said.

The two met privately about two weeks ago, and that is when Miles offered Salazar his support for the run against Republican brewery scion Pete Coors.

It took Miles two weeks to offer his support to Salazar, and then two more weeks to actually get around to making a public appearance with him. Even then, it had to be on Miles's home turf. Pardon me for thinking his heart really isn't in this.

In the meantime, the Post takes pains to present the Republicans as still divided, and Coors as being unsuccessful in bringing the party together. This despite the post-primary visit by Sen. George Allen, who never once licked his thumb the entire time. Schaffer immediately and graciously endorsed Coors, has seemingly withheld nothing, and went on a "Unity Tour," dismissed by the Post.

In fact, the Post seems to go out of its way to interpret optimistic comments by State Treasurer Mike Coffman as pessimistic:

Treasurer Mike Coffman, a Schaffer supporter now backing Coors, said a conservative defection could be damaging for Coors.

"If you didn't bring your grass roots together, your support is fractured," Coffman said. "If it's fractured, they stay home."

But Coffman said Coors has repaired the schism. He contrasted the Republicans' efforts with crowing from Democratic moderates after Salazar beat the more liberal Mike Miles.

"The unity tour wasn't for the average voter, it was for the grass roots," he said. "During the primary, I would have expressed some doubt about whether we can come together. But it's really coming together."

"A conservative defection could have been damaging for Coors," is closer to what Coffman actually said. The article goes on to bury recent praise for Coors from a number of prominent social conservatives.

There are two reasons why Coors needs to be more mindful of former primary opponents: their numbers are larger, and the primary was more bitter. But the dynamics of the race probably turn in Coors's favor. He's more comfortable running as a conservative than Salazar is as a liberal. Coincidentally, this positioning is also more likely to be popular statewide.

Salazar was also always seen as a much stronger candidate than Miles. Coors needed to convince people he could do well in the fall. As a result, pragmatic Miles supporters were probably more likely to defect than Schaffer supporters in the primary. Coors's large margin of victory came not from traditional Republican prmary voters, but from traditional Republican general election voters. Which means that the remaining Schaffer voters include more pragmatists than the remaining Miles voters. These voters will support Coors more easily.

Finally, as an aside, Salazar is going to host former Senator Max Cleland in the Springs on Thursday. Cleland is probably intended to appeal to the large active military and veteran population is the Springs area, but this is unlikely to work.

With no history in the state, Cleland further ties the Salazar campaign to the national Kerry-Edwards ticket on an issue where they can't win: national security and terrorism. Veterans are strongly behind Bush, and strongly doubt Kerry's credentials on this issue.

Given Cleland's increasingly shrill and off-balance attacks on the administration, it's possible his target audience is the Miles liberals. In that case, they'd be better off showcasing him in Boulder, where the market for that sort of talk is much larger, and he'd be less likely to remind veterans of why they don't like the national Democratic ticket in the first place.

Cross-Posted at View From a Height.