The Douglas County Republicans (here in Colorado) held their organizational meeting last night, where officer elections were conducted.
There was a three way race for Chairman. Kelsey Alexander, incumbent, faced challenges by Jeff Wasden (Highlands Ranch HOA President and two time candidate for county commissioner), and John Ransom (County Party Activist). The first round of balloting resulted in a required run-off between Jeff Wasden and John Ransom, both scoring about 75 votes. Kelsey Alexander was dropped from the ticket, having pulled in only 58 votes in the first round. John Ransom was elected as Chairman, pulling in 110 votes to Jeff Wasden's 87.
There was a two way race for Vice Chairman. The incumbent was not running for re-election. Two challengers, Merlin Klotz and Mark Baisley faced off. Mark Baisley was elected as the Vice Chairman of the Party after being endorsed by John Ransom. Mark is an extremely involved party activist.
The race for Treasurer saw no incumbent, and the challenger was unopposed. John Fielding was elected by acclamation. John is an attorney, and a party activist.
The race for Secretary was between incumbent Steven Nielson and challenger Marsha Heilflien. Marsha is a retired legal secretary for the Colorado 18th Judicial District, and was endorsed by Kelsey Alexander, John Ransom, and others from the 18th Judicial. Incumbent Steven Nielson was re-elected to the post of Secretary, 104 - 82.
For my second term as Secretary of the Douglas County Republican Party, it is my goal to work in expanding the free media available in order to open a dialogue with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats - informing them of our party principles and taking input as to their wants and needs from the Party as a more representative body.
It was a late night - the meeting adjourned at 12:30 AM. The New Officers of the Party now have the reigns. Let's look forward, capture the momentum, and look toward our role in the state wide elections of 2010.
Showing posts with label douglas county. Show all posts
Showing posts with label douglas county. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
CO - CD6: Where were the votes?
With 100% of precincts reporting in Douglas County, the results of CD-6 are clear - voters did not turn out! Douglas County is home to about 61,000 registered Republican voters - all of whom should have been well informed that August 12th was an election day (else we in the county party are not doing our job). Yet the results of Douglas County, shown on the County Clerk and Recorder's website, indicates that the actual voter turnout was closer to 25,000 Republicans. That is an embarrassing 40% voter turnout by Republicans in my county.
It would not be so embarrassing, considering that usual voter turnout county wide is no more than 22,000 (R and D), if voters better understood that in this area Republican Primary races are the general election. What is even worse is that 53,000 mail-in ballots were sent out, and total voter turnout in the county was under 35,000. Assuming all votes were mail-in, there is a 20,000 vote gap in Douglas County. I voted in a booth yesterday morning, so we can most likely assume that a majority of mail-in ballots (paid for by taxpayer dollars) ended up untouched on the kitchen counter, or worse, in the trash.
What is the source of complacency in American Voting? Now that Americans have the right to vote, why do 60-70% of us choose not to vote? Is there a sense of non-urgency that surrounds primary elections?
This also begs a few more questions:
1. Do we want everyone voting?
2. What is the deal with the Assembly Candidates?
To answer the first question, I simply state thusly: Ideals do not win elections, votes do. This means that he who gets the votes gets the victory. So it is up to the candidates to inspire voters to the polls - be it by leadership, vision, or even promises of handing out money from the treasury of private individuals and corporations (via windfall profit taxes). It is the responsibility of the voter to educate themselves, so they are making educated decisions at the voting booth (or on the absentee ballot). So though everyone should be voting, perhaps it is better that those uninformed are not taking part in these freedoms. However, this brings me back to the complacency argument - what drives 60-70% of the US to not care enough to arm themselves with education and use their knowledge to vote?
Secondly, I had discussed this in July - whether or not the Colorado Assembly process was worth the investment. In CD-6, two candidates petitioned onto the primary ballot, while three went through the assembly process (one did not make the 10% required to petition on to the Primary ballot from the Assembly). The two assembly candidates, Ted Harvey and Steve Ward, put in a large amount of effort with the delegates, whipping up a lot of support during the assembly time frame - but neither inspired beyond the assembly - leaving the CD6 seat, yet again, taken by a petition candidate (Tancredo was also a petition candidate). The county party invests a large amount of money into the assembly process to nominate a candidate that the party leadership (including delegates and district/precinct captains) should rally behind... however, there is a trend that the CD6 assembly is not in tune with the CD6 voters.
Should the county partys consider refusing to fund the assembly, in favor of an all petition primary for higher level offices? Absolutely - especially if this is a trend that is going to continue.
I digress. The point at hand is that the primary election has come and gone, our party nominees have been selected, and it is now our goal to turn out the Republican vote on November 4th... and turn out the Democratic vote on November 5th :)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Letter From, and Response to Disgruntled Republican
I received a series of e-mails yesterday from a group of three angry Republicans, charging that the GOP is openly endorsing a theocracy in the United States by supporting issues that are championed by the "religious right" (however you would define that demographic). I decided that I wanted to share the complaint and response here in an attempt to spark some dialogue.
*******************
Letter reads:
Dear Colorado and Douglas County Republican Party leaders:
The Republican Party must promote the strict separation of church and
state. I used to support the Republican Party because I am a firm
believer in individual rights, free markets, a strong national
defense, and the right to keep and bear arms.
However, the Republican Party alliance with the religious right on
"social issues" such as stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage
has turned off many former supporters such as myself.
Americans have a right to practice their religion as a purely private
matter, and I defend everyone's right to do so. But religion should
not be used to make public policy. The proper function of government
is to protect individual rights, not force one group's religious views
on everyone else.
I am glad that state Chairman Dick Wadhams refused to let Colorado
Right to Life set up a table at the state convention, as reported in
the June 18, 2008 Denver Post.
"Abortion foes blast Colo. GOP leader"
This is a small step in the right direction. But the Party must go
much, much farther and promote the strict separation of church and
state as Thomas Jefferson correctly envisioned. As long as the
Republican Party is in bed with the religious right, then I can not
support it. Hence, at present I no longer have a home in any political
party. To paraphrase a quote from President Ronald Reagan, "I didn't
leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me."
I know many voters who feel the same way. Given that Colorado is a
"purple" swing state, this is not a good sign for the Republican
Party.
(This should not be taken as any kind of endorsement of Barack Obama -
I find his policies loathsome and anti-American.)
Thank you for your consideration,
DR. XXXXXXXXXX
P.S.: Please also forward this to Mr. Dick Wadhams and Ms. Perry Buck.
*******
My Response:
Dear Dr. XXXXX -
Please let me begin by thanking you very much for your correspondence. Your act
of writing is a step toward progress in our political system. Let me assure you
that I hear your complaint loud and clear, and though I agree with your
underlying complaint, I disagree with the premise of your argument. Please
allow me to elaborate.
You seem to suggest that the opposition to stem-cell research and abortion
places the GOP “in bed” with the religious right. Why this may appear to be the
truth, there is an underlying connection that you are failing to acknowledge.
The Republican Party upholds the founding principles of Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness, as the founding fathers specifically cited as rights
Endowed by the Creator (Nature’s God, to be exact). These are rights not given,
but endowed – bestowed upon every human to protect. The idea of the endowment
of Life is not new and not owned exclusively by the religious right. In the
spirit of following the intent of the founders, and embracing their
understanding of basic human rights, the Republican Party must uphold the Right
of Life.
Inasmuch, the question is begged: When does life begin? Therein lies the
debate.
In accordance with the 14th amendment, the rights of the founding documents are
applicable to those “born” in the United States. That word would seem to
indicate that a fetus of any gestational age is therefore without rights. This
is the basis of the Roe decision in the Supreme Court. However, as a doctor,
you should well understand that a fetus is very much alive and responsive to
their environment from a fairly early gestational age, regardless of their
ability to survive independent of their mother at the time. With the complexity
of life in gestation, it serves humanity to better define Life – not limiting
life to begin merely at birth. Therefore we are in support of the Right of
Life, as we consider life to exist during gestation.
Barack Obama has shown in his political career that he shows almost no
compassion for life in the womb, supporting late term abortion and referring to
children as a punishment. Having lost our first pregnancy, my wife and I are
happy to have recently delivered our first child – rest assured we do not feel
punished. My brother and his wife also recently gave birth to their first
child, who has been diagnosed with Propionic Acidemia – and rest assured, they
do not value his life any less, nor feel punished. I would assume that Mr.
Obama would consider such a child a burden on society and the parents – most
likely he would suggest such a fetus be discarded. But is it not the challenge
of life that should cause us to persevere… perhaps this young child holds the
key to medical research that could aid in curing this and other genetic defects.
Where Obama sees punishment and burden, I choose to see opportunity. This is a
fundamental difference between me and the Senator – and I would imagine that
this is a similar difference between the Senator and a majority of Republicans
who continue to fight, not because it is easy, rather because it is right.
The Republican Party does not openly nor privately advocate for any one
religion, but we are advocates against the absence of faith from the lives of
Americans. We are not a Christian organization, merely an organization that
supports and endorses the existence of faith as a basis of morality – not in
government, but in the lives and hearts of the individual, at their own request
and choosing. I personally could never be part of an organization that openly
endorsed a state religion (such as the Constitution Party which openly supports
naming Christianity as the official religion of the US). Furthermore, you will
notice that the ranks of the GOP are filled with many people of faith, from many
different religions. We support them all.
I do, however, tend to agree with you regarding the stance of the party
regarding marriage. In fact, I would suggest that marriages not be recognized
by the state whatsoever, other than for recording purposes (i.e. no tax
incentive for marriage or children). Marriage is a religious right, and the
early recognition by the states violated the intent of religious separation from
government. This directly resulted in the decreased view of marriage as a
sacred bond, and more of a contractual agreement between two people. But again,
this is a view that is widely debated – and we in the Republican Party openly
promote the debate.
It is a shame to lose grassroots activists, such as yourself, who are willing to
engage in meaningful and rational dialogue. I would like to remind you that the
members of the party have beliefs that vary in range and subject, and we turn no
member away. All that we ask is that you advocate for smaller government, lower
taxes, and hold a firm belief in the core principles. If you do, then there is
a home for you in the Republican Party.
I also should remind you that the expedient thing to do is to leave the party.
You will feel like you have accomplished something by protesting. However, you
have then given up your right to vote within the party, effectively surrendering
your right to advocate for change within the party. Though it is the more
difficult of the two paths, I propose that you re-join the party, and be a voice
for change from within the ranks. Doing so will allow you to help elect
representatives within the party as well as candidates for the ballot that give
you a voice.
Again, I thank you for your correspondence, and applaud your willingness to
share your discontent with the party as you perceive it. Rest assured, we are
listening, and are always willing to discuss the issues.
I hope that you appreciate the clarification of the issues you announced, and
that you strongly reconsider your actions regarding leaving the party.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Steven M Nielson
Secretary, Douglas County Republican Party
************************************
What else is there to say to disgruntled Republicans who echo the Democratic Party talking points? I suppose this is bound to happen from time to time, which is why it is ever more important that the activists within the party step up their campaign to counter the everyday attacks of the left, and stop this campaign of misinformation aimed at weakening our political movement.
*******************
Letter reads:
Dear Colorado and Douglas County Republican Party leaders:
The Republican Party must promote the strict separation of church and
state. I used to support the Republican Party because I am a firm
believer in individual rights, free markets, a strong national
defense, and the right to keep and bear arms.
However, the Republican Party alliance with the religious right on
"social issues" such as stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage
has turned off many former supporters such as myself.
Americans have a right to practice their religion as a purely private
matter, and I defend everyone's right to do so. But religion should
not be used to make public policy. The proper function of government
is to protect individual rights, not force one group's religious views
on everyone else.
I am glad that state Chairman Dick Wadhams refused to let Colorado
Right to Life set up a table at the state convention, as reported in
the June 18, 2008 Denver Post.
"Abortion foes blast Colo. GOP leader"
This is a small step in the right direction. But the Party must go
much, much farther and promote the strict separation of church and
state as Thomas Jefferson correctly envisioned. As long as the
Republican Party is in bed with the religious right, then I can not
support it. Hence, at present I no longer have a home in any political
party. To paraphrase a quote from President Ronald Reagan, "I didn't
leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me."
I know many voters who feel the same way. Given that Colorado is a
"purple" swing state, this is not a good sign for the Republican
Party.
(This should not be taken as any kind of endorsement of Barack Obama -
I find his policies loathsome and anti-American.)
Thank you for your consideration,
DR. XXXXXXXXXX
P.S.: Please also forward this to Mr. Dick Wadhams and Ms. Perry Buck.
*******
My Response:
Dear Dr. XXXXX -
Please let me begin by thanking you very much for your correspondence. Your act
of writing is a step toward progress in our political system. Let me assure you
that I hear your complaint loud and clear, and though I agree with your
underlying complaint, I disagree with the premise of your argument. Please
allow me to elaborate.
You seem to suggest that the opposition to stem-cell research and abortion
places the GOP “in bed” with the religious right. Why this may appear to be the
truth, there is an underlying connection that you are failing to acknowledge.
The Republican Party upholds the founding principles of Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness, as the founding fathers specifically cited as rights
Endowed by the Creator (Nature’s God, to be exact). These are rights not given,
but endowed – bestowed upon every human to protect. The idea of the endowment
of Life is not new and not owned exclusively by the religious right. In the
spirit of following the intent of the founders, and embracing their
understanding of basic human rights, the Republican Party must uphold the Right
of Life.
Inasmuch, the question is begged: When does life begin? Therein lies the
debate.
In accordance with the 14th amendment, the rights of the founding documents are
applicable to those “born” in the United States. That word would seem to
indicate that a fetus of any gestational age is therefore without rights. This
is the basis of the Roe decision in the Supreme Court. However, as a doctor,
you should well understand that a fetus is very much alive and responsive to
their environment from a fairly early gestational age, regardless of their
ability to survive independent of their mother at the time. With the complexity
of life in gestation, it serves humanity to better define Life – not limiting
life to begin merely at birth. Therefore we are in support of the Right of
Life, as we consider life to exist during gestation.
Barack Obama has shown in his political career that he shows almost no
compassion for life in the womb, supporting late term abortion and referring to
children as a punishment. Having lost our first pregnancy, my wife and I are
happy to have recently delivered our first child – rest assured we do not feel
punished. My brother and his wife also recently gave birth to their first
child, who has been diagnosed with Propionic Acidemia – and rest assured, they
do not value his life any less, nor feel punished. I would assume that Mr.
Obama would consider such a child a burden on society and the parents – most
likely he would suggest such a fetus be discarded. But is it not the challenge
of life that should cause us to persevere… perhaps this young child holds the
key to medical research that could aid in curing this and other genetic defects.
Where Obama sees punishment and burden, I choose to see opportunity. This is a
fundamental difference between me and the Senator – and I would imagine that
this is a similar difference between the Senator and a majority of Republicans
who continue to fight, not because it is easy, rather because it is right.
The Republican Party does not openly nor privately advocate for any one
religion, but we are advocates against the absence of faith from the lives of
Americans. We are not a Christian organization, merely an organization that
supports and endorses the existence of faith as a basis of morality – not in
government, but in the lives and hearts of the individual, at their own request
and choosing. I personally could never be part of an organization that openly
endorsed a state religion (such as the Constitution Party which openly supports
naming Christianity as the official religion of the US). Furthermore, you will
notice that the ranks of the GOP are filled with many people of faith, from many
different religions. We support them all.
I do, however, tend to agree with you regarding the stance of the party
regarding marriage. In fact, I would suggest that marriages not be recognized
by the state whatsoever, other than for recording purposes (i.e. no tax
incentive for marriage or children). Marriage is a religious right, and the
early recognition by the states violated the intent of religious separation from
government. This directly resulted in the decreased view of marriage as a
sacred bond, and more of a contractual agreement between two people. But again,
this is a view that is widely debated – and we in the Republican Party openly
promote the debate.
It is a shame to lose grassroots activists, such as yourself, who are willing to
engage in meaningful and rational dialogue. I would like to remind you that the
members of the party have beliefs that vary in range and subject, and we turn no
member away. All that we ask is that you advocate for smaller government, lower
taxes, and hold a firm belief in the core principles. If you do, then there is
a home for you in the Republican Party.
I also should remind you that the expedient thing to do is to leave the party.
You will feel like you have accomplished something by protesting. However, you
have then given up your right to vote within the party, effectively surrendering
your right to advocate for change within the party. Though it is the more
difficult of the two paths, I propose that you re-join the party, and be a voice
for change from within the ranks. Doing so will allow you to help elect
representatives within the party as well as candidates for the ballot that give
you a voice.
Again, I thank you for your correspondence, and applaud your willingness to
share your discontent with the party as you perceive it. Rest assured, we are
listening, and are always willing to discuss the issues.
I hope that you appreciate the clarification of the issues you announced, and
that you strongly reconsider your actions regarding leaving the party.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Steven M Nielson
Secretary, Douglas County Republican Party
************************************
What else is there to say to disgruntled Republicans who echo the Democratic Party talking points? I suppose this is bound to happen from time to time, which is why it is ever more important that the activists within the party step up their campaign to counter the everyday attacks of the left, and stop this campaign of misinformation aimed at weakening our political movement.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Local Politics - Colorado 4th Senate District Shake-Up!
In a press release delivered to my inbox this morning, from the office of Colorado State Senator for the 4th District, Tom Wiens indicated that he would not seek re-election to his senate seat for the state.This announcement comes less than a month before the 4th Senate Assembly, and provides little to no time for candidates to announce and prepare for the assembly... and opens the southwestern portion of Douglas County to a potential (though not likely) loss of seat. Lucky for conservatives, Wiens' district is a relatively safe seat for Republicans... but any time you have an election there is a chance of an upset... especially in what will serve to be a very high turn out (as Presidential election years usually are... but this one has some special attention.)
A call to Tom Wiens went to voicemail, where I offered my regrets in his decision not to run, and asked that he call me back to discuss more in detail as to why he came to this decision.
Off the top of my head I can think of a few great choices from Douglas County to replace him. I will mention a few of them, though this does not necessarily mean an endorsement for any of them.
First would be Douglas County GOP Chair, Kelsey Alexander. Kelsey's a very active member in the conservative community, has an excellent background in forestry (in a time when we may be facing the worst forest crisis in Colorado's history due to eco-loons and pine beetles). Kelsey would make a great addition to the State Senate, and would find much support in her campaign.
Secondly, I would recommend Roger Partridge. Roger is an active member of the Douglas County Planning Commission Board, and has been a staple in County District 7 as a Republican Leader. Roger's professionalism and personality would make him an exceptional candidate, very likable.
Finally, John Beckwith would find a multitude of support for such a run! John has been a GOP District Captain in Douglas County, and has been a prominent voice for change. John is a stand-out figure in the county, and has a plethora of ideas that could invoke change at the capitol!
All three candidates would be top-notch senators, and would be very easy to support in a primary as well as a general election! Excellent Conservative Leaders, all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)