Friday, October 22, 2010

Senator Schultheis Pulls Endorsement for Dan Maes

Today, I am removing my endorsement of Dan Maes for Governor of Colorado.  This has been the most difficult decision I have made during my 10 years in the legislature.  After interviewing Dan last November over three separate occasions totaling over eight hours, I made the decision to endorse him, believing that he was the most conservative candidate running.  Eight hours is a long time to interview a single candidate, but I believed that was necessary in order for me to endorse a candidate for such an important position.

After winning the party’s nomination, it was extremely troubling to see the Colorado’s Republican Party virtually refuse to assist him in important areas, such as campaign organization, campaign finance rules and in acquiring proper campaign financing.  It is totally understandable, in my view that party’s nominee would and should hold firm to that nomination and expect cooperation and full support from not only Republican officials throughout the state, but also Republicans voters.  Had Dan Maes had such support, I believe he would have won handily over Denver Mayor, John Hickenlooper.  Unfortunately that was not the case; rather the reverse was true.

It has been my goal to be a consistently-strong and principled conservative Republican because I truly believe that the Republican Principles, if followed by all those who alien themselves with the Republican Party are the best in the long-term for Colorado and for America.  Far too many “Republican” legislators over the years lost focus on those principles and voted to allow damaging, progressive bills to pass.   During my tenure, I have worked hard to set an example of how one can hold fast to the fiscal and moral principles as found in the Party’s platform and still remain standing.

While I still believe that Dan Maes would stand tall for all those principles Republicans hold dear, it is evident that as a result of the negative campaigning and negative talk-radio bashing of this man., his poll numbers have slid to the point where the race is now only between Tancredo and Hickenlooper.  Just this week, the largest TeaParty group in Colorado endorsed Tancredo, further reducing Maes’ base support and adding further justification to the withdrawal of my support for Dan Maes. 

Much is at stake in this election, including the appointment of Supreme Court justices who will honor the law, decennial redistricting of State legislative boundaries, stopping the union takeover of state jobs, reducing the serious and negative effect of illegal immigration, the potential of modifying state statutes to allow the Republican Party to regain its majority status should it get less than 10% of the total gubernatorial votes, and much, much more.  Furthermore, should Hickenlooper win, Colorado will become a far more progressive state than it has already become over the past decade.  That must not be allowed that to happen.

I realize that by removing my endorsement from Dan Maes that I am also disappointing many strong conservative supporters who have applauded me for standing not just for Dan, but for the election process which I hold dear.  Those who have worked so diligently for the conservative cause under the Republican banner will have the most trouble with my decision, as  I have always advocated that the process must be honored because in the long-run, lack of adhering to process causes confusion, lack of commitment and frustration.  Unfortunately, that process has been trashed in this election cycle.  That saddens me greatly.

That said…the choice is now between Hickenlooper and Tancredo.  Hickenlooper must be defeated.  Therefore, I will be voting for Tom Tancredo as Colorado’s next Governor.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

My November 2010 voting recommendations with respect to Colorado's ballot issues

State Legislature-Referred Constitutional Amendments (“Referendums”)
Yes on Amendment P:   Moves Regulation of Bingo and Raffle Games of Chance from the Secretary of State to the Department of Revenue, which currently regulates most gambling activities.
Yes on Amendment Q:  Establishes a process for moving the seat of state government to a temporary location during a declared disaster emergency.
Yes on Amendment R:   Eliminates property taxes for individuals or businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.
Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments (“Initiatives”)
Yes on Amendment 60: Phases in a reduction of Property Taxes paid by individuals and businesses by 50% over a ten-year period.
Yes on Amendment 61: Places common-sense restrictions on Government borrowing.
Yes on Amendment 62: Acknowledges the inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
Yes on Amendment 63: Adds healthcare choice as a right listed in the bill of rights in the Colorado Constitution.

Citizen-Initiated Statutory Propositions (These amend the state laws and NOT the CO Constitution)
Yes on Prop 101:  Reduces state income tax gradually over time from 4.63% to 3.5%.  Reduces or eliminates taxes and fees on vehicle purchases, registration, leases, and rentals over four years.  Eliminates all state and local taxes and fees on telecommunication services, except 911 fees.  Requires voter approval to create or increase fees on vehicles and telecommunication services.
NO on Prop 102: Prohibits the release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to supervision by a pretrial services program unless that defendant is arrested for his or her first offense that is also a nonviolent misdemeanor. 

County Questions
Yes on 1A:  Ends the sale of marijuana while keeping intact the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers.
No on 1B:  Allows the D.A. to run for a third four-year term.
No on 1C:  Allows County Commissioners to run for a third term.
No on 1D:  Allows the County Treasurer, Clerk, Surveyor and Assessor to run for a third term.

City of Colorado Springs Questions
No on 2B:  Colorado Springs received $600,000 from taxpayers over and above its TABOR limit.  The City is requesting taxpayers to allow it to keep these funds for allocation to “high priority” road and bridge repairs.
Yes on 2C:   Al1ocates 15% of tax revenue raised for trails and open space (TOPS) for park maintenance for two years.
No on 300:  Passage may lead Colorado Springs to an autocratic system.  The most conservative city council member, Darryl Glenn is strongly opposed.