This post from Crista Huff at http://therighthuff.blogspot.com:
We recently had a little political hullabaloo in Colorado as the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) purportedly planned to endorse former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton for U.S. Senate. Coloradans were up in arms that such an endorsement might take place. Candidates were reassessing their abilities to raise campaign funds in light of such an endorsement. And all the tea party-types who are newer to the political process–albeit wholeheartedly engaged–were stunned that an out-of-state entity could sway our U.S. Senate race.
The tumult has died down, only to be replaced by the irritating good intentions of none other than Hugh Hewitt, radio conservative extraordinaire. I am a fan of Hugh, and Hugh is a fan of Colorado. I have worked tirelessly against HR 3200 and Cap and Trade, with great encouragement from Hugh. I disagree with Hugh on the FairTax and on the birth certificate. I love his radio guests, and am willing to forgive almost anything when he airs Mark Steyn or Andrew Breitbart.
So what’s the beef? Hugh Hewitt has correctly assessed that Colorado Republicans have a solid opportunity to take back the Governor’s seat, a U.S. Senate seat, and at least one Congressional seat (CD4) in November 2010. He talks about Colorado legislative races frequently. But he’s backing the wrong candidates!
Okay, that’s not polite. I don’t have much of a beef with Hugh’s recommendations of Scott McInnis for Governor, Jane Norton for U.S. Senate, nor Tom Lucero for CD4, except for this one little detail: 95% of the conservative voters with whom I interact are planning to vote for the other key Republican candidates in those races, primarily Josh Penry for Governor, Ken Buck or Ryan Frazier for U.S. Senate, and hands down Cory Gardner for CD4. Is it possible that McInnis, Norton and Lucero have a big fan base somewhere in Colorado which I’m not privy to? Absolutely. But the point is that we want to work this out ourselves, without national interference, from the NRSC, from Hugh Hewitt, or from any well-known person or entity.
The net effect of Hugh’s candidate recommendations could be that McInnis, Norton or Lucero receive nationwide contributions to the chagrin of all the Colorado activists who are currently working diligently for their opponents. We in Colorado would really like to slug this out in-state, without nationwide interference, as good as those intentions are. We’re not bumpkins here. We understand the opportunity before us, and we’re getting the voters engaged and prepared for 2010. Are you aware that we had 10,000 people at the Tea Party at the Denver Capitol on April 15?! And that we had Tea Parties in at least 17 Colorado cities and towns that day?! Believe me, we’re on a roll in Colorado.
Take action! Please use your social networking cites, e.g. Facebook and Twitter, to talk about Hugh Hewitt’s interference in the Colorado 2010 Legislative Races. Use the Twitter hashtag #hhrs to protest Hugh’s involvement during the radio show, when you’re most likely to have Hewitt fans read your concerns. (Hugh Hewitt’s radio show airs 4 – 7 PM MST.) Be polite. Hugh is a great asset to the conservative team. But we’d sure love it if he’d back away from the Colorado legislative races and just mention them casually as he might any other state’s politics.
Thank you for listening. Again, I honor all the candidates, although I obviously have my preferences. We are really enjoying the political landscape in Colorado this year, and would be thrilled to continue to participate and watch it play out without Hugh’s assistance. God Bless Hugh Hewitt and God Bless America!