« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)

Note from Erick: Make this your must read of the day.

I recently finished an early copy of a book called The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). It is a fascinating read about what took place in Colorado over the course of about 5 years, and how a group of very wealthy progressives changed the entire political landscape of Colorado by thinking outside the box.

Let me explain. The 2006 and 2008 election cycles were unkind to the Republican Party, but what happened in Colorado was something altogether different and totally new.  A group of four mega-donors decided to ignore the state Democratic establishment and start from scratch with a brand new, privatized political infrastructure.  Of course they were aided by the new campaign finance reform laws, but what the “Gang of Four” (Rutt Bridges, Tim Gill, Jared Polis and Pat Stryker) did was replicate all of the essential functions of the Colorado Democratic Party–and added a few more for good measure.

From policy generation to leadership recruiting, coalition building to grassroots activation, the Gang of Four personally funded dozens of 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) and 527 organizations that worked in perfect harmony to take down the Republican establishment and install left-leaning policymakers in its place.

To understand what happened in Colorado is to understand the future of state-level politics, but I think the future of American politics as a whole: I’m convinced that what the Left did in Colorado at the state-level can be done on a national level by creating a conservative privatized political infrastructure.  And it’s clear the Left is intent on doing that very thing on their side: the left is effectively exporting the “Colorado Model” to other states and then “stitching” together these local organizations, so really the Colorado narrative is also the story of how national politics is changing as well.

If you’ve been following the discussion of the “Colorado Model,” with Fred Barnes writing a superb article on it in 2008, then you’re probably familiar with the general ideas of what happened in Colorado. But the great thing about The Blueprint is the depth that it goes into. The book is authored by former Republican Colorado state legislator Rob Witwer, and a Denver-based political journalist, Adam Schrager, and because of their work, we now have a detailed look into the inner workings of the Left’s new political infrastructure.

My only disappointment with the book was the title. I really wish it had been titled “The Blueprint: How the Left Won Colorado (and Why Conservatives Everywhere Should Care),” because I think that is a more precise description of what happened. The Democrat Party didn’t win Colorado: the progressive left did. They simply used the Democrat Party as a vehicle by which to achieve their political ends. The reason conservatives should care is two-fold: they aren’t facing the Democrat Party of old. They are facing a very aggressive and well-organized Left that is intent on implementing statism in this country, starting from the state and local level and building to the federal. But the other reason is that conservatives can do, and should do, exactly what the Left did in Colorado: create privatized political infrastructure, and then use the party, or parties, as the vehicles to achieve their political ends.

I rarely promote books, but I really mean this when I say that every conservative should read “The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). It is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how the Left has built its machine. So go get your copy, read it, and see how you can work towards implementing it in your own state on behalf of freedom.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    The money left Colorado after 2008. While they could certainly do it again in other states, the amount of money they dumped here isn’t sustainable long-term. One example is Media Matters (doesn’t), who left Colorado and went national. They’re a pretty insignificant group now, especially in the current political climate.

    • http://itsonlywords55.wordpress.com itsonlywords

      Is Colorado going to swing back red? Is it repeatable (in Colorado) if not sustainable?

    • http://www.nedryun.com nedryun

      The left donors have dropped in well over $100 million into other states to do the same thing. And you’re dealing with people like Pat Stryker, who’s worth over a billion. These people have money and are putting their money where their mouths are.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        It isn’t. Sure, the Republicans are behind the Deomcrats in fundraising in almost every race, but this time it isn’t just going to be about money. People are much more informed now, thanks to a lot of local grassroots efforts.

        If the Democrats maintain their advantage here, it’ll be because of changes to election laws, not because they dump a bunch of money here.

        • Joliphant

          I mean gain control of the machinery of government by hook or by crook, and then lock it down so it no longer functions properly.

          And an important Diary I just recommended it.

  • johnt

    Face it, without a media to create an image of a normal person, intelligent, capable & moderate, instead of the human garbage that exists, the Colorado four, or any other group of people who make money but are ignorant of principles, would not have the success they had.
    Put this way, how many silk purses can you make out of an infinity of pig’s ears?

  • Pingback: Why Colorado Gun-Control Bills will Make the State More Dangerous « 2Nd Amendment « reagangirl.com

  • Pingback: So Colorado Is Next? - Page 2

  • renny

    questions to get the process seeded and started?

    I have read both that Reps. are leading Dems. in money and the reverse, so I don’t know what party is ahead.

    The truth is the tea parties or whoever on the grassroots level has to influence the Reps. to nominate and fund conservatives and not good ole boys who’ve hung out at campaign headquarters for 1/2 a century and are “owed:” or the country club guy who can afford to buy a few posters to run his own campaign.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    The Left has been doing this for generations. The only difference is that now conservatives are noticing. The Democratic Party of old hasn’t had real influence since the early Sixties.

    To the liberal, the Democratic party is a means to an end. It is a shell, an apparatus, not an identity. Conservatives tie their identity to party politics. It too often becomes an end unto itself. Liberals have always been the engine, manipualting the party structure and the political process. Conservatives cannot even differentiate a conservative from a Republican. Conservatives are too intertwined with the poltical party appartus.

    I’d also take it a step further, the left opertates beyond politics. The revolution did not come by political means, not by political organziation. They only effectuated political change after they have effectuated cultural change. The left has been on the march for fifty years with little political succes, but with tremendous cultural success. Only afte rthe cultural seeds have been planted do the reap th political harvest.

    But I’m not sure conservatives can replicate their model.

  • shermantank

    The Dems were already successful using this method during the Barack Hussein Obama II campaign, and now during his presidency. It’s called Gates and Soros. Not to mention the pooling of funds from those high-rollers who avoid their names being out in public. Soros alone is capable of controlling stock markets. Whenever I see the market dive (at a time it makes no sense) or soar, I think: Soros. The real book that has yet to be written should be titled: The REAL Barack Hussein Obama II.

    More to the point, the president’s agenda is to silent any dissent and neutralize bad press, oops, strike that. “Eliminate” the press altogether.

    An April 14, 2010 article stated that “They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.”

    It continues, stating that “In the middle of it all was Obama — occupant of an office once informally known as “leader of the free world” — putting on a clinic for some of the world’s greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.”

    “The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama’s eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: “I’m going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session.”

    “Reporters for foreign outlets, many operating in repressive countries, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they’re cracked up to be.”

    IMPORTANT: “Finally, Obama walked over to a group of reporters Monday afternoon. Would he give them an account of his meetings? “I’ll let somebody else do it,” he said with a smile.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041303067_pf.html

  • smagar

    There are plenty of Internet/tech millionares who got very rich, very quick (e.g., Mark Cuban) and now have millions of play money for politics.

    I don’t think we have the same ready reservoirs of cash. Do we?

  • Achance

    People with a conservative habit of mind don’t generally want to be government employees when they grow up, nor are many of them attracted to media or entertainment. Now, all these fields are so dominated by the Left that there is almost no place for a consevative in any of these areas that have so much influence on our Nation’s culture.

    At the essence, a part of traditional American culture dies pretty much any time Pomp and Circumstances gets played and any time someone listens to popular music, goes to a movie, or watches most television and I don’t have any good ideas how we get that back on any mass scale.

  • asleep06

    Public schooling was made mandatory around the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

    We should not forget that virtually everyone before the 1950s, even the so-called “greatest generation” who fought in WWII and fathered the (even more progressive) baby-boomers, were liberal progressives. In many ways, the 1910s-1920s (and not the 1960s and 70s) were the heyday of progressives when they passed four (!) constitutional amendments including the federal income tax which made possible funding for the New Deal, Great Society, and Obama’s health care “reform” programs decades later.

    We are kidding ourselves if we think we can win the political fights over the medium and long term without taking back our schools. Unfortunately, though we need long-term thinking, short-term thinking is another pervasive cultural trend we face.

  • hunter

    Thanks to rich extremists, the primary is not for party nominee, but for the top two winners.
    Turning this around on the lefties will be hard but worth it.

  • kcdude

    conservatives don’t grow up wanting to be government employees. You may want to qualify it. I found that many in law enforcement, especially at the federal level, wanted the job as they were growing up and I think the majority of us were conservative.

    ‘Beyond politics’ and employment, the way to take it back is to hold the ground, never give in and point out – almost to the point of ad nauseam – that the left is failing and sucking the life from us all. If we are all consistent and vocal, we do not give place to the wrongheadedness/ lies of the left. We have to be persistent because folks in this country have incredibly short memories.

    I had a spirited discussion with family members following the 2008 election. Their position was that we needed to do away with the term ‘conservative’. I disagreed strongly. My argument was that many folks in the U.S. did not really know what a conservative is or what a conservative believes. I – think – that the idea of being a conservative and having conservative beliefs is (finally) seeing the light of day. It seems to me that the beginnings of the Tea Party movement bears this out. Time will tell.

  • cabanon

    or entertainment. Huckabee has his own show now, Palin studied journalism and was a reporter before politics and now has her own show too, Heck Reagan was an actor and so is Schwarzenegger…maybe we shouldn’t count him. But I think conservatives are represented fairly well in media and entertainment, maybe its a more recent thing but its there.

  • hickorystick

    The primary system was changed by the courts, through the petition of the parties. It was changed back by initiative by the people. The courts also said the parties had mis-interpreted what the court had said in it’s ruling.
    We do have rich extremists, don’t disagree with that. The main problem with the R party, is they don’t listen to, or connect with the people. They need to do that if they are going to overcome the Dem Party machine, which is formidable.

  • Achance

    of government employees. I agree they tend to be more conservative but in the main those with a law enforcement background aren’t the regulators and policy makers and even under Republicans those employees tend to be liberal.

  • kcdude

    read broad brush comments. I will stand by my original point.

    One final point. The move of the culture to the left has taken place because winning the argument and shifting the mindset has taken place in increments. If conservatives would be satisfied with taking a stand, accepting a win in each battle (but not expecting to win the war with each battle) yet remain focused on winning the war for hearts and minds, we could slow, stop and even bring about right thinking (no pun intended) change.

    People need to be shown the truth, over and over again. The idea will begin to take hold.

  • edintexas

    No doubt many are in government, and in policy making positions (particularly DC for the Feds). The Southwest (TX, LA, OK, AR and NM) region employees (even policy types) tended to be much more conservative than other areas of the country (or at least used to be), reflecting the general disposition of the general population.. And employees of social welfare agencies (local, state and federal) are certainly much more likely to be libs than not. So broad brushes aren’t always accurate. I take it you are not from this general area, which might color your impressions.

    KCDude – I’m a long retired GS 1811, you are not alone.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    I have come to believe that the single most important structural change that conservatives should strive for, at almost any cost, is school vouchers. Why? Because that offers the only hope for future improvement, by getting increasing numbers of kids out of the collapsing, union-infested, leftism-impregnated public schools and into Anything Else At All.

    Otherwise, the Left can continue simply to wait as conservatives grow old and die, and aren’t replaced. E.g. opinions on homosexual marriage and the role of government – oldsters are conservative, the young mostly aren’t, so over time the ball inevitably moves left. I do think the leftist capture of the education system was an intentional plan beginning with John Dewey 100 years ago.

    Where is our Dewey?

  • edintexas

    You obviously never met my parents, Born just after the turn of the last century, they were about as far from being “liberal progressives” as anyone could be. They detested Wilson and Roosevelt (and weren’t too happy with the first one to occupy the WH either, but they got that from my Grandparents). And while you are correct that the period 1910 to 1920 was a great decade for the progressives, the same can’t be said for the decade of the 20s. Neither Harding, nor Coolidge, were progressives (though Hoover was).

    For that matter, I wouldn’t call the folks here at Red State “progressives”, yet you find the progeny of the “so called greatest generation” even more progressive than their parents. Are we the group which proves (tests in the classic use of the term) your rule?

    But you are right that the schools need to be taken back for the long term change needed. However, parents can make a larger difference than the schools – if they don’t abdicate their responsibilities to the government.

  • Common_Cents

    The moneyed left wing elite behind the DEM blueprint are doing it for profit. They will manipulate government for their own profits.

    Does anyone think Soros gets involved for the fun of it? or to see his philosophy put into practice? or for world equality? NOT.

    The reverse of this doesn’t work. The only appeal to moneyed conservatives are out of morals and philosophy of what’s right. Not exactly a big return on their investment.

    this is why the grass roots movement for conservatives makes sense. It will need organization and funding but it will be more decentralized than those on the left.

    Decentralization of government, power, money etc.. is key. Local and state govt can be much more efficient and responsive and easier to keep honest than centralized federal govt. I see the empowering the states to take on the federal behemoth as the way to go.

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    This is an interesting post, but I am wondering where does that leave us at the grassroots level? What can we do to stop the Dems from replicating the “Colorado model” elsewhere? What can we do to generate the conservative counterweight?

  • cari

    me! And hundreds of thousands of other parents who decided that our children couldn’t wait for schools to improve and have taken it upon ourselves to home educate our kids. And our ranks are growing FAST!

    If you want to be encouraged about the future of this country, visit a home school book fair in your area. Visit the vendors and talk to the kids- especially about American history. It will warm your heart and make you proud.

  • edintexas

    Huckabee is a conservative? He certainly isn’t a Conservative, but I believe there is some doubt that he is even a conservative. Oh, reading further I see you think Ahnold is conservative. OK, your definition and mine are obviously far apart. You are correct that Ahnold is still an actor, he’s just flubbed the generic script that he is supposed to be a Republican.

  • http://www.dhstation.com mayrfortuna

    It is although a common mistake you americans conservatives think there is a blatant incongruency in betwin the welthy leftists and the marxist aproach.
    There is not. Lenyn himself, favored the capitalists to invest in old Soviet. Why? Because marxism, statism itself can not grant the welfare state.

    Marx himself stated – It may take CENTURIES to change the society to full socialism.

    One other aproach is that the wealthy leftists are themselves favored big by theyr

  • cabanon

    and I am using a broad definition of conservative here, Huckabee is a social conservative or do you disagree with that? My point is that conservatives are drawn to the media and entertainment industry, if you listen to Rush this should be obvious.

  • Common_Cents