A Grassroots Escape Clause in the New Colorado GOP Prosperity Platform?

So some Colorado GOP leaders have crafted a Prosperity Platform and rallied behind Scott McInnis as the gubernatorial candidate.

Meanwhile, some in the grassroots remain thoroughly unconvinced and stand behind hard-working longshot Dan Maes. The issue is not the rhetoric or the substance of the 20 governing principles that has earned skepticism or even ire. It’s some of the cast of characters involved that many understandably still have a hard time trusting. I’m not all the way there yet myself.

What might help make the Prosperity Platform more palatable is an escape clause — and by that I mean not for McInnis, but for us. So the issue is an agreement to fulfill the 20 principles. What happens if he is elected and then reneges, works actively against one of the 20, or simply delays any serious effort to implement one or more particular actions? What then? Where does that leave the grassroots who are expected to work hard on his behalf?

Perhaps an “escape clause” like this one added to the original 20-point platform might help win over some genuine trust (with apologies to Thomas Jefferson):

…And that if the appointed candidate should become destructive (or obstructive) of these ends, it is the sacred duty of the people and the party who support him to work to abolish his candidacy or his term in office, and to institute full support for a new candidate for governor who shall seem to them far more likely to effect their safety and happiness….

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that politicians and officials should be changed regularly for the health of the Republic and of the State of Colorado; even so, all experience has shown that Republicans have been more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by turning over the party leadership to which they are accustomed. But should even a small train of abuses and usurpations of one or more of these 20 principles occur, it is the right of the grassroots, it is their duty, to throw off such a candidate, official or Party, and to provide a new political home for their future security….

And for the support of this escape clause, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

I believe that many of the signatories onto the original platform acted in the utmost good faith. But all involved are wise to understand that they cannot and they should not, in the least way, take any of the trust or confidence or hard work or good will of the grassroots for granted. Or else this most recent success may prove to be a mirage, and a painful one at that.

I’m not done writing about this topic yet, by any means. Nor is my suggested addendum anything more than a possibly bright idea I had yesterday afternoon. Indeed, I wonder what readers think of the “escape clause” idea? Because, after all, there’s party unity, then there’s … party unity.


  1. says

    Thanks for the input, that is my bad personally on labeling the CDs as HDs.

    As you know we use regression analysis to do the projections at MHD. Our early analysis cannot fill all of the data points in our best model, so some data points are, quite frankly, filled with “holding variables.”

    The regression model for the State Legislature is turning out beautifully, since I’m inputting eight years worth of data in now.

    Thanks for looking, and I’ll be sure to check all the RMA bloggers, as well as the dead govs for details on all the local races.


Leave a Reply