Littwin: Who, oh, who can GOP possibly tap for Senate?

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Saturday, March 24, 2007

For you political junkies, I have a scenario you're going to love. I got it from one of my favorite people - sorry, can't give up the source - who sees a spectacular climax for the McInnis/Schaffer/Wadhams story. I won't give it away, without a subpoena anyway. You have to read to the end of the column.

Here goes:

Scott McInnis, as we know, has said he won't run in the 2008 Senate race. No one is sure why. He cited family reasons, which almost always means not for family reasons.

I've heard he was facing very difficult poll numbers, particularly in a primary against Bob Schaffer. I've heard the Republican right was threatening to go after him hard, thereby feeding the notion that Colorado Republicans don't know how to win anymore. (See: 2004-2006 elections. Try not to smile.)

I heard from someone who was at the March 3 Republican State Central Committee meeting that when McInnis gave a rousing speech there, the party faithful rewarded him with not exactly a rousing reception.

And then when Schaffer gave his speech, the same faithful gave him three standing ovations. McInnis' lone standing O, in fact, came when he mentioned Tom Tancredo, who wasn't even there. Did McInnis get the Big Hint from the Big Chill?

Here's what I do know: McInnis left Congress to become a lawyer-lobbyist, and how in the name of Jack Abramoff could that have been good for his election chances? Not to mention the wife-on-the-campaign payroll story. Maybe that's the family issue.

OK, McInnis is out, for whatever reasons. Everyone is now sure Schaffer is in. Except you remember 2004 and how the Republican money people were so panicked that Schaffer was too conservative to win in a general election that they recruited Pete Coors, who clobbered Schaffer in a primary.

Ask yourself: If Schaffer was too conservative for Republican-dominated Colorado in 2004, what does that make him in 2008, in a state suddenly insistent upon electing all these Democrats?

I'm sure Schaffer is asking himself that very question, only worded this way: What do I look like to you - nuts?

Schaffer would have to take on Mark Udall, who is almost certain to be unopposed on the way to the Democratic nomination. Yes, Udall is a tad liberal. Yes, He's from Boulder, although his home is now Eldorado Springs, which might as well be called Near Boulder.

But if there's ever going to be a time to elect an anti-war environmentalist, it would seem that 2008 is that year. Udall, who doesn't look radical at all - he doesn't even have a mustache - will not be easy to caricature, and, believe me, Democrats can't wait for this election cycle to get here. Listen to what Tancredo, taking a few minutes off from his phony-baloney run for president, told ace Rocky reporter M.E. Sprengelmeyer about the Senate race:

"It is going to be one of the toughest races we've had in a long time in Colorado . . . When I look at what is stacked against us, you've got one of the most, probably, well-liked members on the political scene in the form of Mark Udall. He is affable. He has a ton of money in the bank now; he will have all the money he could probably want to have."

In 2004, we had the grand comedy of Bill Owens doing the hilarious insta-switch of his tepid endorsement of Schaffer to his embarrassed one of Pete Coors. Of course, Coors looked like a great candidate on paper. Then there was the actual campaign.

In any case, Owens jobbed - that's the word I can use in the newspaper - Schaffer in the worst way.

Or, I thought it was the worst way. Enter Dick Wadhams, who has returned to the state as GOP chairman to restart his career after watching his last candidate, George "Macaca" Allen, spectacularly self-destruct in his Virginia Senate race against Jim Webb.

Now, that was real comedy. Allen was supposed to run for president. And Wadhams, running his campaign, seemed on the way to becoming the official successor to Karl Rove, who could learn lessons from Wadhams on running nasty campaigns. But nasty wouldn't have helped Allen. Nothing would have helped Allen post-macaca.

Wadhams' record in Colorado is nearly perfect. His candidate lost against Ben Nighthorse Campbell, but then Campbell switched parties, meaning that loss comes with an asterisk. How effective is Wadhams? Well, he won with Wayne Allard. Twice.

What if Wadhams determines that Schaffer, a conservative with a human face, can't beat Udall, a liberal with an even more human face? That's the only real question here. As Wadhams might say, this is not personal. It's business.

Who's there to look to - John Suthers? Didn't he just get elected? Dan Caplis? You're kidding, of course. Bob Beauprez? Sure, and I've got the wrong end of a horse to sell you.

And here are the stakes: You have to go back to the '70s to find the last incumbent who lost a senatorial race in this state. Meaning that if Udall wins, you could see two Democratic senators in Colorado for maybe the next 20 years.

So, you make the call. And you know where it has to go - to Wadhams' old boss, Bill Owens.

Owens is probably in Russia somewhere, trying to sell them on the, uh, merits of TABOR, however you spell that in Cyrillic. Republican insiders say it's impossible that Owens would run. Wadhams says Owens told him he definitely wouldn't run and that Wadhams believes him. And then he tells me - and I can hear the wink over the phone - "Of course that was three months ago."

You and I know he could be interested. He's Bill Owens, after all. He's never quite gotten over 2004. Some Republicans haven't forgiven Owens for Ref C, but he left the governor's job with approval ratings in the 60s. And who's going to run against him - Marc Holtzman?

So, here it is: Wadhams persuades Owens to run. And Owens jobs Schaffer - again.

OK, it probably won't happen. But it would be a hell of a story if it did.

littwinm@RockyMountainNews.com.