Colorado Politics, News and Inside Information: Pat Waak: So Much for Being All-Inclusive

Colorado Pols in the News

Colorado Pols Q&A's

_

« Thanks to Dan Grossman | Main | Anatomy of a Big-Time Campaign Blunder »

Pat Waak: So Much for Being All-Inclusive

Supporters of Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak installed her in office and booted out incumbent Chris Gates in large part because of concern that Gates didn’t give every candidate a fair chance. Their case in point was Mike Miles, whose supporters claimed that Gates supported Ken Salazar in violation of what a party chair should do. Party Chairs, they said, should not pick one Democrat over another candidate. Waak ran on a platform of being all-inclusive toward any Democratic candidate and pulled out a narrow victory over Gates in March.

Now Waak is the Chair, but nothing has changed.

As reported at Colorado Pols in March, Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald supported Waak over Gates for Chair. Now Waak is returning the favor. Waak is strongly encouraging Fitz-Gerald to run for governor and has told her that all Party resources will be dedicated to helping her candidacy.

Meanwhile, Waak is discouraging talk of a John Hickenlooper run for governor by telling all who will listen that he isn’t going to run. She has also privately told others that Rutt Bridges doesn’t have the message to win in November and that Bill Ritter has no chance.

Apparently neutrality just doesn’t mean what it used to mean two months ago.

Posted by Colorado Pols on June 02, 2005 at 11:29 PM | Permalink

Comments

Worst part is I think that Rutt Bridges would be a good Governor -- but, while Rutt and his merry band have essentially been engaged in a mastubatory process Honey Fitz-
has built a solid base of support that could win her the nomination -- Rutt seems to be singing the lead from Annie, Tomorrow --
Tomorrow -- the only reason Rutt may face a primary is the sheer, complete total and utter incompetence of his campaign team -- but also blame Rutt -- instead of making his intentions known at least privately he played little kid games -- those little kid games may buy him a primary -- also his really good pal Ken Salazar ain't gonna back him publicly privately or any other way in the primary

Posted by: vladimir | June 03, 2005 at 03:54 AM

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Should we be surprized by the actions of the annointed leader of the Miles Fans Coup De'Ta?

Naiveté never serves the greater good.

Posted by: ignorance is bliss | June 03, 2005 at 06:39 AM

Is anyone surprized that Waak is showing favoritism? I am a bit surprised that she is doing it so early, but fully expect her to support Miles over any other contender for any office that he should choose to seek in the future (Senate in '08 against Udall for instance).

Posted by: Coloradem | June 03, 2005 at 07:58 AM

AAAhhhhhh, enough with the Miles candidacy! He is simply NOT going to win a statewide office. Him and his followers are just too liberal for this state.

Posted by: View From the Cheap Seats | June 03, 2005 at 09:05 AM

Here, here. Miles would have a hard time getting elected to the student council at one of his schools.

And I LOVE that Waak is supporting one Democrat over others for governor. Hypocrites.

Posted by: Susan B | June 03, 2005 at 09:43 AM

Frankly, without a single attribution, I'll believe it when I hear it myself.

If Joan was so out-front about supporting Waak, she certainly didn't show up as one of the central characters in public or even behind-the-scenes during the re-org meeting. That's not to say that she didn't, but she never showed herself as a driving force even within her own district.

And the whole Miles thing is a joke. Miles is still recovering, and I haven't heard anything through BTC or anywhere else that he's even considering a run for any office right now.

Stand by it all you want, but I'm calling BS on this one. If it's true, then Waak just disinvited herself from a large number of organizations; she's not that dumb.

Posted by: Phoenix Rising | June 03, 2005 at 10:07 AM

To mimic a Republican:

This site is so biased against Democrats and is just a shill for the GOP to spew their propaganda and destroy our candidates blah blah blah nobody cares what I'm saying right now.

Posted by: peterco | June 03, 2005 at 10:51 AM

It's not news if it's not interesting; conversely, if we make it interesting, it's more likely to be news.

Keeping up controversy on the political subjects of the day is probably the best way to keep up interest. Not that I agree with that, but...

Posted by: Phoenix Rising | June 03, 2005 at 11:16 AM

Did Joan really support Pat over Gates? I don't think so. She certainly had no love for Chris, and did nothing to keep him in place, but she didn't do anything for Pat either.

If Pat told Joan "all party resources would be behind her" I think we can assume this means in the general election, not the primary. No Chair, anywhere, has the power to put resources behind a primary candidate. Not to mention -- what exactly are the "resources" of the Party right now? Access to the groovy color copier?

Posted by: skibum | June 03, 2005 at 11:17 AM

Drop the attacks on our Chairwoman. It wasn't enough to undermine Miles now that the party has spoken you still refuse to listen.
Why not talk about the truth which was the old regime in fact undermined Mike Miles candidacy from day one and openly lookied for other more "appropriate" candidates, meaning shills.
Pat has made no such assurances to Fitzgerald or anyone else and would not stoop to the backstabbing and false promises of the power brokers.
Mike Miles will run again and we as a party will actually support him otherwise we should disband.

Posted by: BE THE CHANGE! | June 03, 2005 at 12:56 PM

I can't figure out if BE THE CHANGE is a real Miles supporter, or someone who is trying to make legitimate Miles people look bad.

Either way, ridiculous post.

Miles lost the primary. Repeat after me: Lost. It wasn't rigged, there were no butterfly ballots or Diebold machines; he ran for the nomination, and he was defeated. Solidly defeated. It happens. Miles is a rising star of the party, and for one I hope he runs for office in the future -- would love to have him take on Ed Jones in C Springs as an example, but I understand if he isn't ready to run again just yet.

Posted by: skibum | June 03, 2005 at 01:02 PM

As we've said before, unless we feel strongly that what we hear is accurate, we don't post it. You certainly don't have to like it, but we didn't make it up.

Skibum makes a good point about resources. Promising the resources of the Democratic Party doesn't mean a whole lot, just like it didn't mean much when Chris Gates was at the helm. There's no big red button you can push that guarantees a wave of support and money. The bigger point is that she would make that promise at all.

Posted by: Alva Adams | June 03, 2005 at 03:11 PM

Rutt is demonstrating now what he has demonstrated when he ran for Senate, and in the initiative campaigns he has supported. He just doesn't know how to get a political message across. He is a wealthy guy and he often has his heart in the right place. But, he doesn't have what it takes to be a good politician, and even politicians who run against being politicians have to know that. Rutt has also made it his business to distance himself as much as he can from the Democratic party establishment -- both by opposing the caucus system and by trashing it in his brief Senate run.

Ritter is going to have a tough time in a Democratic primary and with a significant share of Democratic donors because he is pro-choice.

Waak's statements in the original post are things I can imagine someone like her saying as she thinks out loud about what each candidate's chances are in private. But, I have real doubts about whether she has done anything to publicly speak in favor of any candidate, or to encourage or discourage anyone to run.

Posted by: ohwilleke | June 03, 2005 at 03:28 PM

BE THE CHANGE, please read this carefully. Mike Miles lost, he is a loser. The longer you and the blue t-shirt gang whine about the rest of us in the party the more comical you will look to us.

Grow up, disband, lay down your arms, join the Democrat party and loose the silly Blue Shirts.

Ross Perot's folks have nothing on you guys for the "most out of touch" award.

Posted by: GET CHANGED! | June 03, 2005 at 04:03 PM

I agree that Ms. Waak has not been inclusive and I think she's getting bad advice from people around her (from former Denver City Council woman Ramona Martinez among them.) She has said that she was going to maintain diversity among the Dem Party office staff if it meant she'd have to fire people to do it. So much for most qualified..

Posted by: intheknow | June 03, 2005 at 07:47 PM

Alva -- your post on the Waak-Gates race is simply incorrect. (1) Joan Fitz-gerald was neutral on the chair's race (as was Mark Udall); (2) Gates did not lose because of a perceived lack of neutrality (Mike Miles) in recruiting candidates; Pat Waak beat Gates because Gates had a classic John Bolton (kiss up and kick down) style with people. Take a better look at what happened in the state central committee meeting. Posts like this make me wonder how you check your facts.

Posted by: BFX | June 03, 2005 at 09:05 PM

BFX, they don't check their facts - the stuff here is what their newspapers won't print because they can't verify it as fact.

Posted by: doobie | June 03, 2005 at 10:29 PM

When is the next State central Committee? I think we really need to explore removing Waak this type of conduct is way out of line. The party has yet to make and real headway that I can see for 2006. Phone calls are not returned, money is not being raised, etc. etc.

I am no fan of Gates and do not think we should put him back in charge but we need someone new who understands how to run the Party.

Where is Waak when everything is going south with Labor, we can not afford to have them sitting at home in 2006.

Anyone else starting to feel a knot in your gut?

Posted by: Recall Waak now | June 04, 2005 at 08:13 AM

I love the conspiracy theories from some of you guys. A few days ago people were yelling at this site for the Beauprez posts calling them Democratic party staffers or something like that. Now they post something negative about Pat Waak and suddenly they have an anti-Democrat agenda.

Is it really so unbelievable that Pat Waak could do this? Not to me it isn't, but if it makes you feel better to pretend like they just made the story up, then go tell yourself that. It's not like Waak is some lifelong political genius who couldn't possibly have done something wrong. We're talking about someone who couldn't even get past the assembly when she ran for congress a few years ago. But NO, no way Pat Waak could screw up. Give me a break.

Posted by: Ter Ducken | June 04, 2005 at 11:41 AM

Attribution -- Waak is telling everyone that she is backing Honey - Fitz -- call her up and ask her -- Chris Gates had his problems but at least he felt the party should unite behind a candidate especially when the Reps have a bitter primary brewing.
Waak is also listening to LosersInc --
Rollie Heath and Ramona Martinez -- Ms All inclusive Ramona lost I repeat lost the Hispanic vote to Dianna DeGette- Joanie herself brags about how she got Patty Waak in there -- Patty responds by putting a knife in Rutt when he announces -- this is looking like a repeat of 2002 --

Posted by: vladimir | June 04, 2005 at 04:49 PM

I gotta say that I hate to agree with vladimir, but I've heard Waak bad mouthing Rutt and Bill myself.

Posted by: Susan B | June 04, 2005 at 05:05 PM

Blogs don't have to have truth...just be interesting to read. Get over it...you are reading and writing on it, aren't you?

Posted by: tommix | June 06, 2005 at 10:15 AM