You've probably already heard that public servant Hudak resigned her seat lest the recall turn the Colorado senate over to the republicans (a lengthier treatment of Hudak stepping down can be found here). And the apologists have come out in full force, defending her record, despite her record. There are two potential replacements for Hudak to choose from:
"A vacancy committee made up of about 70 Democratic precinct leaders and district officers will next week choose between former Rep. Sara Gagliardi and Arvada City Coucilwoman Rachel Zenzinger."
Both are center left and most importantly, both are women - as in the democrat party mindset one cannot replace a woman with a man, no matter how competent said man may be. As to their views:
"Both say their political leanings are center-left, and both support background checks for all gun sales. Gagliardi declined to comment on whether she supports limits to ammunition magazines, while Zenzinger said she supports the law."
Zenzinger just won re-election to the Arvada city council. She ran unopposed but I always thought that once elected a person should stay in that office until their term was up instead of leaving it to climb the public service ladder. But that could just be me.
Zenzinger was one of the campaign managers for Hudak's 2012 race, and reportedly a close friend of hers. I think that, along with her pro-gunowner control views, may be fodder for her opponent in the 2014 race if Zenzinger is chosen to replace Hudak. And ColoradoPols seems to make the case that Zenzinger would be the best choice.
It may be irrelevant though: there are rumors that Hudak will run for her old seat again in 2014. There's even the possibility that the replacement committee may try to name Hudak as her own replacement. I can see the local democrats being that underhanded, but I can't see them being that stupid. I'm sure the signatures from the latest recall effort would be either available for use or easily re-acquired, thus starting this whole mess all over again, but with Hudak having to resign mid-session, leaving the senate temporarily stalemated. In a four month legislative session, losing a week or two is a big deal, so I just don't think they'll replace Hudak with herself, though I could be wrong.
They (or some factions of they) are trying to finish the work of the last legislative session:
An issue committee has been formed to try to put a ban of concealed carry on the ballot this November. This has worked before, which is why Colorado requires background checks for all transactions at gun shows. But despite the 70% support Amendment 22 received, I think that's because of an effective misinformation campaign by proponents of expanding background checks, plus the emotional (and inaccurate) assumption that closing the "gun show loophole" would prevent another Columbine-type shooting.
Considering that young women seem to be the most likely to buy a gun, I don't think that it'll gain much traction, as women are more likely now to realize how this could impact their ability to defend themselves. Still, I wouldn't dismiss the attempt just yet, as it never hurts to be prepared to fight.
Now given all the above, here's what I think is going on:
Hudak was in with the labor unions, so it's not surprising that she saw some gain in being Bloomie the Hut's cheerleader on the gunowner control laws. But her arrogance even distressed the dems, so when the recall looked likely, and they started to fear their majority in the Senate, they used a stick or carrot (likely a little of each) to talk Hudak into stepping down. Some sort of offer was made that she found acceptable, as I do not see her as the type to take one for the team without a little push. Or a big push. Okay, there must have been a bulldozer present.
From her mention of the importance of a replacement who'd be concerned with education, I'm sure that meant the teachers' unions had their say in the matter - though whether this was to help Hudak post-office or as cover for her forced flight I'm uncertain. Her talk of preserving the gunowner control laws she helped pass may have been a plea to Bloomie to throw her a life raft somehow, or remind him of his promise (or inference) that he'd take care of her if she did his dirty work. It may be that part of the carrot was support for her running again in 2014 (though there's some constitutional questions regarding her term limits, it's not like these assclowns really pay attention to the constitution anyway) but it could be that they just told her that to keep her quiet until they can figure out what comes next.
By what comes next I of course mean what seems best for the party. If Zenzinger gets appointed and polls well I'm sure that Hudak will get another "for the greater good" speech, along with some offer of some position somewhere and unwritten promises of support for a campaign "on down the road" - or "going forward" as the annoying politispeak tends to phrase all things future.
I'm certain the dems will fight any attempt at repeal of the gunowner control laws they passed in 2013. (By fight I of course mean send any such bills to a committee to be killed quickly and without debate). I'm uncertain if they'll double down, what with there being about a 15% unemployment rate in the senate amongst those who voted for such laws last time around. But no one has asked Bloomie the Hut what he wants done in his senate, so all of that's up in the air.
I am certain that Zenzinger will poll better than Hudak and thus campaign for the seat in November, as I can't see her tossing away a cushy city council job for 10 months of senatorhood just to bide her time doing the right kind of charity work until another slot opens higher up than she was. Depending on how much she does to support gunowner control in the upcoming session, I think a republican challenge would go well against her if the state GOP picks a decent candidate. (It is possible the party will dangle something shiney and convince her to just be a chair warmer so that Hudak can run again in '14, but I'd bet against that scenario given what I know of things.)
Enter the GoP. Have you heard the press conferences they've been giving everyday from the capitol's steps about the gunowner control laws, or Hudak stepping down to frustrate the will of her constituents? Neither have I, because they haven't. They acquired the sobriquet "the stupid party" for a reason ya know, so it's conceivable that they'll screw up and put in someone to the establishments liking that not coincidentally gives off the "might as well stay my ass at home on election day" vibe. Hell, they'd be dumb enough to think a moderate who supports gunowner control would be "electable".
In short, no matter how idiotic a thing the democrats pull (like running Hudak again in 2014) the GOP will likely try to out-idiot them - and likely succeed.
Here's the state GOP's statement on Hudak's resignation.
Here's an earlier presser of the GOP's on the declining popularity of the local democrats.
That sensation you got after reading each press release? That's called being underwhelmed. Their strategy, it seems, is to repeat the phrases "radical agenda" and "working families, job creators and senior citizens". (I just wonder how much they paid some voodoo queen for the gris-gris with those words printed on it...) Though in the latest press release concerning Hudak, they did manage to slip in "criminalizing law abiding gun owners" with a negative connotation, so I guess that's a little progress.
I think there are some things the republicans could do to not only solidify their prospects, but actually help the people of Colorado. But as a commenter from that post pointed out:
"I think your suggestion is brilliant, and doomed to fail for one simple reason: Republicans have been nicknamed The Stupid Party; they were not given that nickname, they earned it."
Looks like 2014 will be an interesting year. I hate interesting years.