The following questions have been submitted to Colorado GOP Vice Chair Hope Scheppelman by Republican Andy Peth. In the following he gives context to the questions he wants answered before asking it. Just for context. The Colorado Republican party owes answers to people like Andy, and me, and every other Republican scratching their heads about what happened to this party. I'll let Andy take it from here. --Mandy
Our State Vice Chair, Hope Scheppelman, has asked that I again provide these questions.
There are 15, and I’ve boiled them down with context. Think of the following as a “Questionnaire of Transparency” for Colorado GOP Leadership:
CONTEXT: The Assembly is voted upon by Caucus members, but Caucus is attended by fewer than 1% of Colorado Republicans. Therefore, the Assembly represents a sliver of a sliver of Colorado Republicans. That is numerical fact. It doesn’t matter how many CAN attend. It only matters how many DO attend. In fact, the incredibly low attendance only shows how few Republicans like that process.
QUESTION 1: Why would you want this tiny Assembly to vote itself the power to discriminate against fellow Republican candidates who go through another fully legal process (Petition)?
(Note: I’m not asking if you can find a legal loophole to do it. I’m asking why you would WANT to punish fellow Republicans who have done nothing wrong)
NEXT CONTEXT: Thousands of Republicans have signed candidate petitions, and 10’s of thousands have voted for Petition candidates. When the Assembly votes itself the power to punish Petition candidates simply for being Petition candidates, this alienates all Republican voters who have supported Petition candidates.
QUESTION 2: Why would you WANT to alienate thousands of Republican voters whose only sin is voting for candidates who don’t go through a process (Assembly) representing a sliver of a sliver of Colorado Republicans?
(Note: I have nothing against Assembly. I’m just being numerically accurate)
NEXT CONTEXT: You say your questionnaire brings transparency. BUT WE ALREADY HAVE TRANSPARENCY. All candidates have websites and full availability to the public and media. We can ask them any questions we want.
QUESTION 3: Why do we need a one-sided “questionnaire” from our State Party—one representing the views of one group? Dave says people wanted this “vetting.” What people? Are they from the Assembly sliver of a sliver? Are they Dave's supporters? Hope, why do we need this “questionnaire” to bring transparency we can freely get for ourselves?
NEXT CONTEXT: You said, “The questionnaire was crafted based on our Republican Platform adopted in 2016.”
RIDICULOUS. Your questionnaire ran well beyond the platform, also coming from only one perspective.
a. For instance, you demanded to know how candidates voted in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections—no others. Just those two elections involving ONE GOP Candidate.
Thus, you tested loyalty to ONE MAN, not the Party. I myself proudly voted for Trump and will do so again, BUT…
QUESTION 4: …WHERE DOES OUR PLATFORM CALL FOR GRILLING PEOPLE OVER THEIR SUPPORT FOR ONE MAN? Please cite this portion of our platform.
b. Furthermore, your questionnaire asks about loyalty to MAGA and “Trump's populist, America-First Agenda.” Again, I support these things, but acting like there can be no other views in our party is preposterous.
QUESTION 5: Where are loyalty to MAGA and “Trump's populist, America-First Agenda” in the GOP Platform?
c. You demanded we support "all efforts by the Colorado GOP to opt out of open primaries.” Hope, those “efforts” include trying to convert all Central Committee non-votes on the Opt-Out (where a member might abstain or be absent) INTO YOUR YES VOTES.
QUESTION 6: Please explain where converting other people’s non-votes into your Yes votes is in the 2016 GOP Platform. Furthermore, please explain how this is not a blatant power grab.
d. You asked about support for a National Abortion Ban—a concept already rejected by Donald Trump, our Presidential Candidate.
QUESTION 7: Why are you asking candidates to commit on a topic already rejected by our Party’s standard-bearer? And where is commitment to a National Abortion Ban in our Platform?
If it is NOT in our Platform, then why did you include it in a questionnaire you claim only represents our Platform? And if it IS in our platform, will you call out Trump for disobeying it?
e. REAGAN’S 80-20 RULE states, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor.” Your “questionnaire” goes flatly against this, as you select your “approved” views for Colorado Republicans. Reagan didn’t do this…
…SO, YOU’RE DEMANDING WE REJECT REAGAN. I require no allegiance to one man, but you require allegiance to one (Trump) and rejection of another (Reagan).
QUESTION 8: Where does the GOP Platform call for us to reject Reagan’s 80-20 Rule?
NEXT CONTEXT: You openly accuse Petition candidates of being “dark left wing money agitators, and groups, RINO saboteurs.”
QUESTION 9: Where is this depiction of legal Petition candidates in the GOP Platform?
Hope, this depiction is childish and one-sided. There are good and bad Petition candidates, just like there are good and bad Assembly candidates.
NEXT CONTEXT: By voting itself the power to endorse in primaries and use Party resources to attack Republican candidates, our State Assembly abandoned Neutrality altogether. Since then, the floodgates have opened. Both State and some County Party Leaders are aggressively campaigning against fellow Republican candidates.
We’ve even had State Party resources—such as the powerful State Party E-Blasts to its enormous GOP email listing—openly attacking a candidate who is running in a Primary...against our State Chair!
QUESTION 10: How is this not using Party resources to aid our State Chair’s campaign in a Primary? How is this not an in-kind donation to his campaign?
QUESTION 11: How is this not violating Reagan’s 11th Commandment, which reads, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican”—with Party resources?
QUESTION 12: Where does the GOP Platform call for weaponizing State and County Party resources against legal Republican candidates?
NEXT CONTEXT: Hope, you’ve been asked to complete your own questionnaire. In response, you say you don’t have to because you aren’t a candidate.
QUESTION 13: Shouldn’t leaders be willing to do whatever they ask of others? You’re demanding candidates answer your questionnaire, so shouldn’t you be willing to do the same?
QUESTION 14: You say the questionnaire is for candidate “transparency.” Shouldn’t our Party leaders also provide transparency? Why would you want to avoid your own transparency?
And finally, here’s the question I believe MANY Colorado Republicans want answered:
QUESTION 15: WHY?
Why would our Party Leadership even WANT to weaponize Party resources against fellow Republicans? Why divide us? Why call on us to “work together to elect Republicans” when the State Assembly votes itself the power to punish fellow Republicans who have DONE NOTHING WRONG?
Why, Hope? Why have our leaders abandoned the In-Party Neutrality that united us? Why? Why throw away the one thing that made leaders serve us all as equals? WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO DO THIS?
Why pit us against each other? Why, Hope? Why look for legal loopholes to justify attacks on fellow Republicans by the very leadership that’s supposed to unite us?
Why divide us with labels like “RINO” and “Grassroots,” when there is MASSIVE disagreement over those terms? Hell, why divide us at all? WHY???
Hope, we peasants out here in GOP Land want to work together, but you want Top-Down demands that you re-label as “transparency.” We want to be the Party of Individualism, while you want us marching like Communist Cattle to the beat of one drum.
We want a Big Tent, Hope, and that requires differing views. It requires Free Thinking.
IT REQUIRES LIBERTY.
I invite your answers.
Andy Peth