There’s no doubt that Josh Penry’s decision to withdraw from the Republican primary was well intentioned. However, before he made up his mind someone should have reminded him of the stuff the road to hell is paved with. As a conservative, I am very disappointed by his decision to leave the race for governor. While he was certainly an underdog for winning the Republican nomination, Penry excited the party’s base and offered primary voters a clear, Reaganesque, “bold colors” choice over mushy moderate Scott McInnis. Unfortunately, contrary to what he hoped to achieve by his departure, Penry may only have ensured that we will have four more years of Bill Ritter and liberal sewage from our state legislature instead.

It’s obvious that the good ol’, back room Republican Party boys got to Penry, convincing him that a tough primary fight with McInnis would be bad for the party and hurt its chances against Ritter. These, undoubtedly, the same “bright lights” that in recent years gave us such illustrious candidates as Bob Beauprez, who made a horse’s rear end of himself, and Pete Coors, who looked senatorial but couldn’t articulate a coherent message if it bit him on the nose. “You’re a young guy, Josh,” I can hear the party elites saying, “You’ll have your day in the sun—and we’ll be happy to support you then—but in the meantime don’t mess things up. McInnis is a lot better known than you are, and after the results in Virginia and New Jersey all we have to do is put a warm, recognizable body out there to win this one. So just drop out. Bide your time and wait your turn. We’ll be there for you next time or even if you want to run for another office, but let’s not blow this. If you’d like we’ll find you a good job in the meantime, Josh ol’ boy, but right now just take one for the team.”   

Unfortunately, Penry bought it, leaving voters like me with little to get excited about. Indeed, on the state level I think we’re in for a repeat of the ’08 presidential election with the Republican GOBs (good ol’ boys) ensuring a McCain-like, right-of-center moderate runs against left-of-center moderate Bill Ritter. Like McCain, McInnis can be counted upon to run a bland, not too aggressive campaign designed to attract those all-important Independents. He’ll be sure to skirt social issues and avoid sounding too conservative, like emphasizing limited government, and above all will strive to run a “positive campaign,” meaning that he won’t want to criticize Ritter for much except perhaps raising driver license renewal fees. Safe. Very safe—and nice. McInnis can be counted on to run a nice, safe campaign, emphasizing his niceness and competence (though Ritter is reportedly a fairly nice and competent fellow as well). He won’t need to reach out to party conservatives, because where else do they have to go? And, as we all know, Independents like niceness and moderation, just as John McCain proved so well.

The truth is, contrary to what the party GOBs think, Penry’s departure from the governor’s race (barring the rumored entry of Tom Tancredo) virtually ensures that Ritter will win a second term. It will be hard for conservatives to work up much enthusiasm for McInnis—many may even choose to stay home on Election Day. And while McInnis will be counting on Independents to come to his rescue, he provides little reason for them to “change horses” either. After all, given the choice between two old, gray nags, why would they trade the one they have now for another?

Perhaps most sadly these insider machinations do nothing to strengthen the wobbly Colorado Republican Party, but further undermine its ability to win races—and there’s no telling the damage that’s been done to Penry’s political future. By trying to avoid a genuine, competitive primary, this decision has robbed Republicans in this state of a chance to participate in a meaningful debate about the future of both our state and our party. By seeking to short-circuit the primary process the GOBs and, sadly, Penry as well, betray a distrust of our political system and a cynical disdain for the wisdom of the people. And Penry’s claim that he didn’t want to damage McInnis’ chances like Marc Holtzman did to Bob Beauprez also ring hollow, because Penry could easily have run a principled campaign focused on the issues and avoided making personal attacks. It also shows that he didn’t really believe in himself, his stands on the issues and his ability to defeat McInnis. A good primary fight would have encouraged strong participation by both party conservatives and moderates, and even if Penry lost those who supported him would be much more likely to remain engaged if they felt like he had been given an honest shot and their voices had been heard. Thanks to the GOBs that’s now unlikely.

I’m afraid that much like prizefighter Terry Malloy in the movie, On The Waterfront, Penry has been sold down the river by “big brother.” However, as Malloy learned, when you take a dive (however well intentioned) and go for the short money, there’s no telling if you’ll ever have a chance to go for the title again, much less the damage such a choice can do to your soul. Hopefully, Penry won’t end up like the movie character full of painful regret, ruing the day he chose to leave the race while he murmurs, “I coulda been a contender,” under his breath.

How long is it going to take for the GOP/GOBs to realize that the American people—particularly conservatives and Independents—are sick and tired of politics as usual? This obvious fact is clearly responsible for the rapid decline in public approval of Barak Obama, as well as for the “surprising” appeal of Sarah Palin. Citizens of this country are longing for a return to a truly representative system where the people have a meaningful choice and a respected voice in the way our government operates. We are fed up with groups like the ACLU, arrogant judges and party elites thwarting the will of the people. Until the Republican Party realizes that it is “we the people” not “we the party elites” whose voices are most important, it will continue to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, as it recently did in New York’s 23^rd Congressional race. In the meantime, I would encourage the GOBs to light up their stogies now, because I don’t think they’ll have much to celebrate on election night. So much for principled, conservative leadership in the state of Colorado, and goodnight Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

As a fan of Tom Tancredo, I find it very disappointing to hear him advocating for the legalization of drugs. One expects this kind of thing from liberals but when a conservative starts promoting government approval and regulation of dangerous substances, something is very wrong. In the words of former Senator Patrick Moynihan, by attempting to “define deviancy down” Tancredo may indeed be committing political suicide, and, while that would be regrettable, it wouldn’t compare to the negative consequences such a foolish policy would have on our society.

Certainly, the so-called war against drugs has not been overly successful. While hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on arresting and incarcerating drug dealers and users every year, the demand seems to continue to rise—along with the influence of criminal groups like the Mexican drug cartels. So, why not save that money and allow government to tax and make a profit from the drug trade by legalizing it, like alcohol?

In the first place, while government surely spends a lot of money on drug crimes, I’m not sure such efforts could truly be characterized as a concerted “war on drugs.” Rather than a war, the effort against drugs in the U.S. is more like a disjointed, uncoordinated, hit-or-miss endeavor run by the Keystone Cops. In fact, since Bill Bennett was drug czar under George H.W Bush, I can’t recall a serious attempt being made by the federal government in this arena. While every president since then has had a drug czar, does anyone believe a strong anti-drug policy was pursued by “I didn’t inhale” Bill Clinton? George Bush was obviously preoccupied by the war in Iraq, and does anyone think that fighting drugs is one of Obama’s priorities? In short, there hasn’t been a serious effort to fight drugs in this country for over 20 years, so despite the money being spent it’s a misnomer to call it a “war.” Instead of throwing in the towel on this non-war, perhaps Mr. Tancredo should advocate for a true national engagement on this issue.

The social cost of legalizing drugs on our society would also be immense—and likely end up costing us even more than it is now—and not just in dollars. Whatever the government legalizes receives de facto moral approval. It sends the message, as with abortion, that it is ethically okay, which only serves to encourage the practice. Before abortion was legalized in this country, abortions ranged in the thousands. Afterward, it averaged over a million a year. Legalizing drugs would have the same effect. Instead of millions, it’s likely that tens of millions would become users. Having smoked “weed” in my youth (a fact of which I am not proud), I know that it can have a very negative impact on an individual, distorting one’s thinking and creating a “dead-headed” outlook on life characterized by loopy passivity. Do we really want to have a nation full of lazy, empty-headed “stoners,” smoking grass and having no qualms about it? Another side effect of marijuana is a sense of paranoia that is heightened by the fact that it is illegal, which is a good thing. It’s an incentive to stop. Diminishing that sense of guilt and fear of being caught does nothing but encourage more drug use, which is another reason to oppose legalization.

Marijuana—as everyone who has used it knows—is a “gateway drug.” A seemingly innocuous (initially) way of getting high, it almost inevitably leads to greater drug use. Since all drugs have a diminishing return over time it takes more and more to get the same sense of euphoria, leading to smoking more and/ or seeking stronger weed. That quest usually doesn’t end with marijuana. It commonly leads to using things like hashish, peyote, ecstasy, crystal “meth” or cocaine, which in turn may lead to the use of hallucinogenics, like mescaline and LSD—and even heroin. The truth is, if we are going to legalize marijuana, we will ultimately have to do the same for all of these drugs. After all, the rationale will already be in place: just think of all the money the government can save/make! Along the way, we will continue to “define deviancy down” in our society, until virtually nothing is considered wrong anymore. Hey, if making drugs legal is good, what about prostitution?

Perhaps most disappointing about Tom Tancredo’s push (no pun intended) to legalize marijuana and other drugs is the immorality of the position, especially for a professing Christian. Unlike alcohol, which has food value and doesn’t necessarily cause drunkenness, drugs always impair one’s mind and distort one’s consciousness. That’s the only reason for using them. But they come at a high price, often impairing the user’s life, creating addicts who commit serious crimes to maintain their habit and destroying lives and families. While it doesn’t specifically mention drugs, the Bible condemns drunkenness and by extension all things that distort one’s ability to function with a clear mind and cause addiction. Such behavior is bad for the individual and unhealthy for society. Does Tom Tancredo really want to advocate for something so morally wrong and destructive to our nation? If so, his political future probably is over.