Political Avalanche

Political Avalanche Relaunch Following Labor Day Weekend

2007-09-02T02:58:00.000-06:00

This blog was left to wither on the vine last April, but the coming election year will find it up and running on local Colorado politics.

For coverage of all things Schaffer and Udall in Colorado's hotly contested Senate seat, visit Schaffer v Udall, the team blog devoted to that race alone. The Colorado Index has a daily roundup of conservative and Republican blogs from around Colorado,

Visit Slapstick Politics for eclectic postings on Colorado politics, culture, religion and history. Ben at Mt. Virtus continues to post on labor and education, and Michael at Best Destiny provides essays on education and politics of the moment.

Toe to Toe with the Treasurer on a Touted Tax Increase

2007-04-16T08:48:00.000-06:00

In yesterday's Pueblo Chieftain, my opinion piece arguing the case against Governor Bill Ritter's property tax hike to subsidize state preschool and kindergarten programs ran as "counterpoint" to the argument for the Governor's proposal by State Treasurer Cary Kennedy. Kennedy skillfully avoided discussion of the back-door tax hike while plugging the benefits of the plan for Pueblo.

How? Under the Governor's revised plan, 33 school districts will receive a tax cut while most districts will receive a tax increase. Pueblo happens to fall in the latter category. But that doesn't take into account the plight of taxpayers in Grand Junction, Englewood, Pagosa Springs, Wray, or nearby Alamosa, among others.

But two points are worth repeating from my op-ed. First, the new version of the tax increase will raise an estimated $55 million to offset an $84 million increase to early childhood programs while somehow simultaneously saving the state budget:

The remaining $29 million would have to come from the current state budget. If the money isn’t available in the general treasury, lawmakers would have to raid the State Education Fund. Amendment 23 created the fund as a means to provide additional dollars to kindergarten-through-12th grade public schools.

However, the governor’s office has said the plan is necessary to save the State Education Fund from bankruptcy in four years. Paying out $29 million of state money on new programs wouldn’t solve the alleged problem. Even so, the bankruptcy projection is based on a worst-case scenario. A nonpartisan legislative staff report shows that Amendment 23’s school spending mandates are not expected to drain the fund.

And while the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights has effectively cut property tax rates in many Colorado school districts, property tax revenues for education have continued to climb:

Real property tax dollars per Colorado student grew 8.5 percent from 2001 to 2005. During the same four years, state school funding increased 15.6 percent per pupil.

Meanwhile, Phil at Clear Commentary makes an articulate philosophical and logical case against the tax increase - his arguments may be roundly ignored by liberal statists, but they are strong and compelling.

The Governor and his team - including Treasurer Kennedy - are trying to cool off the political hot potato of a property tax hike. But I'll do my part to keep telling you the rest of the story they would rather you not hear.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

With Democrats in Charge, Forget Common Sense

2007-04-12T22:06:00.000-06:00

The reactionary Democrats in the State Capitol are at it again, and one of them got caught in a lie! This afternoon, the House Education Committee - on a party line vote - killed Senate Bill 73, a proposal sponsored by two commonsense Democrats (Senator Chris Romer and Representative Michael Garcia) and supported by the Republican caucus. The bill would require students receiving a public high school diploma to demonstrate basic English competency. It even lets local school boards define the standards.

SB 73 passed the Senate 33-1, with only arch-education establishment apologist Senator Sue Windels (D-Arvada) voting against it. But the House Education Committee is stacked with a flock of reactionary Democrats, who want to preserve the "soft" and uncompetitive education monopoly. Their reasoning for voting against English competency as a requirement for graduation?

1. It would be an "unfunded mandate" on public schools, with bundles of fixed costs tied up in paying union employees and administrative bureaucrats. "Oh, I see. You actually want us to teach kids English literacy? That's going to cost you."

2. The other excuse was even more pathetic. Many of them insulted the intelligence of anyone listening by saying they supported the concept but really didn't want to pass any "piecemeal" reforms before the Governor convened his (still theoretical) comprehensive education reform council.

But that didn't stop them from approving measures to strip the power of the State Board of Education to grant waivers to innovative school districts, to rob parents of educational choices by stripping power from the Charter School Institute, to undermine school accountability by weakening the CSAP test, to mandate sex education standards for school districts, to lower the minimum compulsory school age, to create a new teacher identifier system, to change the qualifications for the Commissioner of Education, and to generate more funding for full-day kindergarten. So don't buy the cop out.

We could have foreseen this coming two weeks ago, when I wrote:

Before the sex ed bill reaches them, the House Education Committee will have another test. The committee will have to decide on SB 73 by Chris Romer (D-Denver), the bill requiring high schools to make sure their graduates are prepared for life with basic English literacy. (Of course, as Mike Rosen pointed out, such an idea would simply be too sensible for the education establishment and their legislative allies to swallow.) Just one more chance for these Democrat lawmakers’ constituents to see where their priorities lie.

As long as the Democrats, working as proxies for the alphabet soup of established education interests to benefit the adults in the system (CEA, CASE, CASB), you can expect very few - if any - of even the most basic commonsense reforms that would benefit children. But it also makes you wonder why one of the committee Democrats' closest allies could play so fast and loose with the truth.

Democrat State Board of Education member Evie Hudak testified that the Board was all opposed to SB 73, even though no formal vote had been taken. Representative Cory Gardner (R-Yuma) did a little on-site fact-checking: while Hudak was testifying, he called a State Board member who indeed supported SB 73. So, the Democratic Board member had to backtrack. Ms. Hudak, you're entitled to your own opinions, but please don't presume to speak for the entire Board.

Kudos to legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, who are willing to take the step to connect the school system to the real world by preparing, and not patronizing, students who are not native English speakers. That goes for Sen. Romer and Rep. Garcia, who bravely brought their proposal forward against the wishes of the education establishment closely allied with so many in their Democrat Party. And the four Republicans in the House Education Committee - Cory Gardner, Victor Mitchell, Ray Rose, and Ken Summers - who voted to move SB 73 forward.

With Democrats in the charge, the State Capitol seems more averse to common sense with every passing day.

Colorado Legislature Passes Unanimous Tribute To Colorado's Fallen Soldiers

2007-04-10T03:08:00.000-06:00

A rare show of bipartisanship--or flagrant pandering from a party that in the last two weeks has passed resolutions in both houses of the Colorado legislature condemning the Iraq war along party line votes?

Republicans opposed both Democrat-sponsored anti-war resolutions, and at least can be seen as being logically consistent.

For once a resolution aimed at honoring the soldiers from Colorado who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who bravely sacrificed all they had for their country:

"They do it for one reason. They do it because their country asks them to," said Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany. "I think it's important we take our time to honor those for whom time is standing still."

The importance of such recognition at a time when the country is clearly split over the war itself should not go unnoticed:

"With this resolution, we pay tribute to the brave men and women of Colorado who have served, and who are now serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan," said House sponsor Rep. Stella Garza Hicks, R-Colorado Springs. "They have fought bravely and have served us all with tremendous dignity and honor. We owe them all a great debt for their service, and we will always hold a special place of honor for the soldiers and families who have made the ultimate sacrifice serving our country."

As taps rang out in both chambers, family members who've lost loved ones in the war wiped away tears.

Senate Joint Resolution 32, sponsored by Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Coal Creek Canyon, and Garza Hicks, named the 48 Colorado soldiers who made "the ultimate sacrifice" while serving their country in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. It also honors Colorado military personnel who have served or are currently serving in the two countries.

Colorado Democrats, who hold a majority in both houses of the legislature, passed two resolutions condemning the Iraq war while also honoring the service of those who have or who are serving. The Senate version was more harsh than the House's rendition, but the effect was the same:

Littleton Republican Sen. Mike Kopp, an Army veteran who served in the first Gulf War, said he has received letters from soldiers in Iraq who complain that the resolution diminishes their sacrifices.

"We can chose the politics of abandonment or loyalty to our troops," he said.

The incongruity of such a display of political grandstanding--undercutting the troops by passing resolutions opposing the war they are fighting, and then subsequently praising their sacrifice. Liberal logic boggles the mind.

To demonstrate that this is just a political front, and reflects little in the way of true feeling on the Democratic side (other than taking advantage of a growing anti-war feeling), take note of one senator's threat:

Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, chastised House Democrats for gutting the tougher language of his Senate version. He said Senate Democrats have the votes to stick by their resolution, forcing the House to either back down or kill the measure.

Pandering. Plain. And. Simple. Taking a page right out of the John Kerry flip-flop guide to political action.

The Democrats have gone on record as being for the troops while being against the war. They have merely adopted the bumper sticker slogans so popular with the Left.

Colorado Republicans rightly rejected the Dems' resolutions. Their support for this resolution is clearly not in doubt.

But then again, liberals are known for demonstrating their support for troops in rather confusing ways.

(Cross posted from Slapstick Politics)

Intra-Party Fights for Colorado Democrats Heat Up

2007-04-03T09:01:00.000-06:00

The Democrat Party's intramural squabbles are intensifying, and Colorado is ground zero for the shakedown. The Denver Post reports this morning that the Teamsters' James Hoffa, Jr., confronted Governor Bill Ritter yesterday with the threat that the party's convention scheduled for Denver next year could "blow up" if Ritter doesn't kowtow to the Big Labor agenda. Still a bit angry about the governor's veto of House Bill 1072, don't you think?

The response from Ritter's office?

The governor has said he made the decision in order to advance a broader agenda. He declined an interview Monday on his encounter with Hoffa.

But his staff pointed to Ritter's recent restoration of a voluntary payroll deduction for state workers that automatically covered union dues. That option had been suspended by former Republican Gov. Bill Owens.

An interesting way for the Post reporter to phrase the action, but the governor's staff essentially admitted Ritter's executive order was a peace offering to Big Labor: "Here, have access to the state's payroll system."

Meanwhile, the governor's office has yet to speak out on the controversy generated by the revelation of deep-seated hatred and the viciously anti-charter school agenda of the state legislature's two committee chairs. In today's Rocky Mountain News, Senator Sue Windels (D-Arvada) pleads innocent for having been merely the recipient of the incendiary email.

As a result of the intense scrutiny, Windels also said she is going to let her anti-charter school bill (Senate Bill 61) go away and die. Why? In part because six senators from her own party have clearly stated they won't support the legislation now that the sponsors' motives have been exposed. One has to wonder how the growing numbers of pro-school choice Democrats feel about their party rewarding with power members who have a vicious hatred for their support of giving options to all parents - including many poor and minority students trapped in failing urban schools.

Governor Ritter is trapped in a brouhaha with Big Labor, with the peace offering of the state's payroll system not enough to satisfy union appetities. What's more, he has to be hoping the growing tensions within his party's ranks in the state legislature over charter schools and school choice will just cool down and go away.

Leading Democrats in Colorado are busy trying to put out fires that threaten to damage the state and national coalition. Politically speaking, I can't say I'm too distraught by the news.

But give them a chance to regroup, and the attacks on workers' rights and school choice will resume full force.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Schaffer Wins Straw Poll

2007-04-03T09:00:00.000-06:00

The results are in from the unofficial Mount Virtus grassroots "Who Should Replace Wayne Allard?" straw poll. I kept the polls open a couple days longer than originally planned, but it did very little to change the final tally. So who was your first choice to be the Republican nominee for Colorado's open U.S. Senate seat in 2008?

No surprises. While he lost some of his early commanding lead, former Congressman Bob Schaffer never trailed from start to finish - earning 54 of 120 votes cast (45%). While it's still early to have to announce his candidacy, at the moment it looks like the field is clear for Schaffer to enter.

A crowd fought for the next four slots with about 10 percent of the vote each. Scott McInnis (who is officially OUT of the race) narrowly edged out Tom Tancredo, Bill Owens, and Marc Holtzman. Tancredo is already busy running for two offices, Owens has expressed no interest in throwing his hat into the ring, and Holtzman has been silent.

Ironically, all the remaining candidates who have expressed any interest in the open U.S. Senate seat finished in the bottom tier. Bob Beauprez, who has remained coy about whether or not he would get in the race, finished with 5%. Secretary of State Mike Coffman earned 4%. Dan Caplis, Bentley Rayburn, and Attorney General John Suthers shared the last 6 votes.

Friday Education Quick Hits

2007-03-30T12:08:00.000-06:00

Kudos to the Rocky Mountain News editorial board for calling out Senator Sue Windels' attempt to overregulate online schools.

The Rocky also highlights yesterday's sensational discovery of the email from Representative Mike "Give 'Em Hell" Merrifield. In the article, Merrifield was rebuked by a prominent member of his own party:

"It shows there's absolutely no good faith on the Rep. Merrifield's part, who is clearly more concerned with defending a crippled and ineffective status-quo public education system then [sic] creating opportunities for all kids," said Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver.

Finally, Governor Ritter's plan to raise property taxes received a bit of good news, as the legislature's legal team said the plan could be enacted without TABOR's requirement for a vote of the people. Some Democrats might have been hoping that the move had been found unconstitutional so they wouldn't be forced to vote on a tax increase. A legal hurdle has been passed, but the hurdle of public approval is looking pretty tall.

Erratum: The Rocky story mistakenly said the tax increase is estimated to bring in an extra $84 million in revenue. The actual figure is about $65 million. Their confusion can be forgiven because of the confusing way the plan has been advertised - to raise $65 million more in taxes so the state can spend $84 million on preschool and kindergarten AND save the state budget from fiscal ruin. No wonder the Democrats are leery about increasing our schools' math standards.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Colorado Democrats: Sex Ed Trumps the 3 Rs (and Science)

2007-03-30T12:06:00.000-06:00

On a party line vote today, the Senate Education Committee passed a bill sponsored by Senator Sue Windels (D-Arvada) to mandate standards on Colorado schools that teach sex education. Three committee members, all Democrats - Windels, Bob Bacon, and Ron Tupa - voted to support the House Bill 1292 mandate six weeks after voting against a mandate setting higher state graduation requirements for math and science (Senate Bill 131), and eight weeks after voting against a requirement that high school graduates have basic competency in English (Senate Bill 73). Suzanne Williams (D-Aurora) was the only committee member to cast votes for all three measures.

Last week the House Education Committee, chaired by Mike "Give 'Em Hell" Merrifield, shot down the math and science requirements after hearing support from a Jefferson County teacher, a university president (could have been two if Merrifield hadn't rescheduled the hearing at the last minute so CU's Hank Brown couldn't testify), and a Lockheed engineer. Said Merrifield:

"My contention is by forcing every child into this narrow curriculum, we are not making them more innovative, we are not making them more creative," the Colorado Springs Democrat said, citing a national report that calls a well-rounded education the "passport to a job in which creativity and innovation are the key to a good life."

The Witwer plan, Merrifield said, would make students "more regimented and more lock-step (with) less ability to think outside the box."

Because the more you learn about physics and algebra, the more atrophied your brain becomes? Or perhaps it's just not possible to take 3 years of math and 3 years of science in high school AND music, art, or drama? Or maybe Merrifield and the Democrats on the committee believe Colorado's high school graduates are performing so well in math and science already. This 2005 report from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education belies that notion: It shows that 1 in 4 of Colorado public high school Class of 2004 graduates needed basic math remediation in Colorado public universities.

The problem? High school graduation requirements don't match CCHE admission requirements, which get even tougher in 2008. Only 53 percent of Colorado's Class of 2004 would have been able to enroll under the 2008 standards (achieving a 19 in math on the ACT). And nationally, according to NAEP test results, only 23 percent of 12th graders are proficient in math.
Tell schools to teach kids a little more math and science to prepare them for college and life, and you run into a union-controlled, Democrat roadblock. Tell schools how they have to teach sex ed, and will the House Education Committee stand up for local control? Or for creativity and freedom to think "outside the box"? All eyes are watching.

Before the sex ed bill reaches them, the House Education Committee will have another test. The committee will have to decide on SB 73 by Chris Romer (D-Denver), the bill requiring high schools to make sure their graduates are prepared for life with basic English literacy. (Of course, as Mike Rosen pointed out, such an idea would simply be too sensible for the education establishment and their legislative allies to swallow.) Just one more chance for these Democrat lawmakers' constituents to see where their priorities lie.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

The Start Of A Meme--McInnis The Wonder Moderate

2007-03-27T21:55:00.000-06:00

Democrats seem eager to paint any forthcoming GOP candidate for Senate--especially Bob Schaffer--as the dreaded "social", "traditionalist" or "ultra" convservative candidate, while painting Scott McInnis as the friendly "moderate" who was the GOP's only hope for retaining a seat held by the conservative Sen. Wayne Allard.

Why?

To make Rep. Mark Udall seem less liberal.

A head-to-head match-up between Schaffer and Udall would be a true test over the political divide in Colorado. Neither candidate can easily be branded with the meaningless "moderate" label--meaningless in the sense that it usually only indicates the ideological position of the person using the term, and is not a helpful characterization of the candidate. For McInnis, this has turn into code for "less socially conservative", which is now being used as the attack on a potential Schaffer run.

It is no surprise that Democrats wish to capitalize on what they perceive as a sudden lurch to the left in American politics, and hope to establish some of their more liberal members as "mainstream" (another word for moderate), and not really "liberal" or the even "progressive". If the American voters truly moved that far to the left, their would be no need to abandon the labels or avoid accepting one's identity as a solid liberal on the issues.

By portraying Udall as a successor to the "moderate" Ken Salazar or Bill Ritter, Dems are appealing to Colorado's independent spirit, unaffiliated voters, and a general disdain for extreme West or East Coast liberalism, outside of the Boulder-Denver-Aspen areas. Demonizing Schaffer with the social conservative label--and therefore the only extremist in the race is both logical and also indicative of the extent to which they believe Udall is weak on his record as a "latte-sipping" Boulder liberal.

(cross posted from Slapstick Politics)

Democratic Deviousness In Action

2007-03-27T00:53:00.000-06:00

When is a bad idea even worse? When it gets dismissed as predictable silliness, but has the long-term effect of eliminating possibilities for good governance.

Stay with me on this one--it's gonna take some work.

State Rep. Mike May (R) hands out the "Golden Anvil" Award every so often to Bad Business Bills which Weigh Down Colorado Commerce. I am on this mailing list, so I keep pretty well informed of what the Democrats are trying to do to ruin the Colorado economy. Tonight, though, something new piqued my interest.

The "Golden Anvil" citation included the following lines:

That is why House Republican Leader Mike May, R-Parker, awarded this week’s Golden Anvil to House Bill 1293, which was promoted this weekend by sponsor Rep. Gwyn Green (D-Golden) and anti-highway-expansion activists. . . .

As amended, HB 1293 would create a 500-yard bubble, the length of five football fields in each direction, around all public and private schools, making it more difficult for any highways to be built or expanded within that area.

This set off my radar, so I did a little reviewing of some stuff I took an interest in not too long ago.

The Colorado Deparment of Transportation, along with several other agencies, have been studying for several years now the feasibility of completing the Denver Highway Loop, which begins in the West at the intersection of C-470 and I-70, and circles south and east around the city to connect with E-470, which goes all around the east part of Denver and, with the recently completed connection, goes all the way around to reach Flatirons' Crossing Mall in the far northwest corner of the city. This leaves just the furthest West/Northwest corner of the Denver Metro Area without a leg on the Loop. And, as anybody who has tried to get anywhere in the northwest corner of the metro area can tell you, completing that loop would make a huge difference in travel around the city. CDOT has dubbed this project "The Northwest Corridor."

Two years ago, when this was first being looked at, I went to a couple of the public meetings held by CDOT to try to start a working plan. There was, as I recall, about 80 possibilities for this highway, though some were obviously better suited than others. But most of the most sensible alternatives involved the use and expansion of an already-existing four-lane highway, Colorado Hwy. 93, to complete the Loop into and through Golden, where it would hook up to C-470/I-70 and finish the Loop. If you look through the heading "Alternatives" at the above link, it will show you all the possible routes the NW Corridor could take.

The problem with that is that the residents of Golden--which, by the way, is about three times the size it was 20 years ago and sprawls up onto the sides of the foothills in every direction around the city--do not want a highway coming through their city. And, I suppose, I can't blame them: I don't want one coming through my part of town, either. But, given that there's already Hwy 93, CO Hwy 58, and CO Hwy 6 all passing through or around Golden, carrying traffic to Boulder and the gambling cities in the mountains, this is a smaller adjustment for that community than it would be for many others.

So how does Gwyn Green's HB 1293 come into play? Well, first, notice that Gwyn Green represents Golden. Second, check out this map on Mapquest, which shows the location of Mitchell Elementary School. Now, I'm no cartographer, but it looks to me like Mitchell Elementary School is within about 50 feet of Highway 93.

In other words, were HB1293 to pass and become law, the Northwest Corridor IS DEAD as a highway project. Hwy 93 could never be expanded as long as Mitchell Elem. still stands, and the residents of Golden, thanks to the cleverness of their representative, would never have to deal with being a part of the Denver Highway Loop.

Keep in mind, folks, that with the opening of Flatirons' Crossings Shopping Center, the redevelopment of the Rocky Flats region, and the otherwise normal expansion of housing in the northwest part of the metro area, NOT having an easy means of highway travel in this area will mean significant losses in terms of commerce, traffic congestion, lost time, and the massive environmental impact of cars idling in traffic jams. NOT completing the Highway Loop would be--twenty years out--a disaster for this area.

This disaster brought to you by the Democrats in your Legislature.

Addendum: Note that this bill passed out of the Education Committee, where it is more easily disguised. Had it gone through the Transportation Committee, somebody might have noticed the scheme.

Addendum 2: In case you were wondering, Mitchell Elem School (new facility) opened in about 1995--WAY after Hwy 93 existed in its current corridor.

McInnis: Other Viable Candidates Must Unify GOP

2007-03-22T15:32:00.000-06:00

Scott McInnis throws out a few more names to add to the list of potential GOP candidates:

There might be other viable candidates, McInnis said.

“If the party can’t unify, they can’t win a statewide race, but if they can unify, they’ll be able to recruit people like Russell George or Rebecca Love Kourlis,” McInnis said.

Both of them would start out with almost zero name recognition, like many of the other potential second tier candidates whose names have been tossed about. McInnis, however, points out the obvious--the GOP's candidate should unify the party, energize the base, draw out the fundraisers, and pump up the volunteers. Even a unanimous candidate will fail if the campaign they run isn't anything short of vigorous, bold, and effective.

Was McInnis pushed out? Unlikely--there might have been pressure to defer to another candidate like Bob Schaffer, but at this point it seems McInnis probably felt he did not have the drive for both a potentially bruising primary (almost inevitable, despite his attempts to avoid one), and an equally tough general election. Hogan & Hartson will provide a rather cozy "fallback", and this is perhaps the most compelling reason McInnis withdrew his candidacy so early.

Democrats believe McInnis was too "moderate" for Colorado's GOP:

State Democratic Party chairwoman Pat Waak said McInnis' decision to withdraw "may give a signal that Colorado Republicans are not interested in moderate candidates."

She said McInnis has a history of voting against a gay marriage ban.

"If that is the reasoning behind his announcement, it is sad that the Republican Party still doesn't understand that the state, and the country, is looking for solutions, not ideologies," Waak said.

In reality, it looks like the Democrats are simply rolling out their campaign tactic of characterizing any of the GOP's potential candidates as "too conservative", and will likely try to push the meme that the "moderate" McInnis was pushed out in favor of more "right-wing" candidates.

If Colorado looks for "moderate" candidates, with Sen. Ken Salazar and Gov. Bill Ritter representing the most "centrist" of Democratic candidates, then what are they doing championing "latte liberal" Rep. Mark Udall (D-People's Republic of Boulder)? Udall's Club for Growth ranking (10%) was the lowest in the state--topping even liberal Rep. Diana DeGette.

All Eyes On Schaffer

2007-03-22T03:35:00.000-06:00

Says state Republican Chairman Dick Wadhams.

Former Rep. Bob Schaffer is noncommittal to this point:

"There's an optimal time to arrive at a decision for me, and when I get there, I'll decide," Schaffer said in an interview.

Given the necessary organization and fundraising for a successful run at the Senate seat, this will be sooner, rather than later.

Former Rep. Bob Beauprez offered these observations on a Schaffer run:

He's not sure whether former Rep. Bob Schaffer is ready to join Scott McInnis in the race for the Republican Senate nomination, but did observe how well-received Schaffer was at the state GOP central committee meeting in Castle Rock earlier this month.

Schaffer lost the Senate primary to Pete Coors in 2004, but has surprisingly rebounded within his party, noted Beauprez.

But will Schaffer try again in 2008? "The environment out there is maybe not as inviting as some conservatives would like it to be," Beauprez said delicately.

All potential GOP candidates are weighing the election losses of 2004 and 2006--the state's Democratic trend will undoubtedly play a huge role not only in deciding the eventual GOP candidate, but also the amount of fundraising that candidate will receive.

With so much at stake nationally, Colorado's toss-up seat will garner a great deal of attention and money, and should the polls start leaning toward a Udall win, the funds will dry up, regardless of who the candidate is. If the GOP's candidate can keep it close in the polls going into next fall, perhaps riding on a new surge of interest/support in the Republican party during a presidential campaign year, expect a costly and heated battle. The question now is which of the potential candidates can muster an effective campaign--holding their own against the media-anointed favorite Rep. Mark Udall.

ProgressNow has already prepared a welcome for Schaffer--BackwardsBob.org.

ToTheRight offers the first post-McInnis assessment--Schaffer Si, Suthers No

For what it is worth, Rep. Mark Udall offered his opinion on former Rep. Scott McInnis' withdrawal:

"I am personally disappointed that Scott McInnis has taken himself out of the race for the U.S. Senate in 2008. I regard him as a friend and only a week or so ago we met and traded jokes about our respective futures," Udall said in a statement released Wednesday afternoon. "Scott has been a strong advocate for the West Slope, and I believe he would have been a formidable candidate for the United States Senate."

Democrats Moving To Expand Their Voting Base

2007-03-22T01:51:00.000-06:00

Two measures passed out of committee at the state legislature today. Both passed on straight party line votes. Both are obvious ploys by Democrats to pander to a segment of their constituency. Both will be ignored by the media. Both will create structural barriers to prevent Republicans from winning elections in the near future.

And both are bad--not just for Republicans, but for everybody.

From the indispensible Colorado Senate News:

:Democrat senators approved a proposal in committee today that expands the list of documents allowed for an ID or to prove lawful presence in Colorado – drawing charges by a Senate Republican of a “rollback” on immigration reform.

House Bill 1313 passed through the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on a 3-2 party-line vote. Under the bill, a person would be able to prove legal residency by simply providing a Social Security card with either a hospital record or religious documentation.

Sen Dave Shultheis . . .says . . . among the offending provisions is one that allows a person's friend to submit an affidavit attesting to that person's lawful residency in the U.S."They're just going to have to take the guy's word for it," said Shultheis

And . . .

:A measure allowing convicted felons on parole the right to vote in elections was embraced again by Democrats today -- this time in a Senate committee, which agreed on a 4-3 party-line vote to send the proposal back to the Senate floor. . . .

“This (parolee voting) portion redefines by legislation a constitutional phrase, and the Legislature does not have that authority,” said Dan Domenico, solicitor general of Colorado.

So, anybody out there seriously wonder which direction those votes are going to break? Paroled felons and immigrants whose only verification of residency is a friend's word? Gimme a break.

So, here we have the Democrats in the legislature starting to move to shore up their positions to hold on to power in this state for a lot of years to come. They've demontrated over the past three elections that they have vastly better fundraising ability than our side does; they managed to out-maneuver us in 2000 to prevent good redistricting; and now they're redefining who is and isn't a voter in ways that could increase their percentage of the vote by an amount we have no way of guessing right now.

This is a story that HAS to find a way into the mainstream media--Coloradans won't stand for this, but only if they know what's going on. And the media certainly won't do anything on their own.

cross-posted at Best Destiny

Official--McInnis Out, Leftists Gloat

2007-03-21T19:19:00.000-06:00

That was quick.

It's official--Scott McInnis is out:

Former Congressman Scott McInnis announced today that he will take a pass on the 2008 U.S. Senate race, clearing the way for what could be a wide-open contest for the Republican nomination.

McInnis, who was widely regarded as a front-runner for the GOP nomination, said he will remain involved in politics, but that the contest was not right for his family.
. . .
"My decision is based on doing what is right for Colorado, and ultimately what is right for my family," McInnis said in a release. "I appreciate the warm reception and encouragement that I received from many Coloradans," he said.

"I thank them for the privilege of service they afforded and bestowed upon me for many years. I will look forward to continuing to work with the next generation of leaders to uphold the ideals and values that make Colorado great."

McInnis probably read the "McLobbyist" writing on the wall from the left, and sensed a lack of momentum from state GOP fundraisers and activists.

A departure this early, even before the possibility for a GOP primary became reality, demonstrates the lingering effects of both the 2004 and 2006 elections cycles, both of which saw heated GOP primaries result in general election losses.

It also reflects the likelihood that the 2008 race will hinge largely upon fundraising support and a unified party backing the eventual candidate. The Dems have settled on Rep. Mark Udall, and now the Republicans will have to try to find the best possible candidate over the coming months.

Ben DeGrow broke the story Monday.

As for alternative candidates like former Rep. Bob Schaffer and AG John Suthers:

Schaffer said he believes voters lurched to the left in 2006 when the GOP lost two key Colorado positions to Democrats, the governorship and a seat in Congress, both of which were open. He said voters may be ready to go the other way next year.

"That's what I'm evaluating, whether the pendulum will swing back to the center, which would give Republicans an advantage," he said.

Nate Strauch, a spokesman for Suthers, said the attorney general also is evaluating the race.

"He hasn't ruled out a run, but he's not in the race at this point," Strauch said.

And the Dem's frontrunner Rep. Mark Udall?

But "I don't think he's invincible," Straayer said. "Wadhams knows how to spell 'Boulder' and he knows how to spell 'liberal."'

So will Colorado by the time the race ends.

MyDD thinks former Rep. Bob Schaffer looks weak in 2008.

DKos suggests that McInnis decided not to lose to Democratic candidate Rep. Mark Udall (D-People's Republic of Boulder).

DownWithTyranny! says Schaffer is a "pawn" of the "religionist right".

The DSCC envisions McInnis' replacement as woefully behind in fundraising and organization--19 months out.

Plans to launch BackwardsBob.org from ProgressNow, the successor to McLobbyist.org.

ColoradoConfidential cites a lack of political backing, fundraising, high negatives, and an apparently inevitable primary.

(cross posted from Slapstick Politics)

When is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase?

2007-03-20T21:31:00.000-06:00

How do you sell a tax increase as something other than a tax increase? These days Colorado Democrats are even having a hard time with it. Last week Governor Bill Ritter announced the unveiling of the cleverly-named "Colorado Children's Amendment," which somehow would do two things simultaneously:

1) Freeze scheduled property tax rate reductions, raising next year's tax bill for homeowners and business owners in many of the state's school districts - ostensibly to save the State Education Fund (created by Amendment 23 to finance only certain K-12 expenses). Of course, this is not an entirely new idea - one that has been shot down before because it violates TABOR by changing tax policy without a vote of the people, but it has been projected to bring in $65 million in new revenues a year.

2) Spend $84 million to fund additional slots for full-day kindergarten and preschool students, as well as raise general support to 11 school districts. Early childhood education is one of the softer sells, after all.

What the rest of us are trying to figure out is how Ritter's plan can save the state budget from ruin while simultaneously creating programs that spend even more money than is scheduled to be taken in.

Such a realization could only rob the plan of any remaining enthusiasm. Ritter's amendment was supposed to be added to the School Finance bill in the Senate, but bill sponsor Sen. Sue Windels (D-Arvada) said the amendment won't be added until the debate reaches the House.

The Democrats seem to be backtracking a bit, challenged by the sincere questions of one member of their own caucus during last week's committee hearing on the School Finance Act. From the Rocky Mountain News:

Even a member of Ritter's Democratic Party questioned the legality - and political feasibility - of mandating higher taxes without going to the voters.

"Explain to me how this is not a constitutional problem - because taxes will go up for somebody, whether it's the homeowner or the business or whomever," said Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder. "How do we get by that?"

Tupa added, "We're going to have to talk to our constituents in a way that's going to be explainable."

Tupa has a point: If they want to get this proposal passed, Ritter and the Democrats need to find a better way to explain away the tax increase. But trust me, it's not going to be easy. Colorado voters know better.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

This Must Be Double Super-Secret Party Support

2007-03-20T01:26:00.000-06:00

Via Colorado Senate News:

A key Democrat lawmaker said today the governor’s mill-levy “freeze” – proposed last week amid fanfare as a way to raise $65 million for schools – will not be introduced in the Senate after all. Instead, the controversial hike in most Coloradans’ property taxes now will be amended into the annual School Finance Act in the House.

The latest twist with the now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t tax hike had critics wondering if the Ritter administration is backpedaling in the face of mounting political push-back since he debuted the proposal.

Make no mistake: Gov. Ritter's proposal is nothing more than a semantically-neutral way of raising taxes--A LOT!

But rather than showing just a tiny bit of political courage and supporting their guy by going out and making a case for this plan, the Senate Democrats--and, in particular, Sue Windels--are going to play a shell game with this tax hike and hope that they can get it through without the public noticing.

Yes, that's right--EVEN THOUGH they have a voting majority, and they know that the Governor won't veto his own plan (oh, wait . . . .), they know better than to try and do this sort of thing out in the open.

There's a lesson in this, Colorado: this state has not gone Blue. Think of all the ideologically blue proposals that the voters smacked down in the last election and look at the dubious accomplishments and approach of the Democrats in the legislature, and you sense that, on a very core level, this state is still very much center-right.

Now, if only we could get some candidates to articulate that effectively and some money to combat the Gill/Stryker/Polis tidal wave, we might actually win something again.

cross-posted at Best Destiny

Colorado Delegation on the Retreat Resolutions

2007-03-16T00:29:00.000-06:00

Congressman Ed Perlmutter (D-CO7) made a floor statement in support of the Democratic legislation today. The whole text is here; I would highlight the key passage in his statement, but he didn't manage to arrive at one in a statement that wouldn't have made it past Mrs. Flander's editing pen in 10th grade.

I'm so proud that this guy represents me.

Representative--would-be Senator--Mark Udall did not weigh in on this issue today; instead, he introduced legislation protecting consumers from credit card issuers.

Way to be on top of the big stuff, Congressman. Aren't you on the Armed Services Committee?

Whatever.

Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) also made a floor statement today on the Senate's vote on the Iraq Resolution. The whole text is here; the key statement:

“Today, I voted for a new direction in Iraq.

The crucial understanding: this resolution failed to even generate a simple majority.

Way to be a mover and a shaker, Senator!

cross-posted at BestDestiny

Colorado Democrats Just Can't Help Lurching Leftward

2007-03-12T00:06:00.000-06:00

The activity down at the Colorado StateHouse this week was hilarious for those of us who were waiting for the Left to show its stripes. A sample of the activity:

:the State Board of Education has come to the realization--to its dismay--that the Democrats are trying to make school accountability a meaningless (and costly) exercise in Colorado

[from ColoradoSenateNews] The Colorado State Board of Education has denounced sweeping attempts by key legislative Democrats to “overturn the educational accountability reforms that have been painstakingly built over the last 14 years.” One board member called the Democrat legislation a “flight from accountability.”

In a letter Monday to Gov. Bill Ritter, Board of Education Chair Pamela Jo Suckla issued a stern warning about four pending bills that essentially would gut the Colorado Student Assessment Program tests, also called CSAPs.

“(B)y going in this direction, we would be turning our backs on the hard-won growth and progress our state has shown over 14 years within an accountability system that has won national praise,” Suckla wrote.

“Basically, if these four bills became law, they would decisively overturn the educational accountability reforms that have been painstakingly built over the last 14 years by Governors Romer and Owens and bipartisan majorities of the General Assembly,” she wrote. “In addition to jeopardizing hundreds of millions of federal aid dollars, they would also fatally undermine the database that is essential to the very promising longitudinal program you recently signed into law.”

This, of course, comes as no surprise to those of us used to the way the teachers' unions view the CSAP tests--which translates very closely into what the Democratic party thinks. It's just refreshing that the State School Board is resisting the most powerful lobbyist group in the state and rebuking the majority party in the process.

Also, by the way, you would never know about this story if you relied on the major Denver dailies for your news--neither the Rocky or the Post has any evidence of this story anywhere on their websites.

:The Senate on Tuesday turned an annual election-code cleanup into a broad overhaul that would let felons on parole vote and close public access to ballots cast in questionable elections.

Ah, yes. So the Senate Dems want to let bad guys vote but keep you from figuring out exactly what happened in the election. I wonder what could possibly prompt these moves?

:The Democratic-led Senate blocked a GOP effort to set safeguards against illegal voting in elections.

What do those mean, cruel, and heartless Republicans want? THEY ACTUALLY THINK THAT A PERSON SHOULD SHOW EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP BEFORE REGISTERING TO VOTE. How mean can they be?

More importantly, why in the hell would Democrats NOT want proof of citizenship?

:And, just for good measure, don't miss the hearings next week on a resolution of opposition to the President's "surge" strategy in Iraq.

As if these guys have any clue what they're doing in that realm.

So, to recap: felons vote, illegals could sneak through without barrier and vote, you and me can't figure out what happens in an election, this legislature should make foreign policy, and schools should not have to demonstrate effectiveness.

Sounds like the "moderate", "meaningful" Democrats have been fish-hooked by their keepers to throw the liberals a few bones, while ignoring transportation and health care.

So we're at the halfway point in this legislative session, and so far, the most meaningful activity has been a union-empowerment bill which the Governor had to veto because it gave away too much of the Democratic playbook too early (of course, as Ben has noted, that creates its own problems for the Democrats).

Look for the Left to get a little impatient and make more noise in the second half of the session.

cross-posted at BestDestiny

Udall Watch

2007-03-06T00:01:00.000-07:00

Udall: Tell Me What We Do When We Fail

From Mark Udall's website:

Colorado Congressman Mark Udall (D-Eldorado Springs) today called for action on legislation he has sponsored that would require the Pentagon to report to Congress on steps it has taken to plan for contingencies in case the president’s surge policy in Iraq fails. Udall, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the White House failed to plan for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and he does not want a repeat of those planning failures after the surge, especially if the security situation there continues to deteriorate.

“Recent press reports suggest that there may not be a plan for post-surge Iraq. Americans want assurances that this administration is thinking about and planning for the unthinkable. No one wants chaos or increased violence in Iraq, but it would be irresponsible not to plan for those possibilities. While looking at Iraq through rose-colored glasses may make us feel better, we will only do right by our men and women in uniform if we plan for likely contingencies, however unpalatable. I don’t want a repeat of the performance that led the administration to launch a war in Iraq without a plan for what would come after initial military success,” said Udall.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released last month states that as Iraq’s security environment worsens, three scenarios could emerge: chaos leading to partition, the emergence of a Shia strongman, or anarchic fragmentation of power. Udall’s bill, H.R. 1183, The Iraq Contingency Planning Act, would require that by June 30, 2007, the administration inform the House and Senate Armed Services Committees how the Defense Department and other agencies would respond to each of these scenarios with an explanation of the role of U.S. troops under each scenario, including a comprehensive analysis identifying and justifying the number of U.S. troops needed in each case.

This is the man who wants to be Colorado's next Senator.

Were Udall being totally honest, he would have included the same caveat the NIE placed just before the "three scenarios language":

A number of identifiable internal security and political triggering events, including sustained mass sectarian killings, assassination of major religious and political leaders, and a complete Sunni defection from the government have the potential to convulse severely Iraq’s security environment. Should these events take place, they could spark an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and shift Iraq’s trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences.

Even the NIE is a strongly hedged document, that in NO WAY predicts with certainty the "three scenarios" that Udall cites in his press release.

Further, Udall selectively ignores any of the optimistic language included in the NIE:If strengthened Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), more loyal to the government and supported by Coalition forces, are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq’s population, Iraqi leaders could have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer term stability, political progress, and economic recovery.

Well. . . .okay. So it's not exactly "optimistic," but it is also no more certain a scenario than the ones Udall cites. He also chooses to leave out this language, which is far more important to the overall debate:

Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict . . .

In other words, based on cherry-picked language from the NIE, Mark Udall wants to have the Department of Defense announce to the world what its plan is for WHEN the surge fails. Which, of course, is just another way of giving the torrorists our playbook for the next phase.

This, boys and girls, is the man who wants to be your next Senator.

cross-posted at Best Destiny

Out Of Their Depth

2007-02-23T00:23:00.000-07:00

One has to wonder why those on the Left never seem to recognize when they are just plain out of their depth on issues. [courtesy CO Senate News]

Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver, lashed out today at U.S. plans to boost troop reinforcements in Iraq and drew a stern rebuke from Senate Republicans . . .

Gordon, speaking at a Capitol news conference hosted by the liberal, anti-war group, Colorado Progressive Coalition, also expressed dismay that “trillions of dollars" are being spent on the Iraq war effort. The entire U.S. fiscal year 2008 budget is approximately $2.9 trillion. . .

Gordon, who was joined at the news conference by freshman Democrat Rep. John Kefalas of Fort Collins, blamed war spending for domestic woes, including Colorado’s inability to fund services like higher education and roads. . .

“It’s very difficult to bring democracy to a country while you are killing, even inadvertently, many of the civilians that live there,” Gordon said. “Although we’ve had 3,000 Americans die, we have also participated in creating a situation where over 100,000 Iraqis have died.”

Perhaps it's because a fawning press never bothers to ask the obvious questions. Like . . .

1. "Mr. Senator, are you suggesting that Iraqi civilians would NOT be dying now if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq?"

2. "Mr. Senator, can you show us where, in the federal budgets for the last five fiscal years, federal spending on roads has been re-categorized for the supplemental military expenditures?"

3. "Mr. Senator, in opposing the President's plan to augment troop levels currently in place in Baghdad and Anbar, is it your belief, contrary to the understanding of every military mind who has spoken on the problem, that civilian casualties in Iraq would be reduced if America maintains the current situation, or even pulls out?"

Of course, the answers to those questions are, in order: we know that Saddam murdered AT LEAST 10,000 Iraqi civilians every year, on average, during his reign; um . . . .no; and every expert who has ventured a guess has used phrases like "genocide" and "3,700 dead in a night" to describe a post-U.S. Iraq.

But Senator Gordon gets to stumble blithely forward in his cocoon of ignorance, imagining himself a great statesman, because NOBODY COVERING THIS EVENT BOTHERED TO QUESTION HIM.

I wonder if a Republican would get the same treatment.

[cross-posted at BestDestiny]

UdallWatch I: First Edition

2007-02-19T13:55:00.000-07:00

From time-to-time as Rep. Mark Udall (D-People's Republic of Boulder) gears up for a run at Colorado's open Senate seat in the 2008 election, Slapstick Politics will bring you a round-up of Udall's public statements, policy talking points, and general political views on issues affecting Colorado and the nation. Inevitably the updates will become quite regular, but for now will remain periodic (weekly-ish) until the race really gets going later this year. We'll leave the commentary and the snark for later as well and just let Udall do the talking for now (unless he says something really blogworthy). We'll also quote the stories in case they disappear (links can and do go bad) or in the event the candidate decides to change his mind or deny his previous statements.

Here goes:

Udall responds to President Bush's State of the Union address (Jan 2007):

"The president expressed a willingness to achieve common ground with the new Democratic Congress. Now is the time for this president to prove that he's truly committed to results and not just rhetoric. Coloradans and Americans are hungry for leadership to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq, for energy independence, health care reform, and fiscal responsibility.

Iraq: Despite misgivings by respected leaders in his own party like Senator John Warner, President Bush is still gambling on an escalation of military force in the Iraq. I am very skeptical that this late effort will work in the context of an emerging civil war and is also too little, too late. Our strategic goal should be to lighten the American footprint in Iraq, not make it heavier. I do not support cutting off funding for our troops in Iraq, but the new Congress has a responsibility to insist on oversight and accountability.

Energy Independence: Last year, the president said that America is addicted to oil, yet today we are not closer to energy independence. Our addiction to foreign oil threatens our national security, our economy, our environment, and our way of life. The president needs to translate his words into action and he can start by fully funding renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, which will help the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO. It’s admirable to set goals, but if the president doesn’t set them high enough or provide the necessary resources, his words tonight will remain just what they have been through several State of the Union speeches – words.

Health Care Reform: I share the president’s goal of covering the uninsured, but I don’t think we do that by taxing families and individuals that have good coverage in order to provide incentives to those who don’t have any coverage. It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you talk to anyone in my district they will tell you that they are paying higher costs for fewer benefits and less choice. I support measures to cover every child in America, to provide coverage to people who have pre-existing conditions and meaningful tax credits to help the uninsured buy insurance. The biggest cost we’ll have is if we don’t act at all."

Udall questions commitment to energy independence (and potential cuts to funding for Colorado's National Renewable Energy Laboratory:

"Where is the balance in this budget, and where is the dedication to energy independence?" asked Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo. "The president needs to walk his talk, and if he will not, I will work with the new Congress to increase funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. Energy independence is so critical to our national security, our energy security and our economy that we cannot afford to shortchange programs that will move us forward."

Udall believes US must plan for Iraq failure:

Rep. Mark Udall told Secretary of Defense Robert Gates today that President Bush's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops to police the streets of Baghdad was "more of the same" failed policy, and that the administration needs to plan for the possible disintegration of Iraq.

"There have been increasing discussions about the rise of a Shiite strongman...or in the worst case, perhaps, some sort of anarchic fragmentation of power in the region that we call Iraq," Udall told Gates at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee.

Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, asked Gates to discuss U.S. contingency plans, especially since "we all acknowledge that we poorly planned to win the peace... after the initial invasion of Iraq."

In answering the question, Gates told Udall that the administration believes its "surge" of troops will bring more security to Iraq, allowing political and economic progress.

"That said, I think that it would be irresponsible of me not to be looking at alternatives, should these expectations and hopes not prove to be fulfilled," said Gates. "Without getting into any details...I have asked that we begin to look at other contingencies and other alternatives."

Udall said that "there's always a tension between immediate passions and long-term strategic needs" but that "in this case the American public both have the wisdom and the passion and they understand - their wisdom is that we can't stand in the middle of a civil war."

Udall asked Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if the U.S. counter-insurgency doctrine is applicable to a situation like Iraq, where sectarian violence between warring factions has become the chief cause of bloodshed, rather than a classic insurgency.

"In fact we really are, if not in the middle of a civil war, in the middle of five very complicated wars," said Udall. "The counter-insurgency doctrine...doesn't necessarily apply to a civil war situation."

Udall declares debate closed on "climate change" following the IPCC report:

"All research and evidence indicates that climate change is happening. Ask farmers about their crop yields. Ask the ski industry, which depends on snowfall to run the slopes. The IPCC report released last week further solidifies the scientific opinion about climate change - the planet is getting warmer and human activity is responsible for this change. With the scientific questions settled, Congress must address what policy changes our nation will make in response. This bill reaffirms the need for continued strong federal support for research and maps out a new emphasis on producing information needed to inform everyday decisions," said Udall.

Udall on Russia, Putin, and a new "Cold War":

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, was sitting a few yards away from the podium at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy when Putin accused the United States of "almost uncontained" use of force.

Putin said the United States had "overstepped its national borders in every way," prompting other countries to seek nuclear weapons.

Udall, who was part of a bipartisan congressional delegation at the conference, said he did not take it as a start of a new "Cold War."

But he said Putin's rhetoric is a sign that the United States needs to solve sticky issues like Iraq in order to preserve its position of strength in the world.

"The Russians have always felt they weren't fully respected ... In some ways, they're mourning the end of the Soviet Union," Udall said. "They're flush with oil and gas revenues and they want the world to know it."

"They see the United States as (being) on its heels -- if not weak, then certainly distracted in Iraq -- and facing other challenges," Udall said. "They're not loathe to throwing a few punches our way."

"The strong message is, until we can as a country ... determine the way forward in Iraq, it will not only dominate our psyche, it allows other countries a way to chip away at us," Udall said.
. . .
Udall said that should prompt the United States to become more "self-reliant" when it comes to energy, so it's not subject to global pressure.

As for reviving the old tensions that marked much of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, "The Cold War is not about to be rejoined again," Udall said. "It's a totally different world."

Udall's remarks on the Iraq resolution:

Madam Speaker, this debate is long overdue.

It is our first extended and substantive debate on the war in Iraq since Congress gave the president the authority to invade more than four years ago.

But if we do nothing more than debate the president’s escalation plan, we will not keep faith with the American people, who rightly expect this new Congress to begin to bring our costly involvement in the Iraq war to a close.

And while the resolution before us is a largely symbolic and non-binding expression of Congressional opinion, it can be - and I think it should be - the opening part of a longer, thoughtful debate about our long-term national interests not only in Iraq but the entire Middle East.

So, this resolution is a start - and I will vote for it because I agree with the message it sends.

The resolution expresses disapproval of the president’s sending more troops to Iraq - an action that is contrary to the wise advice of the Iraq Study Group, critical members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and experienced military commanders like former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The president’s escalation is probably too small to be effective. And adopting new counterinsurgency tactics comes two years too late.

In addition, the President is calling on General Petraeus and our troops to operate under a complicated joint command structure, involving Iraqi forces and politicians, that is unprecedented in America’s military history.

I think the resolution represents the correct response to these facts - it expresses support for our brave men and women in uniform, but disagreement with a policy of military escalation.

Madam speaker, as we speak the death toll in Iraq rises and the war continues to drain our national treasury, stretch our armed forces, and weaken our capacity to effectively counter Islamic terrorism.

Even as the Administration plows ahead with its “surge” in Iraq, war still rages in Afghanistan and the security situation there is getting more perilous.

Congress needs to send the message that things must change.

I opposed the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq and I have never once regretted that vote. But today we must focus on the future.

We cannot move the clock back, but we need to avoid making a bad situation worse.

We should not be scaling up our military mission in Iraq - we should be scaling back.

We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter - not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.

As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I know about the pressures on our active duty and National Guard and reserve soldiers.

They lack enough equipment and training. They are experiencing multiple or extended deployments, and limited time at home between deployments.

But to be successful, our men and women must be properly trained, equipped, and ready to quickly deploy worldwide. Shortfalls in personnel, equipment, or training increase the risk to our troops and to their mission.

In short, the Administration’s policies have brought us to the point where we not only are not able to sustain an escalation in Iraq but also are not fully prepared for other contingencies.

But that is not the only reason I oppose the escalation.

I don’t think the president’s rationale for it makes sense, no matter our readiness levels.

The just-released National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq agrees that the term “civil war” accurately describes aspects of the Iraq conflict - and suggests that the conflict may in fact, be worse than a civil war. Putting more American troops at risk is not a recipe for victory.

As a new Foreign Relations Council report notes, we bear responsibility for developments within Iraq, but are increasingly without the ability to shape those developments in a positive direction.

So what should be the way forward? How should Congress respond?

I favor a reduction of military forces in Iraq, and a phased redeployment of our armed forces to border regions in places like Anbar province and the Kurdish areas of Iraq.

That can give us flexibility to act militarily in Iraq if necessary, but will also increase the pressure on the Iraqi government to move toward political reconciliation and stability.

I do not think an immediate withdrawal of American forces or setting a date certain for withdrawal makes sense.

As bad as the situation is in Iraq, we must work to avoid a collapse in the region - not only because we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq, but also because our national security has been so badly compromised by the Bush Administration’s failures there.

We should adopt the main policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, including stronger efforts at diplomacy in the region and internationally.

It is not in the interests of any nation to have Iraq descend into further civil war and chaos. As challenging as diplomacy is in the Middle East, I believe the sacrifice of our soldiers demands that we engage in serious regional talks, including talks with our adversaries, Syria and Iran.

Finally, I am convinced we must reach for bipartisanship in crafting our policy in Iraq.

The President misguidedly rushed us into war. We must not compound that error by turning a debate on Iraq into a partisan game of one-upmanship where legitimate disagreement with the Administration’s plan for escalation is called a betrayal of our troops or where resistance to immediate withdrawal is called war-mongering.

For my part, I will speak out loudly and often for a responsible military disengagement from Iraq, but I will also offer proposals that are aimed at finding common ground. In this regard, I will be introducing legislation that looks beyond the “surge” and toward the necessary and inevitable contingency planning that will be needed if we are to avoid deeper and more catastrophic scenarios in Iraq and the region.

Madam Speaker, the stakes in Iraq are very high. The outcome in this region will have consequences for future generations that will long outlive those of us who are in Congress today.

We should adopt this resolution to send a signal, but then we must try to rise above our partisan instincts and salvage what we can from a terrible and deteriorating situation.

Nations make mistakes. Great nations acknowledge mistakes, learn, and chart a new course. For the sake of future generations and to keep faith with the generations that built America, let’s be a great nation.

Whew! Stay tuned for more on Senate-hopeful Mark Udall in future editions of UdallWatch.

Sen. Bentley Rayburn?

2007-02-12T23:25:00.000-07:00

This came out over the weekend--he ran third in the 2006 GOP primary for Colorado's 5th CD, but if former Rep. Bob Schaffer bows out of the GOP primary, the retired Air Force general might toss his hat in the ring:

A retired military man might be marching toward the 2008 U.S. Senate race.

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Bentley Rayburn, a political rookie who made a surprising showing in a Republican congressional primary last year, said he is being urged to run to replace the retiring Sen. Wayne Allard.

"We’re considering it. We’re talking to a lot of people," Rayburn said in a telephone interview Friday. "If I decide it’s right to get into that fight, I need to get in right away."

Rayburn said one factor he is considering is his admiration for another Republican who is considering the race, former Congressman Bob Schaffer, a Republican.

"If he was to tell me tomorrow (that) he was going to run, that would completely change around my decision process," Rayburn said.

Sounds like a plausible alternative to former Rep. Scott McInnis, but the military record provides some leverage against his relatively low-profile politically:

Rayburn, who describes himself as a "social conservative" and "fiscal conservative," said his military experience makes him uniquely positioned to run right now.

"First, I’m not a politician," he said. "Second, obviously war is a big deal, and there is not, in my opinion, enough credible military experience in both the House and Senate."

What, John Murtha doesn't have the nation's military men and women's--needless to say the whole country's--best interests in mind?

Perish the thought.

Rayburn's X-factor race, should he run, will only be viable with the promise of adequate fundraising. The GOP will need strong cash reserves in the range of $5-10 million to even dream of holding the seat. McInnis has his own record to run against and Rayburn could ease by if an impeccable personal record and stature as a military expert, combined with strong conservative credentials, makes him an attractive candidate for the general election against Rep. Mark Udall (D-People's Republic of Boulder).

Bob Schaffer Speaks Out

2007-02-11T14:49:00.000-07:00

The thoroughly accomplished former Congressman Bob Schaffer - a man of great character, integrity, and insight - was the guest on the most recent edition of the Aaron Harber Show. It's too late to catch the televised broadcast, but I highly recommend that anyone interested in the political culture and direction of Colorado and our nation catch the episode online (note: current version of Windows Media Player needed).

In my opinion, Schaffer accurately diagnoses the causes of the 2006 Republican defeat in Colorado. He also clearly explains how the primary reason for recent GOP shortcomings relates to the guiding factor weighing on his current decision whether to run for U.S. Senate in 2008. I sincerely hope that he finds the conditions right to throw his hat in the ring to replace Wayne Allard. I don't think the Colorado GOP could nominate a better candidate.

So if you haven't seen the episode, it's time to go watch it already. What are you waiting for?

I'd love to hear your feedback, especially as this blog begins to delve into the dynamics of the 2008 U.S. Senate election. As one who likes to discuss political matters in terms of real alternatives and likelihoods, let me first assert that the choice here is not between a Schaffer candidacy and an uncontested primary, for if Schaffer declines to run, it's almost certain someone else would fill the vacuum - for the right or wrong reasons. So let the debate begin, and let's keep it clean.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Ignore Blogs, YouTube At Your Peril In 2008

2007-02-11T02:12:00.000-07:00

Republicans have been slower than their liberal/Democratic counterparts in adapting to the new media--blogs, vlogs, and the internet in general. Estimates of 1 in 5 voters in the 2004 election gleaning their political information from blogs will only increase by 2008. Mitt Romney already has his own facebook profile, but has been dogged early on with the release of video from earlier campaigns that appear to show Romney as a "flip-flopper" on his own political positions.

Last year, George Allen felt the power of YouTube with the endless rehashing of his monumental gaffe that not only destroyed a strong Senate reelection campaign but also dashed any hopes of presidential aspirations in 2008, after much touting as a GOP frontrunner. Slate has a video that neatly sums up the power of the internet, blogs, and YouTube and the likely effect on all future elections. Anyone with an internet connection can set up a blog for free, and with a digital camera and some basic video editing software make John Edwards "feel pretty", capture Hillary Clinton's mangled and tone deaf rendition of the national anthem, recall Rudy Giuliani in drag being pursued by Donald Trump, or revisit Joe Biden's slip-of-the-tongue. Every moment spent on the campaign trail will be recorded and edited and repackaged (by supporters as well as opponents).

Just this past week, the John Edwards blogging brouhaha exhibited all the characteristics of the blogosphere--quick and sharp attention brought to the public by bloggers investigating the hires made by a presidential candidate attempting to spread his message via blogs. Whether the publishing legacy of a campaign staffer exists only on the internet or any other media, literally hundreds of independent investigators are simultaneously unleashed to discern an allegation's veracity or research a person's history. The MSM can only do so much, and often unintentionally (and sometimes intentionally) overlooks certain points of view or facts in question. The media uproar did not come from the media itself, but from the stirrings on the blogs creating a buzz over Edwards' newest mouthpieces.

Instead of a story receiving its 15 minutes and then being forgotten almost immediately, blogs and video sites can perpetuate a story (for good or bad) long after the MSM expiration date. The permanence of such records will make it more difficult for candidates to evade or equivocate on past comments, political views, or actions. Even if this quality trends toward the negative side in terms of unintended consequences, the reality is that it will undoubtedly become a permanent part of the political landscape for years to come.

Ritter Vetoes Union Bill

2007-02-09T16:55:00.000-07:00

At first it appeared this bill was a done deal, now Gov. Ritter reveals that he has vetoed the pro-union legislation, protecting Colorado's business community:

Gov. Bill Ritter said Friday he has vetoed a bill that would have made it easier to set up all-union workplaces.

The bill would have eliminated one of two worker elections required to form an all-union workplace. In an all-union shop, all employees are required to pay fees to the union whether or not they join.

The bill angered business groups, who said it would discourage new employers from coming to Colorado.

Business has hotly objected to the bill, questioning Ritter's business bona fides. Democrats say the bill eliminates antiquated law and makes it easier to eliminate union "free riders" who get the benefits of union representation but do not pay.

The bill emerged from the Senate this week after an eight-hour Republican filibuster Feb. 2.

This decision will, no doubt, produce much hand-wringing and rending of garments from the unions and their Democratic supporters as nothing more than bending to the business community and other assorted right-wing special interests. Whatever his motivation, he should be applauded for weighing the interests of all parties over the narrow focus of the unions.

**Update from the Denver Post:

The Democratic governor campaigned as a pro-business moderate but also indicated to labor that he would sign such a measure.

"We are obviously extremely disappointed that Gov. Ritter felt it necessary to break a campaign promise under pressure from big business," Steve Adams of the Colorado AFL-CIO said in a release. "We hope this is not a harbinger for what lies in store for the working men and women in this state."

Governors must govern, not recreate a patronage system where loyal supporters are rewarded with in-kind legislation they support. Ritter demonstrated a great deal of intestinal fortitude for a Democrat in breaking with one of the pillars of the party's support. The "honeymoon" for an all-Democratic Colorado legislature and executive branch has come to an early end.

ColoradoPols has the text of the Governor's letter explaining the reasoning for his decision to veto the bill:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am returning to the House of Representatives House Bill 07-1072, "Concerning the Elimination of the Requirements for a Vote Ratifying an All-Union Agreement." I vetoed this bill as of 2 p.m. today and this letter sets forth my reasons for doing so.

As governor, I take seriously my obligation to represent as best I can all of the people who reside in the great state of Colorado. It is my solemn duty to approach the challenges facing us today with a broad view, to take into account different perspectives, and place the highest priority on what's best for the people as a whole.

I committed in my first State of the State speech just a few weeks ago, and I promised the people of Colorado over the last two years, that I would work tirelessly to bridge traditional divides, to bring together groups that often find themselves at odds: Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, developers and environmentalists. I vowed to listen to a wide range of views, to unite and to build consensus around a public policy agenda that speaks to the common good.

I am proud of the coalition that honored me with election to this office: rural and urban, mountain and valley, agricultural and industrial, wealthy and poor, Republican, Democrat and unaffiliated. It was a coalition of small businesses, big businesses and working families.

My sympathies lie with Colorado's working families. My father was a heavy-equipment operator and a member of Operating Engineers Locals 3 and 9. I worked my way through college and law school as a pipe layer and a member of Laborers Local 720. I understand the struggles of Colorado's working families. I have lived those struggles myself.

During the campaign, two labor organizations asked me in written questionnaires if I would support an amendment to the Colorado Labor Peace Act that eliminates the second organizing election ratifying an all-union agreement. I indicated that I would, believing that requiring a second super-majority election seems, on its face, undemocratic. It also injects government into what should be a private negotiating process between employer and employee.

I recognize how deeply disappointed my friends in organized labor will be with this decision. I know that members of my own party in the legislature stood firm in the face of outrageous, unprecedented and shameful partisan rhetoric done only for political sport.

But I strongly believe that the way we do the people's business is as important as what we do. And I am obligated to judge legislation by its consequences, intended and unintended.

Over the last several days, I have listened intently to people I respect who worried deeply about the impact this change would have on our ability to attract new business to Colorado, to create new economic opportunity for all. I am persuaded by their argument that changing long-time Colorado law relating to business and labor negotiations in this manner, in the atmosphere with which it was debated, is not now in the best interests of our state.

From the beginning, this was a bitter, divisive and partisan battle. Opposite sides dug in, refusing to consider reasonable compromises. It demonstrated precisely why so many people have grown so cynical about American politics. The bill's proponents made no effort to open a dialogue with the opponents. At times, the opponents were neither respectful nor civil. It was over-heated politics at its worst.

How we govern is important to me as governor and to the people of Colorado. The spirit of cooperation and collaboration embodied in the passage of FasTracks, Referendum C and other initiatives offers a perfect example of how we as a state can join forces, forge coalitions and move Colorado forward together.

Creating the New Energy Economy, reforming health care, funding education, and building a 21st century transportation system requires that kind of spirit and commitment.

The rhetoric surrounding House Bill 07-1072 damages that spirit, threatening our goals and sinking us into cynical politics.

For these reasons, I have decided to veto House Bill 07-1072.

As we move ahead, my table will always have seats for labor and for business. I am confident they will join me, work with me, and with each other, to move Colorado forward. This is the heart of the Colorado Promise, of how we govern well, and of how we give cynics reason to hope once again.

Sincerely,

Bill Ritter, Jr.

Governor

Ritter decries the partisanship that characterized the debate over the union bill, and given today's political climate this hardly comes as a surprise. Democrats were giddy with power and expected nothing less than an unimpeded path to victory; Republicans were attempting to shore up some credibility in the business community they hoped to woo back to their side. Ritter played the middle--just as Sen. Ken Salazar has done--to continue the appearance of being a moderate. As long as harmful legislation can be vetoed as a result of "playing to the middle", keep it coming!