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!

2007-02-09T00:13:00.000-07:00

When Even The Post Notices . . .

there must be a bit of a problem.

Gov. Bill Ritter may have been surprised by the speed with which a controversial bill to change state labor law hit his desk. But he certainly knew it was coming - his campaign promises helped set it in motion. . . .

It's a pledge that apparently was well-known in labor circles but nowhere else, sparking the fury that has dominated the Democrat's first month in office and set up one of his first official acts as a high-profile test of loyalty.

This article is rich in foolishness. Somehow, the Post managed to recognize that Ritter, ironically, managed to garner the support of some in the business community over Bob Beauprez, the pledge notwithstanding.

"Business never asked me about it," Ritter said in a recent interview. . . .

"We never asked him about the issue because we had no reason to believe they were going to strike through a 60-year-old provision of the Labor Peace Act that no one had ever mentioned to us was a problem," said Bill Ray, spokesman for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

So tell me, o wise and all-seeing Denver Post, didn't YOU think to ask about labor-related issues when you were doing the research that led to your endorsement of Ritter? Oh, of course not.

But that's not even the funniest part of this article. Later on there's this nugget:

On Monday, the beginning of the fifth week of the session, the Senate sent the proposal to Ritter. Details on exactly how the bill came to be one of the first agenda items of the session vary, depending on whom you talk to.

So, does the Post bother to pursue the speculation put forward last week by Republican Colorado House Caucus? You know, the part where this labor bill is sent through the legislature in record fashion to appease the labor interests that are holding up the Democratic National Convention?

Of course not. That might be responsible journalism.

You Fill In the Issue

2007-02-08T00:09:00.000-07:00

From 9News, regarding today's hearings at the state house about a bill before the Senate.

"We understand ******* is something you choose to do, but I want to take away that choice," Leitz said. "I don't think we should give people an opportunity to make a choice that we know is wrong. We don't allow someone under 18 to smoke a cigarette because we know that it's wrong."

From further in the story:

The measure advanced on a 5 to 4, party-line vote with the Democrats in charge of the committee voting in favor.

Now, try to imagine what the issue at hand is. Let's see--government intervention in a personal choice. Boy, it seems I've heard that language once or twice before. Now, what was that issue? Was it . . .no, . . . but, maybe it was--was it abortion?

No, of course not. Nothing so serious as life or death.

No, your state legislature is going to intervene to prevent teenagers from using tanning beds.
Anybody else find the language use ironic? Or is it just me?

Cross-posted at Best Destiny

Hickenlooper Wastes Money Plowing Ice A Month Too Late

2007-02-06T02:24:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, we criticized Mayor Hickenlooper for choosing to do something about the paralyzing ice covering Denver's streets over a month after the first blizzard hit.

Now with a moderation in temperature, the city plans to spend millions not only plowing whats left of the ice--and there is still a lot, mind you--but renting giant snow melting equipment. Even the left thinks this is nuts.

Note to Mayor Hickenlooper: the sun melts snow each year for free. Nobody in Denver complained about the ice piled in local parks, seeing as they couldn't easily reach them due to the ice in the streets . . .

No doubt the Hick and the city council members feel the heat from the pressure of their constituents to accomplish their duties in a timely manner. This overreaction meant to quell criticism is itself being attacked as a foolish way of spending city funds, especially a contingency fund designed for emergencies, not CYA gestures.

Then there's the potholes.

Buckle Up Or Else--Seat-belt Primary Offense Bill Threatens Liberty

2007-02-06T00:14:00.000-07:00

The Rocky Mountain News sees the primary offense seatbelt law as a "pretext to stop just about anyone".

In a bad neighborhood? Driving in the early morning hours? Friday or Saturday night? With the excuse of seatbelt enforcement, police can pull a driver over on suspicion of not wearing a seatbelt.

Even those not driving under the influence or otherwise committing a legal infraction know the inconvenience and stress of being pulled over. This is not to put any blame on the officers themselves--their inconvenience will be having to enforce an extremely minor infraction while potentially ignoring more threatening behavior that truly endangers drivers and leads to motor vehicle fatalities.

Drivers should know the consequences of driving without a seatbelt. Voluntary observance should be the standard, and would not be objectionable as the secondary violation as it currently stands. Police officers should focus on those drivers who run red lights, speed, and appear to be under the influence or committing road rage.

Just ask yourself--can you tell, especially at night, if those around you are wearing a seatbelt? How would police be any more able to discern this fact, for example, in winter when everyone wears bulky coats that for all intents and purposes swallows the seatbelt behind folds of fabric.

"We're just committed to trying to save lives," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver. "A tougher seat-belt law will generate more (federal) funding for the state. It's the right thing to do."

Most support comes from the Democrats, although the most vocal opponent, also a Democrat, fears police harassment and racial profiling. In most instances we would disagree, but in this particular instance the representative has a point. And does the state need additional racial profiling lawsuits--no doubt an unintended consequence of the overreaching legislation?

Mayor Hickenlooper Vows To Plow Denver--A Month Later

2007-02-03T01:54:00.000-07:00

Where the hell was this "contingency" plan a month ago (video), Mayor Hickenblooper?

The city of Denver cried uncle Friday and announced that it's no longer just relying on its own crews to clear the ice and snow from residential streets -- it's hiring contractors.

. . .

Half of the residential streets still have not been plowed.

On Friday, Mayor John Hickenlooper said he's heard from many the residents who have vented their frustrations.

"We're going to call in additional contractors, both with manpower and equipment," he said.

He outlined a strategy that is narrowly focused, so instead of clearing the snow and ice from curb to curb on all of the residential streets, the snowplow crews will focus on clearing a 10- to 12-foot lane.

. . .

"We don't control the weather. The weather deals the card, and we play the hand," Hickenlooper said.

We are calling Hickenlooper's bluff. Denver's plowing plan--not the plows or operators themselves, who have worked hard over the last six weeks--was abominable. Relying on January thaw that never came, Denver and other suburbs allowed snow, packed from two consecutive storms, to turn into sheets of ice inches deep. The ruts followed, and the minimal melting from meager sunlight only served to harden the ice even more. So much for a plan.

Even main streets cleared after the storm saw so much excess snow piled up on the curbs and sidewalks that many are still impassable as of early February. North facing areas shaded by buildings are especially encrusted by excess snow and ice.

The mayor does not control the weather--however, the city does control the planning and execution of snow and ice removal, and should have drawn up plans to hire independent contractors and gather more equipment weeks ago, and at a far smaller cost. The weather may eventually warm, but Hickenlooper's missteps may stick around longer than the ice he has so far failed to clear.

Udall's "Anti-Corruption" Legislation Just An Election Ploy

2007-02-03T01:51:00.000-07:00

It would be believable as legitimate legislation had Rep. Mark Udall (D-People's Republic of Boulder) introduced the bill outside the context of a potential run against an opponent specifically targeted by the bill's intent:

Rep. Mark Udall fired a warning shot in the 2008 U.S. Senate race on Thursday by co-sponsoring "anti-corruption" legislation that reminds people of a past controversy surrounding one of his potential Republican rivals, former congressman Scott McInnis.

Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, agreed to co-sponsor a bill by Rep. Phil English, R-Pa., to prohibit candidates or their immediate family members from drawing salaries from campaign committees for campaign-related work.

McInnis drew media scrutiny and complaints from Democrats in 2004 and 2005 over the tens of thousands of dollars his campaign has paid his wife, Lori, to work as campaign manager — including after he announced he would leave Congress to become a lobbyist.

Proposing legislation to prohibit something because of the inherent potential for abuse is one thing; introducing bills with the intention of discrediting a potential opponent is pure politics. Is this what we're to expect from Udall in the Senate?

Bob Schaffer Still "Undecided" On 2008 Senate Run

2007-01-31T12:09:00.000-07:00

ColoradoPols claims the scoop on Schaffer's expected run, but Schaffer himself says "there's plenty of time" for a decision:

Fort Collins resident Bob Schaffer flew to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to meet with politicos but said he hasn't decided whether to run for Senate in 2008.

Reached on his cell phone as he changed planes, Schaffer, a Republican, said he planned to have dinner with senators and meet with "political folks" during his trip.

The political blog Colorado Pols reported Tuesday that Schaffer had decided to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Loveland Republican Sen. Wayne Allard, who earlier this month said he wouldn't seek a third term because of a pledge he made to voters to serve only two terms. Schaffer said he hadn't yet made the call.

"There's not a campaign yet, and I don't know if there will be," Schaffer told the Coloradoan. "I'm just doing a lot of assessing right now."

After Allard's announcement, Schaffer told the Coloradoan he was inundated with calls but that he wouldn't rush to a decision.

"There's plenty of time," Schaffer said Tuesday.

ColoradoPols would be better served if it revealed at least some evidence for the claim other than speculation and the rather obvious fact that a Schaffer run, while not set in stone, is widely expected. Hardly a scoop of any earth-shattering significance.

Update on Ritter's Critters

2007-01-30T00:47:00.000-07:00

"Ritter's Critters" What do you think? I'm not sure I like it. Whatever it may or may not gain in alliterative value, it loses in . . . what? level of discourse? I'm not sure I want to sink to their level, you know? Anyway . . .

This is an update on the goings-on down at the state house, now that the Democrats are in control of both chanbers of the legislature and the Governor's Mansion. Of particular interest will be whether Bill Ritter manages to keep his promise to govern "all Coloradans" from the center, whether he will be a check on the "cockamamie schemes" (as the Rocky Mountain News put it), or whether he will payoff his big donors and be who we all thought he would be during the mock campaign.

Let's see . . . .where to begin.

How about House Bill 1072? This is a law that would repeal Colorado's Labor Peace Act, which basically guarantees a Labor "open house" in the state. It is one of the reasons that Colorado's business climate has been among the strongest in the region and the country in the last ten years.

How bad is this bill? It cleared the state House of Representatives on a straight party-line vote. Every--EVERY--Republican state senator and representative has signed a letter to the governor urging him to veto this bill. The Rocky Mountain News has editorialized against this bill in fairly mocking terms. Even the Denver Post has "encouraged" the Governor to sit on this bill, though it's objections are more procedural than substantive. The Chamber of Commerce hates this bill, and is ready to give itself the "Sucker of the Year" Award.

So . . . . will Governor Ritter keep his campaign promises? Not likely, according to certain indications he's given.

Ben has a pretty good read on this one.

What else?

Oh, this goes prominently under the heading "Cockamamie Schemes."

Senate Bill 46 would put Colorado in an interstate agreement to elect the president by popular vote, instead of the electoral system currently in place.

Never mind that the voters of this state rejected this idea in the last election; never mind that it would completely neuter Colorado's influence in the elections, and hand it over to the large coastal cities; and never mind that . . . oh, never mind. This one sucks. And it passed.

And, what else?

Oh, yes. There's this lovely act of Incumbent Protection.

The bill aims to strengthen state fundraising disclosure for 527s, named for the Internal Revenue Service code that defines them, to help identify the corporations, unions and wealthy individuals who fund them.

Currently, 527s are only required to file six financial reports with the IRS in election years. This provides a critical window just before elections when 527s can unleash a barrage of negative ads, without identifying who gave money and how it was spent until after the election.

I hate to say "I told you so," but . . . I told you so.

Now that they've got power, they're going to move to protect their flank.

All in all, a pretty good week for the Democrats.

By the way, GOP, watch this very carefully. THIS is how a party in power acts. As much as I hate the results, you gotta admire the ruthless efficiency with which the Dems act. And, in their defense, it's not like any of their actions are--or should be--a surprise to anybody.

Now, let's just sit back and see if they overplay their hand.

Colorado Not Turning Purple?

2007-01-29T22:00:00.000-07:00

You mean there isn't a Democrat "surge" in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West? Our state isn't turning purple? Sshh, Stuart Rothenburg. You're supposed to let our Democrats continue to operate under the delusion that they're on the verge of a major political realignment, rather than the beneficiary of a confluence of fortunate events in the past couple elections.

With Ritter, Romanoff, and the Democrats already overplaying their hand, the pendulum has started swinging back where it belongs. In the meantime, let's hope the damage is minimal.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Dems: Shilling for Union Bosses, Busting Colorado's Economy

2007-01-25T21:42:00.000-07:00

A topic not broached on Colorado's left-of-center blogs (for obvious reasons) is the great Democrat payback of "narrow interest" groups - read labor unions - who helped to buy them their majorities (measuring in the millions of dollars). First case in point: House Bill 1072 on a fast track through the state legislature. What does HB 1072 do? It takes away workers' rights.

Yes, some - the House Republicans and their Golden Anvil Award & the Chamber of Commerce - have also pointed out the likely negative effect it will have on the state's business climate. But the more fundamental problem, as highlighted by the editors of the Rocky Mountain News, is that HB 1072 is a "blow to liberty."

Republicans and other pro-business and/or pro-liberty types who bought Bill Ritter's line during last year's election must be ready to rip out their hair at the Governor's repeated indications that he plans to sign the legislation.

In the interests of the people of Colorado? In the interests of union bosses who believe that coercion is the only way to compensate for declining membership, perhaps, but not the workers whose rights are being stepped on.

You know that Ritter isn't governing in a way "that serves all the people" when the Denver Post is screaming to kill HB 1072 because it's moving too quickly through the process.

I'm guessing in the end enough Democrats will come to their political senses to put this bad bill to bed, judging by the threats from the state's shocked and angered business interests:

Should Ritter sign the measure, some business leaders are discussing putting a right-to-work amendment on the November ballot that essentially erases the gains unions might achieve.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: union coercion & economic counter-development are what you get when the Democrats hold all the reins of government. I can't wait to hear about the inevitable tax increase.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Early Musings on the Now Open Senate Seat

2007-01-18T00:21:00.000-07:00

I will follow up my fellows in throwing some thoughts out about the 2008 Senate race in Colorado.

First of all, I am sad to see Sen. Allard go. I think, though he hardly manged to "tower over Colorado electoral politics," Sen. Allard proved to be a hardy candidate who seemed to remain truly humble in office. And humility is a trait the Senate is sorely lacking these days-on BOTH sides of the all.

As to the front runners . . .first from the Left. And when I say left, I mean WAAAY Left. Mark Udall is the announced candidate of the Democrats, and if ever there was a candidate who truly represents the People's Republic of Boulder, it is Udall. Inasmuch as Boulder is a punchline for the rest of the state, Udall should be easy to mark as hard Left.

Unfortunately, Udall has three irrefutable advantages going forward. One, he is likely to be unopposed in a primary, which both saves him money and gives him an empty stage with which to define himself for the rest of the state. Two, he is a seasoned, political professional--he is unlikely to make the sort of mistakes and gaffes that derailed the GOP's last two statewide candidates. And C, he is likely to have a LARGE warchest. Early estimates are that this race could cost in the range of $5-10 million; I suspect that that figure is only candidate's money. My guess is that, once you factor in Tim Gill and Pat Stryker, the figure a GOP candidate is going to have to counter is closer to $20 million.

Of course, once you factor in the right-leaning 527s, that number probably drops to . . oh, say . . . $19.6 million.

Given those factors, I'm going to lay out what I think are the primary characteristics of the best candidate the GOP can put forward in 2008.

1. It needs to be somebody known, liked, and trusted within the state GOP. That, by no means, would lessen the likelihood of a primary challenge; but it is likely that such a person may be able to control the dabate, at least to some degree, and prevent it from becoming a gift to the Udall campaign (see "Both Ways Bob" for an example of such a gift).

2. He/She needs to be a seasoned media or political player. Somebody charismatic, somebody who can deliver a message with punch and, hopefully, humor, and somebody who is good on their feet in front of a camera. Look, the odds are the media is going to be . . . ha ha ha, I almost got that "odds are" line out with a straight face . . . the media is going to be openly hostile to the Republican candidate; he or she MUST know how to handle themselves and shut down the sharks. Again, hopefully, with humor.

3. He/She needs to be an unparalleled fundraiser. But, let's be realistic: in Colorado, we'll never compete with the Left in straight-out fundraising. Honestly, the best thing that could happen is to have a candidate [and I HATE to say this] who is willing to sink millions of their own dollars in to this race.

That list leaves very few viable candidates. Bob Schaffer? I question his ability to win the money primary. Bob Beauprez? I like Bob a lot--I've worked for him on two campaigns--but he fails on the second count. Bill Owens? I consider that unlikely at this time--nor does he meet the third criteria. John Suthers? Mmmmm . ..maybe. AG to Senator has worked before; unfortunately, I'm not sure he meets the third criteria, either. Dan Caplis? Unproven--as either a candidate or a fundraiser, though he is likely to be the best possibility as far as good on his feet. Mike Coffman? HUGE possible upsides, given his military service, but I don't know how well he plays on TV or as a fundraiser. Scott McInnis? I don't know about his fundraising acumen, and the long knives are already out for him. Tom Tancredo? Don't make me laugh. Oh, wait, he already did that by announcing for President.

Who does that leave?

John Elway. Who has never been a candidate for political office, and whose honeymoon with half of Colorado will likely end as soon as he announces he's a Republican.

But we know he's good on TV, and we know he has the money to fund a good run--he's also pretty funny naturally. But things change when the prize is political office, and if you don't think his marital problems are going to be brought up early and often, you're kidding yourself.

Basically, . . . color me pessimistic about this Senate seat.

If the tide of politics across the country turns back around by 2008, there are a lot of GOP candidates who would be viable in this race, though tey're going to need a lot of money to do it; if the tide looks at all like does right now, or like it did last November, kiss this one good-bye.

On Colorado's Senate Seat--Quashing John Elway Rumors, Tom Tancredo's Presidential Aspirations, And Other Musings

2007-01-17T04:35:00.000-07:00

First--
According to a spokeswoman, John Elway has no intention of running for the open seat held by Sen. Wayne Allard, but some are talking about a shot at the governor's mansion in 2010 against incumbent Bill Ritter. These rumors are fueled by the perception of Elway's "god-like" status in the state. Elway earned that reputation on the football field, and though some Colorado GOPers yearn for a shoo-in, he is unlikely to jump in and soil his image.

Tom Tancredo has set his sights on the highest office in the land, and has backed former Rep. Scott McInnis. The attacks on Tancredo's presidential run have already commenced.

Speaking of McInnis, the left has already begun the mudslinging by trying to attach the "lawyer-lobbyist" moniker to him (and "McLobbyist") due to his employment at Hogan and Hartson, where failed 1996 and 2002 Senate candidate Tom Strickland now manages. Others also note the rap on McInnis who bypassed a potential 2004 run because of the fancy financial offer of the noted firm.

First backed by former Governor Bill Owens in 2004's Senate race before he switched his support to Pete Coors, former Rep. Bob Schaffer still garners much conservative backing. Though he has not commented publicly on a run, lingering sentiments that he was (wrongly) passed over in favor of the beer magnate (and subsequently defeated acrimoniously in the primary) could energize a more successful run this time around.

Other Republicans--former Gov. Bill Owens, Attorney General John Suthers, Secretary of State Mike Coffman, former Rep. Bob Beauprez, and radio talk-show host Dan Caplis have also been mentioned as potential runners. Each one has his own drawbacks, including lack of personal interest and desire to make money (Owens), recent landslide electoral defeat (Beauprez), or at this point name recognition and fundraising ability (Caplis). Both Suthers and Coffman have been recently elected to state-wide office and could run, but should Schaffer and McInnis choose to duke it out, fundraising and support for these second-tier candidates will likely disappear quickly.

First take on the Democratic field--
Rep. Mark Udall has vowed to run in 2008 whether or not Allard ran for reelection or retired, and with a large warchest would be the Democrat's front-runner. As a member of a noted political dynasty Udall will certainly garner a good deal of national attention, and would get a boost from the 2008 Democratic National Convention held here in Denver.

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper--having endured a rough recent stretch with election woes and weather-related issues--will not run if Udall does.

Final Initial Analysis--
The Democrats hold an advantage in that their front-runner is unlikely to face primary opposition. This gave Gov. Bill Ritter a large advantage in 2006, as the Republican primary saddled eventual candidate Bob Beauprez with the inescapable "Both-Ways-Bob" moniker. Udall, however, does not have the same middle-of-the-road credibility that Sen. Ken Salazar and Ritter were able to use in pitching themselves to Colorado's middle--the unaffiliated independents and swing voters. Republicans will trot out his liberal voting record; Udall narrowly defeated Bob Greenlee in 1998 for the seat (less than 6,000 votes) opened by the departure of incumbent David Skaggs. Though DailyKos has Udall wrapping up this seat, but it remains to be seen how a true liberal plays state-wide.

Republicans could face an uphill battle if there is a primary characterized by the acrimony that plagued the Schaffer-Coors Senate primary in 2004 and Beauprez-Holtzman this past year. Schaffer and McInnis both have voting records to be scrutinized, though at this point Schaffer could be accurately deemed the more "conservative" of the two. Like Udall, none of these potential candidates have faced state-wide scrutiny.

For both parties the key will be fundraising; before Allard announced he would retire the seat had already garnered a reputation as the most competitive Senate seat in 2008. Estimates of $5-10 million necessary for each candidate will likely reach the higher end now that the incumbent is out. This will prove to be the most expensive Senate race in Colorado history, as the Republicans battle to retain Allard's seat with Democrats absolutely ravenous at the thought of yet another Senate pick-up.

Also posted at Slapstick Politics.

Let the Handicapping Begin

2007-01-15T18:22:00.000-07:00

It's official: Colorado Republicans will have an open seat to defend in '08. With Tancredo apparently thinking that a White House run offers a better chance to bang the illegal immigration drum, the Republican side is wide open.

Those of us worried about a Bill Owens resurrection bid can take comfort in the fact that Colorado's former governors have a history of losing such efforts - in the primary.

So We Have A New Governor

2007-01-15T15:53:00.000-07:00

I've only just today been able to get around to reading Gov. Bill Ritter's State of the State Speech. I was, naturally, curious to see if he enumerated a list of priorities reflecting his promise to govern from the middle.

No. Really.

First, the basics. Paragraph 4: Let me also take a minute to thank the previous legislature, former Gov. Owens and former Lt. Gov. Norton for their significant accomplishments. I hope we can keep moving forward.

A bit cursory and perfunctory, but, you know . . . whatever. Let's just say he's not exactly reachinng out.

Paragraph 26: As I approach this job, I start with a simple promise to all of you: I will always listen. I will always seek your cooperation and a thoughtful commitment to meaningful solutions. We won't always see eye to eye. But from me you will always get responsible debate, not partisan rhetoric. I ask you for the same, regardless of whether there's a D or an R after your name.

He goes on in the course of the speech to list eight legislators who have proposed ideas he likes. Seven of the eight are Democrats.

I guess that means he's only 3/4 of the way towards the far left. I guess that's his idea of governing from the center.

Anyway . . .

as to those priorities.

1. The New Energy Economy. His solution: an Executive Order adopting a resolution calling for a 20 percent improvement in the efficiency of electricity use, doubling the renewable energy requirements of Amendment 37, and a Colorado Clean Energy Fund.

2. Health Insurance. His solution: the Colorado Health Plan, a multi-state drug purchasing pool, and significant investment of tobacco settlement dollars (which, by the way, are diminishing faster than expected).

3. Transportation. Solution: A Transportation Summit, to come up with more ideas like FasTracks. I guess he didn't see the same report that showed up on the front page of the Rocky todayRTD is falling behind on key studies required for FasTracks and also is trying to figure out whether the rapid transit system can be built the way it was advertised and for the cost that was promised.

4. Economic Development. Solution: devote 25% of his time to improving economic opportunities in Colorado (though, I suppose, cutting taxes and improving the business climate might fall outside of that 25%).

5. Education. Goals: cut the dropout rate in half within ten years, and cut the "achievement gap" in half in ten years. How? "We're going to listen to our teachers" READ: we're going to let the unions write legislation. Also, there's this line:We need one system that provides meaningful data in a timely fashion so we can improve student learning.READ: we're going to get rid of the CSAP test. Just wait.For a better, more thorough discussion of the education portion of the speech, check in with Ben.

6. Public Safety. Solution: develop programs to cut recidivism. Of course, those already exist, but they're religion-based, so we can't do those.

Six main priorities. Do you notice that there's exactly ONE solution to all of them?

Government.

There is, of course, no way that government can provide for all of the things the Governor wants to do with it. Especially in light of TABOR.

So expect a year-two attempt to eliminate or significantly weaken TABOR.

This speech reads to me like one given by a person comfortable and confident in the power he wields. If you thought the GOP rode herd in its better days, wait until you see how the Democrats respond to control. This could be a scary couple of years.

Sen. Wayne Allard Retires

2007-01-15T14:29:00.000-07:00

A true man of his word, Sen. Wayne Allard honored his self-imposed two-term pledge. Unlike senate lifers, blowhards (they enjoy the sound of their own voices), and presidential aspirants, Allard carved out a quiet record as a citizen-legislator, unfazed by the glitz and power-politics of DC. The Rocky Mountain News offered this generous recap of Allard's legislative career:

Sen. Wayne Allard said today he will honor his term-limits pledge and leave at the end of 2008, creating a replacement fight that should turn Colorado into one of the country’s biggest electoral battlegrounds.

"I just didn't think I could back away from the (term limits) commitment. It is a matter of integrity and keeping your commitments. I have never wavered on that," Allard told the Rocky Mountain News.

Appearing with his wife, Joan, at a press conference at the state Capitol, Allard said, "The people of Colorado placed their trust in me based on a promise I made to them and I am honoring that promise. In an age when promises are cast away as quickly as yesterday’s newspaper, I believe a promise made should be a promise kept."
. . .
Allard has been more folksy than flashy during his 24 years in elective office, starting with eight years in the state Senate, six years in the U.S. House of Representatives and so far 10 years in the U.S. Senate.

"Senator Allard’s great political strength was that Coloradans could look at him and say, ‘He is like me. He works hard every day.’
And I think there’s a commonality between Coloradans and Sen. Allard that we haven’t seen many times in elected officials," said Republican consultant Dick Wadhams, who managed Allard’s Senate campaigns in 1996 and 2002.

Allard has been a champion of fiscal discipline and traditional social values. That included two unsuccessful bids to pass a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

In recent years, Allard often cast predictable, party-line votes with fellow Republicans, and he was known as one of the more reliable allies of President Bush’s White House.

Allies liked to say Allard has been a "work horse" rather than a "show horse" in Congress. Still, Time magazine in 2005 dubbed him "The Invisible Man" and one of the five "worst" U.S. Senators.

Longtime Allard chief of staff Sean Conway dismissed the ranking as "laughable," citing the senator’s accomplishments, including cutting years off the schedule for cleaning the former nuclear weapons plant at Rocky Flats; defending the state’s military installations from base closings and spearheading the investigation into sexual assaults at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Allard was the only one from the nine-member state delegation to sit on an Appropriations Committee, a strategic place for securing federal funds for the state. First-term Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Denver, already has expressed an interest in an appropriations seat, although the positions are hard to come by.

But Allard might be remembered just as much for his down-home appeal and affable manner than his legislative record.
Allard played up his roots as a veterinarian and small businessman. He bragged about being a member of the two-person Senate Veterinarian Caucus, and he sometimes examined colleagues dogs in his Senate office.

CBS4 has video of Allard's retirement speech.

Reactions to Allard's retirement--
NRSC chairman John Ensign:

“Senator Allard has served his constituents honorably over the past 15 years and has continually shown his commitment to the people of Colorado by bringing improved services and commonsense solutions to the country. He has been one of the Senate’s most dedicated legislators and will be remembered as such. I respect his decision to honor the promise he made to serve two terms in the U.S. Senate and I know that he will continue to serve the people of Colorado long after his retirement.”

“Republicans will retain the seat currently held by Sen. Allard and the NRSC will do everything in its power to ensure the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited effective government returns to the people of Colorado in November 2008. The voters of Colorado supported Pres. Bush over Al Gore in 2000 and again over Senator John Kerry in 2004 and Republican statewide registration is 36% compared to 30% for Democrats - ensuring Republicans a strong advantage in 2008. Retention of this seat is now a top priority for the NRSC.”

kos:

Senate Republicans are weeping today.
. . .
Colorado was already the Democrats' top pickup opportunity, with Allard winning his two terms with razor-thin margins and a Blue wave sweeping the Rocky Mountain state.
. . .
This will be a Democratic pickup in 2008.

The Club For Growth notes his conservative record:

Allard, who was re-elected with Club member support in 2002, will be leaving a big hole for fiscal conservatives in the Senate, having compiled a great voting record over the last 10 years. He received a 98% on the Club's 2005 scorecard, while getting eight "A's" and only one "B" on NTU's scorecard.

Cross posted at Slapstick Politics

Twin Rocky Columns: Things Looking Up for GOP

2007-01-14T14:40:00.000-07:00

Put together, two columns in this Saturday's Rocky Mountain News for Colorado political junkies, both signaling that having reached its nadir the center-right political movement in this state is on the rebound. In one, Peter Blake assures us that indeed Dick Wadhams is serious about taking the helm of the state Republican Party and committing to see it through the next election cycle:

So why did he agree when Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany asked him to consider the job? "It looked like a challenge that would be a lot of fun and I'm just dumb enough to think that there's a great opportunity here too."

And, of course, we know that there's a lot more behind the decision than what Wadhams is generating for the press. Keep your chin up, GOP.

The other piece - David Kopel's media review column - highlights how the liberal Denver media establishment is still busy trying to exaggerate and perpetuate divisions within the state Republican party (a close look at the background of the picture included with the article features a prominent local conservative blogger):

According to The Denver Post, former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer is "still seething" at former Gov. Bill Owens. This claim was made without a proper factual basis and, to make matters worse, the Post refuses to publish a correction or clarification.

We shouldn't be surprised to see the Post try to bait Schaffer into saying something derogatory about the outgoing Republican governor. But Owens is out of the political picture now, and the party is focusing on the future (witness the Blake column). We have no laurels on which to rest, so there's hardly room for complacency, but we don't have to commit ourselves to despair, either.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Colorado Dems Repaying Favors to Union Bosses?

2007-01-12T14:26:00.000-07:00

The newly expanded Democrat power base in Denver stands poised to repay the union bosses who joined ultraliberal benefactors Tim Gill and Pat Stryker in helping to buy their recent elections. Introduced this week in the Colorado state legislature is House Bill 1072 by Democrat Rep. Michael Garcia, which would eliminate the requirement that a majority of workers has to cast a ballot to approve a union agreement to create a closed shop and collect agency fees.

That's right: in other words, union bosses and their Democrat allies just want to assume the financial support of the average working man without even holding an honest election first. Of course, federal law as it stands now would supersede the state legislation, keeping the majority vote requirement in place. But Senator Ted Kennedy has attempted before to change federal law with "card-check" legislation, and can be fully expected to try it again.

"Card-check" legislation eliminates the secret ballot requirement for workers to accept union representation, and instead enables union organizers to employ subtle, coercive - and often deceitful - tactics to use workers' signatures to their advantage. Workers may be pressured into signing a card supporting union representation, often misled into believing a signature merely calls for a secret ballot election.

Union bosses can use the arrangement to cajole employers into setting up a closed shop agreement requiring all workers on site to pay fees - including political contributions - to the union. Unfortunately, it often happens that the employer and the union boss cut a back-room deal at the expense of the working stiffs.

As jurisprudence stands now, workers can go through a lengthy, often arduous, and bureaucratic process to ask for the political money back from the union (and sometimes, even get it). Prior Supreme Court decisions (such as Abood and Beck) require that as a minimum protection. A favorable ruling from the 9 Justices in the Washington Education Association case might give dissenters some more hope, but such a ruling cannot be counted on to solve the problem.

Unions in Colorado are looking to solidify and expand their power headed into 2008 and beyond. The approval of House Bill 1072 in the state legislature (can Governor Ritter really be counted on to veto a bill that would line the pockets of some of his biggest contributors?), along with Ted Kennedy-style "card-check" legislation enacted through Congress, would spell trouble for the freedom of many individual workers in our great state.

If it happens, it's called paying the price for giving the Democrats the reins of government.

Ritter's State of the State: Education

2007-01-12T13:50:00.000-07:00

In yesterday's State of the State address, newly-minted Governor Bill Ritter's remarks came with little suspense and offered no surprises. But supporters of freedom and parental choice may demand answers yet. Congratulations are to be given for the positive tone and the ambitious goals, such as cutting the dropout rate in half. But the general outline for how to get Colorado there is where some problems are going to arise.

First, what did he say? "We're going to align our educational programs with today's competitive global marketplace. We're going to prepare our students for 21st century industries - 21st century opportunities - like renewable energy, aerospace and biomedicine." Sounds like the preface to this new national report, which Speaker Romanoff has already said he will convene a task force to implement.

The question remains as to how this alignment is supposed to take place, for the issue of local school board control still remains. If 21st century skills are what our kids need - and I tend to believe that it is a lot of what they do need - why do you suppose the current system has done so little to effect change? A state fiat or mandate is not going to bring this about. Leave it to the power of the consumer and the marketplace to make the education system deliver its best quality at its greatest efficiency.

Ritter also said: "Colorado has made great progress in the area of accountability. But now we need to strengthen and streamline our different accountability programs. We need one system that provides meaningful data in a timely fashion so we can improve student learning. I look forward to working with the state Board of Education on this issue." All in all, this is a good and commonsense idea. Let's use a single consistent standard to rate the performance of our students, teachers, and schools. But let's also make the performance ratings be measurements of things that matter, and let's give them fair and reasonable consequences, too.

He continued: "Our overall education efforts must start at the pre-school level and continue through college. Coloradans want to see more slots opened up for pre-school programs. And so do I. I look forward to working with Speaker Romanoff to decide exactly how we do that." A targeted, voluntary preschool program for kids who start their schooling with the greatest disadvantages makes sense. And it also makes sense to let the market serve these families' needs, empowering them with vouchers that will ensure better service. A one-size-fits-all, universal, state-mandated program would be little more than a union boondoggle. The long term value of preschool is highly overrated by its proponents - let the research be your guide here.

Moving on: "I want our colleges and universities to double the production of technical certificates and college degrees over the next 10 years. To do that, we need our higher ed systems pulling in the same direction, not competing against each other." This is a dubious analysis. I would much rather our colleges and universities were competing to excel and to attract the best students. Again, how do you plan to get all postsecondary institutions to follow along in lockstep?

Most importantly from the education portion of Ritter's address is what was left unsaid. The state's relatively progressive advances in the area of public school choice - open enrollment, charter schools, online schools, contract schools, etc. - nary even an allusion was made to them. The national report that seems to have guided some of his remarks also called for greater parental choice, more equitable student funding, and teacher pay reform. No bold initiatives in any of these areas.

Instead, he said: "We're going to realize these opportunities by partnering with teachers, school boards, parents and students. We're going to listen to our teachers. We're going to give them the tools they need to succeed. We're going to put their good ideas to work creating rigorous and relevant study programs." That's all well and good as far as it goes (though it would be nice to hear a plug for educational programs being rooted in solid research, too). Unless, of course, he was using code words for his team of partners being the union (CEA), school board association (CASB), and PTA. That iron triangle of educational lobbying power has been brought dragging along with what reforms have been passed in this state and has wielded its clout to obstruct others.

So color me skeptical of how serious Governor Ritter is about reaching his ambitious educational goals. He passed up the opportunity to promote many promising and innovative ideas, so I'm not expecting too much from his administration. In this case, less truly will be more.

2007-01-12T12:09:00.000-07:00

So apparently, Senator Salazar, coming as he does from the hog farming part of the state, is a fan of pork. The Senator joined Senator Majority Leader Harry "Oooooh, that land deal" Reid and most of the rest of his caucus in voting against Sen. Jim DeMint's tougher definition of earmarks:

The measure, an amendment to an ethics and lobbying bill, would have adopted a wider definition of "earmarks," specific projects inserted in bills, to include Corps of Engineer water projects, Pentagon weapon systems and items from other federal entities.

The language favored by Reid would require disclosure of only targeted funds directed to nonfederal entities such as city parks, state universities and private contractors. Reid crafted the ethics bill with Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., but McConnell supported Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., the sponsor of the legislation, on the earmarks issue.

"If we're going to go through all this process, if we're going to change the laws and try to tell the American people that now you can see what we're doing, let's don't try to pull the wool over their eyes," DeMint said.

Makes sense to me, but apparently not to our junior senator.

Amusingly, the AP continues its run of innumeracy. The article states that 7 Republicans voted against DeMint, when in fact, only 5 did so. The 46 votes against came from 49 Democrats, minus the 9 defectors, plus 5 Republicans and 1 Indpendent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The AP writer probably did the arithmetic in his head, trying to back out the number of Republicans, rather than actually looking at the roll call tally as he did for the Democrats. I don't suppose there's bias in the difference between 5 and 7 Republican defectors, just laziness.

Political Avalanche--Not Just Another Conservative Political Blog For Colorado

2007-01-12T00:36:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Political Avalanche, Colorado's newest conservative political blog.

Why, you ask, do we need another blog?

Well, some may have noticed Colorado's recent shift into the "purple" state category--Democratic wins in '04 (Ken and John Salazar, against major GOP victories around the country) and '06 (which garnered the Dems the governorship, a 4-3 Congressional delegation, and retained control of both houses of the state legislature) have left the once vigorous state GOP foundering and conservatives of all stripes struggling to figure out what went wrong.

Colorado, like other Western States, has always exhibited political independence, exercising its will beyond party confinement. GOP moderates, right-wingers, and libertarians created a majority that in big-tent style appealed to the state's large numbers of "independent" and "unaffiliated" voting bloc. Indeed, both registered GOP voters and independents have consistently outnumbered Democrats for years. What gives?

Colorado's GOP collapse represents a failure of the party to hold constant to both its inclusive appeal but also its conservative principals. Election '06 national sentiments aside, Colorado's GOP became complacent while in power and a dearth of appealing candidates combined with neglect of principles has allowed "moderate" Democrats like Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter--much to their savvy political credit--to capture the hearts and minds of a majority of Colorado voters and bring Democrats to office.

While a more detailed vision and mission statement will follow in the following days, the ostensible purpose of Political Avalanche--a group blog featuring some of Colorado's best conservative bloggers--is at least four-fold:

1. Help rebuild the fractured state GOP by identifying and promoting new GOP leaders and candidates.
--Though conservatives come in all shapes and sizes and are likely not to see eye-to-eye on many issues, the GOP continues to provide the only vehicle for providing a satisfactory solution for a majority of those who believe in strong conservative principles. Libertarians might protest, but the only party with potential electoral viability to support small-government, personal responsibility, free-market, and individual freedoms is and will remain to be the Republican Party.

2. Watchdog the Democrats
--As has been repeated ad nauseam in the local media, the Democrats control Colorado's political future by possessing both houses of the state legislature and the governor's mansion for the first time since the early '60s. This is true for at least the next two years, and in that time conservatives are obligated to hold these elected officials accountable, by identifying partisan politics and revealing shortcomings that threaten Coloradans' freedoms. This is not to say that the blog will strictly engage in the sort of demagoguery of attack-dog sites; we vow to remain the loyal, if warranted, and dedicated opposition. We may not hold the veto pen, but we sure can cause a stir!

3. Highlight key issues and races for 2008
--What are those key issues and races? While it is only January of 2007, those electoral issues and key races will emerge steadily over time, and without a doubt, the contributors to Political Avalanche will have strong but varying opinions on all of them. PA is not simply intended to be a GOP rubber-stamp. If conscience dictates, the bloggers are committed to going against the grain. Promoting strong conservative principles will guide the editorial decisions here, not the ever-changing flow of the political winds. Criticism will be of the constructive sort; too many blogs today offer disagreement and disapproval without proposing a plan of their own. This does a disservice to the reader, even if the criticism in insightful and warranted. Promotion will be independent. Contributors will of course have their own affiliations with the party, and transparency will be upheld. PA is not a covert, secretly funded GOP blog with "connections". However, if you can hook us up, shoot us an e-mail. (sarcasm!)

4. Promoting conservative principles
--Free market solutions. Individual freedom and responsibility. Preventing the creep of the nanny-state. Liberals, including Democrats, believe that increasing government handouts, raising taxes, and legislation a mile high is the panacea for all that ails Colorado. "Look what we can do for you." Conservatives and the Republicans who espouse these principles believe that everyone should look to themselves first. When people encounter difficulty, they should get a hand-up, not a hand-out. The left believes that (other people's) money can solve everything. Colorado's future depends on the citizens of the state, not the government. Articulating various views on the nature of conservative principles, PA intends to be inclusive--libertarians, social conservatives, and the multitude of other self-identified conservatives and Republicans should feel welcome. PA's contributors are by no means of one mind, and the diversity of ideas (the only true diversity) should be this blog's strength.

To achieve these objectives, Political Avalanche has gathered six of the state's conservative blogs:
Best Destiny

Clay Calhoun

Mount Virtus

View From a Height

Slapstick Politics

Mile High Delphi

By concentrating their efforts and avoiding the unnecessary duplication of efforts so endemic in the blogosphere, Political Avalanche promises to provide comprehensive conservative commentary on Colorado politics in a single location.

Liberals have ColoradoPols and Colorado Confidential.

Conservatives now have Political Avalanche.