Tom Tancredo EXCLUSIVE on Seng Center

by Seng Center | 9:38 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

Below is our 7/29 college radio EXCLUSIVE with just-announced candidate for Colorado Governor Tom Tancredo in what appears to be his very first as-candidate interview on the radio.  The interview took place less than two hours after his press conference on Regis University’s Seng Center radio show.

Direct Link
22.23 MB Download

Comments are more than welcome!  E-mailed Jimmy at Jimmy@SengCenter.com or post on the site!  As always, please be respectful in your remarks.

Tune in LIVE to Seng Center every Thursday night from 6-8pm MTN online at krcx.org, official website of KRCX 93.9 Regis University.

Original Post: Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger

Norton Attack Ad Improperly Taken From People’s Press Collective Video

by Julian Dunraven | 3:09 pm, July 29, 2010 | 19 Comments

By Julian Dunraven

Honorable Friends:

This morning, Eileen Mahony, D.C. Bureau Chief for the People’s Press Collective, put up a very amusing piece about how the Norton campaign borrowed rather liberally from PPC to produce their latest attack ad against Ken Buck. Well, borrowed might not be quite accurate. Given that they took video from PPC, edited it to remove the PPC copyright notices, cropped the size of the video to remove the PPC title bar, and then added it to their ad without any citation to PPC whatsoever, some might even call that stealing. Unfortunately, that seems to be the theme of this election.

Judging from the comments in Ms. Mahony’s post, some have mistakenly assumed PPC is favoring Ken Buck in the primary. This is not true. PPC does not endorse in primary elections. However, its members do tend to object when campaigns try to steal their material. It seems they have objected rather strenuously too. PPC has provided access to a series of documents detailing this matter, including the PPC cease and desist letter to the Jane Norton campaign, the Norton campaign’s response, and PPC’s reiteration of its cease and desist demands.

As one of the PPC commentators has already suggested, this incident reveals a disturbing lack of character in the Norton campaign. Not only did the campaign grossly distort Buck’s words in its ad, it took material from the PPC without permission or even attribution to do so. The PPC’s final letter to the Norton campaign asks, “If even allies of the campaign cannot depend upon it for fair dealing, how is the rest of the state supposed to trust it?” That is a question I think many of us will be considering.

Original Post: Slapstick Politics

The party never ends…

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 7:48 am, July 31, 2010 | No Comments

The Saturday Denver Post teases a story appearing tomorrow:

Debate the costs, but two economists say bailouts probably prevented a depression.

Original Post: BlueCarp

Colorado Governor’s Race: Endorsing Nobody

by Rossputin | 6:00 am, July 31, 2010 | No Comments

After thinking about the pluses and minuses of Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, and taking no pleasure in my conclusion regarding the Colorado Republican primary for Governor of Colorado, I have decided to endorse Nobody.

Let me be very clear here:  I’m not saying that I’m not endorsing anybody.  Rather, I am actively endorsing Nobody, endorsing the view, also taken by some friends who have created a Facebook page entitled “Undervote Colorado’s GOP Governor Primary” (whose logo I have appropriated not once, but twice, below), that the best course of action for Colorado Republicans in this election is not to cast a vote in this race.  (I encourage you to “like” the Facebook page and send it around to your friends.)

I am, with some sadness but more resignation to a Republican Party that needs reworking inside and out, endorsing Nobody.

The only chance to get the primary winner to drop out of the race is if he can be made to believe, strongly enough to overcome the ego which all candidates do and must have, that he does not have enough support to win the general election and that he should therefore get out.  The GOP would then fill the vacancy.

If that were to happen, it still might not help unless Tom Tancredo then drops out of the race, which he has said he won’t do.  And, given Tom’s gambit here, I take him at his word.

It’s a longshot, but perhaps the GOP wouldn’t fill the vacancy, and just subtly support Tancredo, though I think Tancredo has angered too many to expect that outcome.  Another possibility, as suggested by reader Ken S. is that Tancredo might be offered the Lieutenant Governor slot with specific authority over immigration-related issues.  Seems like an interesting idea, but I wouldn’t bet the ranch on Tancredo accepting such an offer.  It could depend on who the GOP governor nominee is.

At the end of the day, this election is probably lost; John Hickenlooper is probably our next governor.  This thanks to a GOP establishment which pushed the best candidate, Josh Penry, out of the race to leave us with Scott McInnis, a man who offered a partly-plagiarized paper to a foundation – and that’s the good part of that story for McInnis.  And thanks, I continue to believe despite many protestations from Tea Party and other friends, to a Tea Party movement which was so smitten by Dan Maes’ new guy, ordinary guy, fresh face that they forgot that experience matters.  Any really relevant experience.  Dan Maes is a nice enough guy upon a first meeting, which is all most people will have, but my interview with him made it clear to me that he should have run for the state legislature or some other achievable goal, not for governor.  He has a decent basic foundation, but nowhere near a deep enough understanding of issues, politics, or the business of governing to make his first campaign the race for the top elected position in the state.

Arguments that it’s about the “team” he puts around him are not compelling.  A good team is of course important, but the team captain should be a very strong player and Dan Maes is not that, at least not yet.  It’s not meant as an insult to Mr. Maes who seems like a sincere person (as does his wife, Karen).  What he’s doing is like me trying to play for the Denver Nuggets just because I played a little basketball in high school.  (Actually, Maes’ relevant experience to be governor is probably even less than my relevant experience to play in the NBA.)

While I understand Tea Party and 9/12 groups’ desire to elect a true outsider, it can’t be at the expense of competence.  Dan Maes is simply not ready to be governor of a state.  And Scott McInnis is unfit in both temperament and history to be governor of a state.  Let me be clear:  I mean no insult to Dan Maes, and I do mean insult to Scott McInnis who should (1) have handled the “Musings on Water” fiasco much better, including (2) dropping out of the race.

The whole situation reminds me of my blog note of January 5th of this year when Bill Ritter announced he would not seek re-election (I bet he’s regretting that decision now!) in which I predicted that Hickenlooper would be the Dems’ nominee and I said that McInnis (the clear front-runner at the time) “would rather run against anyone but John Hickenlooper.”  And more: “If I were the GOP, I’d hope that John Hickenlooper finds, yet again, a reason not to run for governor.”  We weren’t so lucky.  And at this point, the Republican candidates are so damaged that they might even lose to Ritter if he were running.

As crazy as it sounds, I still think McInnis might be more electable than Dan Maes, even though after one meeting with each I like Dan Maes better than I like Scott McInnis.  But by more electable, I mean maybe McInnis loses by 12 and Maes by 15. And those might be optimistic, which is a remarkable thing to believe in what is shaping up to be the best Republican year since 1994.

With looming redistricting and potential State Supreme Court vacancies, it’s so important to win this seat that I really considered holding my nose and voting for Scott McInnis, not so much based on electability but on the possibility of being convinced to get out of the race. (I don’t think Dan Maes will drop out under any circumstances.) But some smells are too strong to stomach, even holding one’s nose and I just can’t vote for a man who cheated a foundation and whose reputation among people who have known and dealt with him for a long time is “Scott is all about Scott.”  I have to be able to live with myself.  It’s why I didn’t vote for John McCain.  This is a different sort of problem than I had with McCain, but it leads me to the same place.

In short, I can’t vote for Dan Maes for this race at this time, and I can’t vote for Scott McInnis for any race at any time.

In the 2010 Colorado Republican primary for Governor of Colorado, I endorse Nobody and I encourage you to leave blank both governor choices on your Republican primary ballot.

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

Politically incorrect Ken Buck losing to Jane Norton?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:52 pm, July 30, 2010 | 2 Comments

Ken Buck’s politically incorrect complaint about a few birthers who gave him hard times at Tea Party events and his allegedly sexist quip about Jane Norton’s high heels may cost him the GOP’s Aug. 10 Senate primary, according to an unnamed pollster cited by a Washington Post political blogger.
Birthers say President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. and isn’t legally qualified to serve as president, but most Americans discount their claim and, like Buck, don’t want to hear anymore about it.
Of course, I’ve been predicting that Buck’s high heels quip could cost him, especially because Norton came up with a great ad that implies that Buck is sexist because he made the dumb joke. That Norton has joked about her gender in the campaign apparently hasn’t softened the negative impact of his comment or of the ad. And that the Norton campaign made the ad using an unattributed film clip without the permission of its owner, http://www.peoplespresscollective.com, probably isn’t on voters’ radar screens. The Buck campaign is making a big issue of the web site’s complaints about how Norton improperly used its clip, but so far, it’s an insiders’ debate.
How Buck’s complaint that a few people who attended Tea Party events were disruptive could hurt him is a bit hard to understand. The complaint may be a problem for Buck because it initially looked like he was calling everyone involved with Tea Parties dumbaxx “birthers.” 
Most curious is that WaPo’s The Fix would report the results of a poll conducted by an unnamed pollster. That pollster is saying that Norton leads Buck by five percentage points. Who the pollster is and works for and how and when the poll was conducted are not reported by Chris Cillizza who writes The Fix.
However, the poll results have some credibility in light of the latest Rasmussen Reports’ poll. It shows Norton with a nine point lead over appointed Obama Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet, compared with Buck’s six-point lead. But Buck has a six-point lead over Bennet’s primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff. Norton leads Romanoff by four percentage points. Both primaries look like toss-ups.
So while I’ve been saying that it appears that Norton has the momentum and that Buck is on defense, I’m not ready to declare Norton the winner of the primary. This mildly negative personality contest is still a toss-up until we get better information or until the primary is held.
LINKs:
Colorado primary provides fireworks a-plenty. By Chris Cillizza.
Norton attack ad [film clip] improperly taken from Peoples Press Collective video. 
Election 2010: Colorado Senate. By Rasmussen Reports.

Original Post: Business Word Blog

Unplug.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 4:53 pm, July 30, 2010 | No Comments

Original Post: BlueCarp

Price for State Board to Adopt Common Core Standards Is Simply Too High

by Eddie | 10:54 am, July 30, 2010 | 2 Comments

Well, Monday is the State Board of Education’s moment of truth: the decision whether or not to adopt Common Core standards. What once looked like an outcome not in doubt has changed in recent days. A great Ed News Colorado story today by Todd Engdahl lays it out well.

Some of the decisions made by the State Board are pretty cut and dry, many of an administrative nature. From time to time they are faced with more momentous choices. Monday’s vote certainly is one of them. My understanding — based on the Ed News report as well as what my Education Policy Center friends are hearing — is that of the Board’s seven members, two are definitely opposed (Peggy Littleton and Marcia Neal) and one is leaning that way. Board chairman Bob Schaffer could turn out to be the deciding vote.

It’s kind of a Catch-22: Voting Yes on Common Core opens up a potential Pandora’s Box of greater federal control and involvement over Colorado parents and schools. Voting No means effectively ruling out Colorado’s chances to bring home up to $175 million in U.S. Department of Education Race to the Top reform dollars. (Note: Over the four years of the grant award, that probably will amount to less than one-half of one percent of Colorado’s total K-12 revenues.)

I’ve thought long and hard about the matter, and believe that the price for adopting Common Core is too high. Colorado can continue to move forward on education reform and make tough decisions without the major federal entanglement it would entail. I agree with the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke:

…the Obama Administration’s push for national standards and tests, threatens the long-established right of parents to direct their children’s education and confuses a proper understanding of federalism. States model federalism for children by setting standards, tests, and curriculum. But that important lesson in self-government will be another unintended casualty of this standards overhaul now that the federal government is overreaching to set the educational terms for local schools….

But it’s not just our deep-rooted principal of federalism that is at stake in President Obama’s education agenda; it’s also our ongoing pursuit of excellence that hangs in the balance.

Adding weight, Matt Ladner’s latest in-depth analysis effectively exposes the weak arguments of some leaders advocating for the adoption of Common Core — those who are trying to tell us just to relax and not worry about the whole thing.

Sorry, I can’t relax, especially with Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan pushing the envelope more and more on the federal role in education. The more I learn about Common Core, the more concerned I am about what a rash decision to approve them could mean for Colorado’s current and future students, like me. State Board member Peggy Littleton brought the important issue to our attention a couple months ago, and I’m very glad she did.

Also of interest on this topic: Listen to the new 10-minute iVoices podcast as Kit Carson School District’s Gerald Keefe explains why he and other rural superintendents are pushing back against the effort to enact national standards.

Original Post: Ed is Watching

Governor endorsement at 6 AM tomorrow

by Rossputin | 10:41 am, July 30, 2010 | 6 Comments

As I’ve said before, I don’t think there are hundreds of people anxiously awaiting to know who I will endorse in the Republican primary for Governor of Colorado.  But for those who are interested in my opinion, I’ve made my decision, written up the article, and it will be posted on these pages at 6 AM tomorrow (Saturday, 7/31).

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

Backbone Radio, August 1, 2010: All Colorado Politics, All the Time

by Rossputin | 10:40 am, July 30, 2010 | No Comments

All Colorado Politics, All the Time

From Ross Kaminsky:

Backbone Radio listeners, being among the most politically astute people in Colorado, don’t need to be told what an interesting political season we’re having, especially on the Republican side of the primary ledger.

I hope to make it a little more interesting with an informative show this week, focused entirely (or at least almost entirely) on Colorado politics.

In our first hour, we’ll be joined by Republican candidate for the 7^th Congressional District, Ryan Frazier. We’ll talk politics and policy and take questions from callers. After Ryan, going into the show’s second hour, we’ll be joined by Ryan’s Republican challenger, Lang Sias, with whom we’ll also have as wide-ranging a discussion we can have in half an hour.

Each candidate has submitted two questions to me to ask the other. Since Ryan is on first, he’ll get the questions from Lang. If he doesn’t answer one or both, then I won’t ask Lang the questions Ryan sent me for him.

Although the initial idea for having them on the radio was a debate, I’m pleased we’re doing it this way. I think a more substantive discussion with each will be possible without the usual back-and-forth sniping of a debate.

I want to discourage campaign operatives from calling and asking “gotcha” or other non-substantive questions. Serious questions by voters, especially 7^th CD voters who may as yet be undecided, would be most welcome by phone, e-mail, or instant message.

At 6:30, we’ll be joined by Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams to talk about a range of Colorado Republican issues, most importantly the Governor’s race and the potential impact of Tom Tancredo, as well as the Senate race and some other races around the state which aren’t getting the attention they otherwise might because of the chaos and entertainment value surrounding plagiarism and high heels.

Again, I look forward to taking calls from you, our listeners.

We’ll spend the last hour discussing various races around the state, with a bit of a foray into other races around the country. I’ll also discuss my endorsement in the Colorado Republican primary, which I’ll release first on my web page at http://rossputin.com a day or two before the show.

Please join me by listening to (and calling in to) this week’s Backbone Radio program from 5 PM to 8 PM on 710 AM KNUS in Denver and 1460 AM KZNT in Colorado Springs.

If you’re not in range of the radio waves, you should be able to listen to the show online by clicking HERE.

I hope you’ll actively participate in the conversation with me: Call the studio at 303 696 1971, e-mail me at ross(at)710knus.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com or through AOL Instant messenger to screen name Rossputin.

 

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

Getting to know Dan Maes

by Rossputin | 5:43 am, July 30, 2010 | 3 Comments

I had the opportunity to meet with Dan Maes for about 90 minutes on Wednesday evening, Dan graciously honoring our prior agreement to meet even after my rather large error regarding where he went to college, an error for which I apologized (again) directly to Dan.  Dan’s wife, Karen, also sat down with us for some of our meeting but, except for just one or two sentences which I got specific permission to write about, Mrs. Maes’ conversation with me will be held in confidence.

Following is the write-up of our meeting, based on 8 pages of notes I took (and filling in a bit more from memory.)  In the interest of not overly coloring this interview, and not laboring under the assumption that many people are anxiously awaiting hearing the Word of Ross, I will not post my endorsement in the Colorado GOP governor’s primary race until Saturday morning, 24 hours after posting this note.  That said, I will still offer occasional commentary within this note, as I did with my write-ups of meetings with Jane Norton and Ken Buck.  I hope you find the interview informative.

My meeting with Dan Maes could hardly have been any more different from my meeting with Scott McInnis.  Indeed, meeting with Scott left me so uninspired that I didn’t even write it up for these pages.  Most of the time was spent with Scott asking me questions, the answers to which I don’t think he really cared about, in what struck me as an attempt to get through our short time together without having to answer many of my questions and while trying to make me feel like he really cared to know me.  I felt like I was talking to a wind-up wax figure of a politician.

Dan Maes, for better or worse from a political point of view, answered – at least to some degree – every question I asked him.  It’s a mark of a political novice, perhaps both part of his appeal and one of his Achilles heels.  Similarly, there is a refreshing earnestness about him, with the potential downside of being more frank than a candidate should.

Before Dan arrived at our meeting place, I wrote down about 20 questions.  Following is our discussion as we had it, which was roughly in my original question order.  I will put direct quotations in quotes.  Dan spoke pretty fast so I might have a word or two wrong, even in direct quotes, but nothing that would change the meaning or intent of his statements.  Where I do not use quotes to convey something Dan said, I am probably still using quite a few of his own words, but I missed enough that I do not feel comfortable saying it’s a direct quote.

I’ll put my questions in bold, with Mr. Maes’ response (quote or my description) in regular text immediately afterward.

Question: What do you see as the pluses and minuses (if any) of the Tea Party movement, and are you the “Tea Party candidate”?

DM: “I never claimed the ‘Tea Party’ label, but every Tea Party which has endorsed in this race has endorsed me.”  “People are sick and tired of what the ‘machine’ is trying to do in this race.”  Maes believes people are passionately involved and organized, “more so than the media understands”, and that “their motives are good and right.”  He couldn’t think of any negatives regarding the Tea Party movement as it exists in Colorado and says he’s yet to see anything radical about it.  He also noted that over 40% of the audience at the state assembly was there for the first time, and figures he got 90% of those delegates.

Question: What do you think the chances are of the GOP taking back either part of the state legislature?

DM: 70% chance of taking back the State Senate, 80% chance of taking back the State House, though he admits he’s a naturally optimistic guy.  So far, no quantification of impact of Democrat “Four Horsemen”.  Maes also noted that “their portfolios have dropped like everyone else’s”, so they may be less willing to throw money around.

Question: What’s your view of the State Supreme Court and Clear The Bench Colorado?

DM: After twice complimenting Matt Arnold on the remarkable job CTBC has done so far, including forcing the retirement of one liberal justice, Maes gave an amusing analogy: “Bill Ritter mugged us several times in an alley. At each end of the alley were two liberal State Supreme Court Justices watching the alley for Ritter.”

Question: What would you  look for in a justice if you got to replace one or more?

DM: “Experience balanced with a conservative viewpoint, someone who would apply law rather than perform judicial policy making.”  On this answer, it seemed to me that Mr. Maes had a few good conservative buzzwords but really hadn’t thought about it much.

Question: What are your thoughts on redistricting?

DM: “My opponents are trying to make it an issue of experience, trying to use it against me.”  Maes said that it’s just a “numbers game” and that he could manage the process as well as anyone despite never having dealt with the issue hands-on.  He added that he is “not in this to manipulate things to the Republicans’ advantage.  I realize that may be heresy with some conservatives.”  My problem with Maes’ answer is that it didn’t really convey an understanding of how redistricting works nor how critical it is.  I also wish he had said that if he were governor and the Dems had the legislature that he would make sure they didn’t manipulate the outcome to their advantage.

We drifted to the topic of Roe v Wade (I can’t say I precisely remember the transition to that topic, but it came from Mr. Maes, not from me).  He said he “won’t fight Roe v Wade” (because it’s a federal issue and he’s running for a state office, and therefore it’s a bad use of his time) but also emphasized that he supported and voted for the “personhood” amendment.

Question: What do you think of Tancredo’s entrance into the governor’s race?

DM:   “I don’t know what his motives are.  He rattled his saber in November but then didn’t get in.  Something similar might happen again this time, though that may be a bit of naive hopefulness.  I told Tom “You told me how to do this, to use e-verify, and you put me in touch with others” for several discussions on immigration issues.

One person “made a case about sustainability of immigration – environmental and economic”.  Maes was also told about the issue if verifiable identification.

[This led to a somewhat broader discussion of immigration, including my asking Maes why his policy changed from what was essentially amnesty in early 2009 to a much more hard-line anti-illegals position now.]

“When I used the phrase ‘path to citizenship’, I didn’t know it was common terminology for amnesty.”  Maes described his current 3-point plan on the subject of immigration:

1) e-verify
2) maximize SB90 enforcement, i.e. report likely illegals to ICE
3) verifiable identification at social services gateways

He does support an Arizona-style law.  From the Arizona discussion, and after I told him about the judge’s ruling a couple of hours earlier overturning part of Arizona’s law, Maes brought up the 10th Amendment: “A new movement around the 10th Amendment will cause many lawsuits between states and the federal government, but we’ll push and push and push.  We’ll win some and lose some but we won’t give up” in an effort to recover legitimate states’ rights within the concept of our federal republic.  Maes believes it’s “time states started taking action” to recover these rights.

Regarding his change in position on amnesty, Maes says it came from talking to experts.  He named a few of the people he spoke to (presumably at Tom Tancredo’s urging) and they are indeed people well-known around the conservative side of the immigration discussion – serious thinkers whom I don’t always agree with but serious nonetheless.  (I won’t name the people here.)  Maes says that talking to experts is “what we do as public servants” and that regarding his initial pro-amnesty position he “wasn’t married to it, but wanted something on the issue to put on the web site.”

We had a related discussion about the 2nd Amendment.  Maes said he is “all for gun ownership and possession.”  We talked about a questionnaire which he’d filled out after which the gun rights group who gave him the questionnaire got pretty upset with a couple of the answers.  One was about a “Vermont-style carry law”, which Maes described as essentially unfettered concealed carry with no permit required.  He said that when he was answering the question, his “first reaction was ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about’ and his second reaction was “we’re not Vermont or Alaska.”  Still, he answered the question “no” without understanding it; he explained elsewhere that he defaults to “no” on questions he doesn’t understand.  There was a similar issue with a question about repealing a Brady-related law, to which he also defaulted to “no” without really understanding the question.  Maes also said that he “had very little time to answer” the questionnaire.

I asked him if he did indeed support unfettered concealed carry without permits. He said “If the people want it, if they vote for it by initiative or it passes the legislature, then as governor I will support it. But I won’t champion it.”

Regarding changing positions generally, Maes said “I am the new guy and I am learning.  I was told by some people ‘don’t respond to questions or questionnaires from special interest groups’ But I still believe people deserve straight answers.

[While I appreciate Dan Maes’ apparently sincere willingness to sit down and listen to people who know more about an issue than he does, I was concerned about how a candidate for governor could have spent so little time thinking about an issue as important to the state as immigration (even before the Arizona law made the issue even bigger) that he could start at amnesty and end up at or near Tancredo.  Maes tries to emphasize his open-mindedness but it’s still hard for me to think that someone with more experience and having spent more time thinking about issues wouldn’t need to be quite so malleable because he’d have a good grasp on a subject, even though it’s always wise to listen to experts.  Just the idea that he (says he) didn’t know that “path to citizenship” was the leading code phrase for amnesty is troubling.]

Question: What are your best ideas for boosting employment in Colorado?

DM: “We need to take some medicine first – meaning we have to shrink government.  The economy in the state is based on energy first.  We need to leverage that industry and bring it back better and stronger than ever.  We need a lower tax burden with smaller government.”  He re-emphasized bringing back energy jobs “more than ever” as well as “lightening the regulation burden and cutting taxes.”  “We can’t just click our heels together and say ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ and have them fall from the sky.”

Maes turned the jobs discussion toward a broader political point: “I’m a conservative first, then a Republican.  It’s time for Republicans to start acting like Republicans again, and that means smaller government and lower taxes.”

I asked about balancing the budget through spending cuts.  Maes said “Ritter did it because he had to.  But I believe smaller government is just the right thing.  It doesn’t take a genius; it just takes the will to do it.”

[My take on this, like much of the conversation, was that Maes understood and seemed truly to believe the basic conservative talking points – and that’s good as far as it goes, but I’m not convinced that his understanding of the issues is deep enough.  That said, a solid foundational belief in small and inexpensive government is a good touchstone even, or maybe especially, for someone with no political experience.]

Question: What is your view on climate change?

“I don’t believe in man-made climate change. Policy people at the federal level spend a lot of time debating it. But I think it’s pretty arrogant for government to think they can impact something so immense and out of our hands as the temperature of the earth.  With that said, we do have to be good stewards of what we have, and I do support conservation to a reasonable degree.”

[I thought this was Maes’ best answer of the evening…]

Maes spoke about a UN program (which I can’t find, but I’ll take his word for it) which he says “is being implemented by city mayors” and which includes things like the “free” (shared) bicycle programs popping up in Denver and elsewhere.  Maes’ big objection (which I share) is that an “argument can be made that pledges (by mayors to implement UN policy) are replacing our Constitution.”

He added that “biking to work and things like that sound fun and green, but we’re losing our freedom under the guise of ‘living green.’”

Question: Would you rescind Governor Ritter’s executive order allowing collective bargaining by state employees?

DM: “Yes, week one, maybe day one, as well as eliminating state funding for Planned Parenthood.” Maes continued: “People are desperate for moral leadership, for character and integrity.  I want to be a moral leader, but not dictating morality.”

Question: What should be done to balance the state budget?

DM: “Start with head count reductions.  We have to examine closely where we have the right to do that.  Also, can we consolidate or eliminate any departments?  We have to be able to reduce costs and grow revenue.”

Again, this answer showed me an understanding of one good idea, but not a deeper understanding of the issue or the budgeting process.

Question: Would you support a tax hike to balance the budget?

DM: “I have pledged not to raise taxes. In fact, my goal is to cut the state’s income tax rate by 1/10th of one percent in my first year in office.”

Question: John Hickenlooper will undoubtedly make experience an issue in the race.  How will you respond?

DM: I’d tell the story of John Love versus Governor McNichols. Love was the new guy, a complete outsider, who ran against the incumbent insider, McNichols.  “Love was a small-office lawyer from Colorado Springs who became the first and only three-term governor in Colorado history.”

“It’s about integrity, character, leadership.  Business-to-business experience is more important than selling beer over the bar.”

Maes said something about sitting in the board room with Fortune 500 CEO’s, but when I pushed on that question a bit, he changed it to “what we call C-level” executives, such as CIO and CFO, people to whom he was trying to sell expensive telecommunications equipment.  I understand his wanting to emphasize interaction with big business, but I thought his gambit fell short when his “board room” meetings with CEOs turned into sales meetings with other executives.  I had hoped that he meant – as it sounded at first – that he had served on the Board of Directors of a big company.  But that wasn’t the case, or at least he didn’t say so.

“I’ve never claimed to be a big businessman or millionaire.  I’ve been a small to medium-size businessman but have interacted with small, medium and Fortune 500 companies throughout that business.”

When I suggested to Maes that the Love versus McNichols thing was a nice story but wouldn’t really answer the question of experience when Hickenlooper pushed it, Maes said in a typical moment of perhaps-rookie candor that he would try to move away from the experience issue quickly.  I would too in his situation.

Question: If Hickenlooper tries to make a campaign issue of your mileage reimbursements, will you provide the records to prove that the reimbursements were properly calculated?

DM: I’ll show our records if Hickenlooper shows his charitable contributions.

I pushed pretty hard on this one, suggesting that if he put it like that, it would suit Hick just fine because he’d then say “Good, I won’t show mine and you don’t show yours.”  Maes then seemed to say that he’d be willing to show everything, but I wouldn’t go so far here as to say he promised that.  And he made it clear that he is “not here to be used.  I’ll do it (show records) when I believe it’s the right time.” He noted that he’s given his tax returns even though as a matter of privacy they didn’t really want to.

I pushed more about the mileage issue, asking about the mileage records which back up the reimbursements.  Maes said that “some cars were used for the campaign only” and that all the miles on the vehicle, starting with the odometer reading when they were first brought to use in the campaign, are reimbursable.  For other vehicles, such as his daughter’s and wife’s records have been kept.  Maes certainly puts a lot of miles on vehicles, getting around the state as much or more than any other politician I’m aware of.  He says he has 60K miles on the second truck he’s used during the campaign.  I was somewhat concerned when he said that it would be a lot of effort to “recreate mileage records” from his schedule but that he’d do it if he had to.

Question: Why did you pay yourself reimbursements instead of hiring staff?

DM: “From March ‘09 through January 2010, we advanced funds and resources to the campaign with little or no reimbursement.  Most candidates would have put $50,000 or $100,000 in their campaign up front.  We did it differently.  We still weren’t getting a lot of contributions.  As revenue started coming in, we took reimbursements.  We haven’t gotten a paycheck since February, 2009.  We’ve been living off savings and the profit from selling the business.”

Dan and his wife said almost simultaneously, “We’ve made major sacrifices.”  Karen added “There’s a reason only millionaires run for office.”

When I pressed again on why taking reimbursements instead of hiring staff, Mr. Maes said “we made what we thought were fair reimbursements; a balanced approach.”

At the end of the day, the answer to the question is that between the money the Maeses put into the campaign and the lack of income during the campaign, running for office has been a significant financial hardship for them and they needed the reimbursements to reduce some of that pressure.  I don’t begrudge them that at all.  Nevertheless, the fact that they needed the money and didn’t use it to hire staff has probably hurt them, not least if that staff could possibly have helped them avoid $17,500 in fines for improper campaign finance reporting.  (Dan Maes pointed out to me when he read this interview write-up that he actually had a paid accountant to do the campaign reporting, but the person left 2 days before the report was due.  So, that particular fine might not have been alleviated by having cash to spend on staff.)

Maes added “Another amateur mistake we made” was repeatedly taking $5,000 at a time in reimbursements.  The repeated round number caught the attention of Erik Groves, the attorney who filed the complaint with the Secretary of State, and the round number allowed people to charge that Maes was “paying himself a salary” from campaign funds.  Maes argues that he just picked a convenient number that seemed close to what he was due to be reimbursed monthly, for mileage, campaign office rent (office no longer being rented), telephone, etc.

I asked Karen Maes if she would still encourage Dan to run if it were two years ago but she knew then what she knows now.  She answered “I knew when we were dating (that he’d run for office). If I don’t like it, I have only myself to blame.”

Dan added “I’m a Christian. I believe things are meant to happen when they are meant to happen.  When I started the business it was with the intent of selling it and running for office.”  He added that this run is therefore part of his plan even though they didn’t sell it for as much as they had hoped for.

Dan noted again, with Karen nodding in agreement, that the delay in showing their tax returns “was truly about privacy.”  I asked if there was at least some concern on their part that the low income numbers would be held against them and they did acknowledge that fear: “We did talk a little about ‘bad numbers.’”  Part of the reason they say they disclosed the information was that “we did believe it would cause others to have to show theirs.”

I told Maes that in my opinion he had played it very badly, that people would not have held low incomes against him if he had positioned himself as an ordinary guy, a man of the people, in an economic sense, from the beginning rather than implying or at least letting people infer that he was a bigger business success than he was.  I made it clear that in my view the political problem is not the numbers themselves (though some might argue that’s an issue in itself) as much as the fact that many people believed – and he didn’t correct them – that the numbers were substantially larger.  People don’t mind modest success; they mind being misled.

Question: What do you make of the recent (Rasmussen) poll numbers showing you doing no better against Hickenlooper than McInnis does, even after McInnis’ plagiarism problem?

DM: “I was excited because it showed us pretty much head to head. Even after the snafus, we were only down 2 or 3 points. For months we’ve only heard about ‘Maes can’t win’ but this poll shows we can.”  In terms of showing McInnis doing 1% better than Maes against Hickenlooper, Maes also took a jab at Rasmussen as a tool of the Republican machine, though he offered no basis for that charge.

I pressed Maes on whether he thinks he’s more electable than Scott McInnis to which he said “absolutely.”

Question: What was your reaction to the Denver Post’s basically saying you aren’t ready for the job of governor?

DM: “They’ve gotten into this routine of what a politician is supposed to look like…but the revolution is telling them otherwise.”

We drifted back into the electability question.

Questions: Will establishment Republicans who leave McInnis will go to Dan Maes?  And how much money do you think you can raise?

DM: “The Denver-proper business community might go in part to Hickenlooper.  But two miles outside Denver, nobody wants Hick.”  As far as how much money he needs, Maes said he thinks “we can do it on $500,000 to $1,000,000.”  I suggested he might need to raise half of what Hickenlooper raises to win.  Maes noted that Hickenlooper has already raised $4 million; he did not seem confident that he would be able to raise half that much.

When asked how he could win if he is massively outspent, Dan Maes said – and clearly believed – “Nobody knows the hearts and minds of the Colorado voters like I do.  Several of them have told me ‘Dan, don’t worry about the money…we’ll take care of that.’  Of course, I still do take raising money very seriously.”

And finally, when it came to potential further bombshell sort of news (regarding any potential candidate) and how that might play into the race, Maes ended the interview with one of his best lines of the evening: “Hey, my baggage is unpacked.”

—————————-

My reflections on the interview:

Dan Maes is, in his own way, a breath of fresh air after interviewing so many more experienced politicians.  He’s earnest and direct, perhaps more than he should be.  He seems to care about the state and has a certainly-conservative fundamental make-up.

That said, the fact that he’s never run for office – never even been particularly involved in politics or the political process – also shows through in his less-than-deep answers to serious policy and nuts-and-bolts politicking questions.

I understand why he would appeal to many Tea Party activists, especially those many people who are new to political activity.  I also understand why many people think that Dan Maes has bitten off more than he can chew here – although he would be the first to disagree.

I’m going to end my commentary here as my primary purpose with this note is to inform, not pontificate.  I’ll ponder this as well as the McInnis situation and come up with an endorsement (or not) within 24 hours. Again, I don’t say this trying to sound as if I think people are waiting with baited breath asking “What’s Ross going to do?”  I don’t think I’m that important.  I do know, however, that there is at least a small handful of folks who find my views interesting and for them (and for me) I’ll come to some sort of conclusion post haste.

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

Ad blasts Scott McInnis’ plagiarism

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 6:06 pm, July 29, 2010 | 4 Comments

If Colorado Republicans and Scott McInnis think that Coloradans won’t hear about his plagiarism until he is defeated in the primary or general election or until he drops out, they need to watch this ad from Colorado Freedom Fund five times. The ad isn’t great, but it shows how the Democrats will deal with a plagiarist. h/t ColoradoPols.
The ad stresses the importance of integrity in government. That’s the point I’m trying to make. 
What I don’t agree with is that the ad concludes that McInnis is a “typical politician.” No, the reason that he’s in trouble is that he has shown that he’s more unethical than anyone who’s run for governor in this state for decades. He’s not typical. He’s a sorry outlier.
Who’s behind Colorado Freedom Fund? Outraged conservatives? Democrats going for the kill? A secret Republican gang? Betrayed supporters?
My guess: Someone who wants to convince McInnis to get out is sending him a message he might be able to understand.
LINK:
Scott McInnis’ plagiarism. Colorado Freedom Fund ad on YouTube.

Original Post: Business Word Blog

What is at stake

by Mr. Bob | 4:35 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.

Hat tip to BlueGrass Pundit

Mr. Bob is a contributing author at the People’s Press Collective. Your source for Colorado Politics.

Original Post: The Daily Blogster

FUBAR apologies to the Army

by Rossputin | 4:11 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

Alert reader, long-time US Army Reservist, and Republican candidate for Secretary of State of Colorado, Scott Gessler pointed out to me that I mistakenly implied in my recent Human Events article about Colorado’s GOP primary for governor that the term “FUBAR” was a U.S. Marine expression.

Its creation is indeed, as Scott points out, attributed to the Army.

My apologies to the Army for not correctly attributing this most valuable piece of American linguistics.

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

Tom Tancredo looks like a casual governor

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 3:57 pm, July 29, 2010 | 2 Comments

Tom Tancredo’s debut as a formal candidate for governor went off without a hitch. He dressed retired casual.
He sounded like a traditional gubernatorial candidate—with a sense of humor.
Indeed, at his announcement press conference, he did a better job of explaining his platform and agenda than any of the Republicans or Obama Democrat John Hickenlooper ever have explained theirs.
Tancredo came across as authoritative, knowledgeable and a man who’s been in the public spotlight for a long time.
He’s finally capitalizing on his 10 years in the state legislature, his years in Congress and his unsuccessful 2008 campaign for president. Nothing phases him, and he has fun.
As he has for years, Tancredo spoke about his continuing efforts to protect Colorado workers and taxpayers from illegal immigrants. He said that Colorado taxpayers pay some $250 million to pay for the infrastructure required to support illegal immigrants. And that, he pointed out, is more than the state’s budget deficit.
While promising to roll back taxes that Governor Bill Ritter and his fellow Democrats enacted as fees, Tancredo also said that Colorado’s businesses should not expect hand outs.
They should expect fair treatment, he said.
His platform is on his web site, and I’ve reproduced it and commented on it in a previous post. 
LINKs:
Tom Tancredo posts his platform for jobs, modernizing government, securing Colorado. The Business Word, 7.29.2010.
Tom Tancredo for Governor.

Original Post: Business Word Blog

Tom Tancredo would support Jane Norton if she won primary

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 3:42 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

Tom Tancredo said after his announcement press conference today that he could support Jane Norton for Senate if she beats Ken Buck in the Aug. 10 primary. 
When I asked about supporting Norton, Tancredo turned with a sigh, and said ‘Yeah.” And that wasn’t with an exclamation point, but it drew a laugh. Tancredo supports Buck in the primary. 
He said he continues to support all Republicans he’ has endorsed for down ticket offices, and none have asked him to withdraw his endorsements.

Original Post: Business Word Blog

Tommy “the Tank” Tancredo Visits Your Devil’s Advocate

by jccaldara | 2:58 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

If there ever was a can’t miss public access TV show, this is it folks. American Constitution Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo joins me this week for a one on one conversation. Tune in to hear a candid Tancredo on why he jumped into the race for governor, or better yet, just to hear a soundbite a minute. That’s tomorrow at 8:30pm on Colorado Public Television channel 12, repeated the following Monday at 1pm.

Original Post: Jon Caldara » PPC

Pedaling for Parker

by jccaldara | 2:20 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

During the fight for personal and economic freedom it is often hard to take a minute and focus on the non-political fights for life.

It is going on nine years since we lost our only child at the time to a vicious and rare form of cancer. There isn’t a moment that goes by that I don’t feel the loss of my sweet daughter Parker, the love of my life. My son, Chance, battles Down Syndrome enduring nine surgeries in his short six years of life. As you might know, this is why I am fighting so hard to pass our Health Care Choice Amendment this fall. It is also why the Children’s Hospital is so important to me. The care they gave Parker to comfort her was graceful. And for my son Chance, well, they give Chance a chance to live.

I am so grateful that for years my friend and Independence Institute colleague Tracy Smith pedals the Courage Classic, a fundraising bike ride for Children’s Hospital. In my daughter’s memory she formed “Team Parker,” and will pedal through the Rockies this weekend. This year Team Parker is joined by Independence Institute’s Transparency guru Amy Oliver.

I know a big part of my job is to raise funds for Independence Institute, but I don’t think it takes away from that mission to ask you to give a little to save kids right here in Colorado. Team Parker has a goal of raises $8000 for Children’s Hospital. We can make this goal happen.

Give not just to save my son’s life. Give because, like me, someday sadly you might be grateful Children’s is there for your child.

Give here: www.couragetours.com/2010/tracysmith

And thank you to all of you who help me remember my angel, my love, Parker.

Original Post: Jon Caldara » PPC

Democrats prefer Kool-Aid to Tea?

by Mary Smith | 1:48 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

Get ready for the Democrats’ fear factor in the fall elections: the Republican Party (scary) has been co-opted by the Tea Party (even scarier) and you’ll be so frightened out of your wits that you’ll vote Democratic.

Not going to happen. No matter how much Vice President Joe Biden calls it the “Bush recession,” or Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine pushes the message, as Marc Ambinder neatly captures it, “We may be incompetent, but they’re crazy,” the fact is that Democrats in the mid-term elections will have to run on the policy choices they made the past 18 months and the resulting wreckage in the economy.

Michael Barone writes that “generic ballot results and polls in individual districts… suggest that House Democrats are headed toward historic losses.”

If so, they can recall the Kool-Aid they drank when President Obama took office and led the country down a path it did not want to tread: more government bloat, massive deficit spending and a disdain for the people who pay the bills.

Original Post: WhoSaidYouSaid » PPC

Human Events’ ridiculous “Obama the Muslim” article

by David Kopel | 12:58 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

(David Kopel)

Ronald Reagan once said that the conservative D.C. weekly Human Events was his favorite newspaper. And with good reason. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were few significant alternatives to the then-hegemonic MSM. Along with National Review, which was Reagan’s favorite magazine, Human Events was an essential source for stories that the MSM refused to cover, and for perspectives that the MSM shut out or marginalized. Unfortunately, a recent article in Human Events falls very far below the solid journalism standards which helped Human Events earn the respect of Reagan and so many others.

“Obama The Muslim,” by  Major Gen. Jerry Curry is an article not worthy of a fifth-rate blog, let alone a serious newspaper. The latter two-thirds of the article consists of criticisms of Obama’s policies on Israel and on Arizona border security. I generally agree with those criticisms, but they provide not a shred of evidence that Obama is a Muslim. Former President Jimmy Carter is extremely hostile to Israel, and he is obviously not a Muslim. U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) is extremely hostile to border security, and he is not a Muslim. 

So let’s consider the evidence that Curry deploys in the first third of the article:

“President Obama says there is nothing more beautiful than the Muslim call to prayer in the evening.” “Obama’s father and step-father were Muslims and he spent his childhood living in a Muslim country where his school enrollment records say his religion is Islam.”

–All approximately but not precisely true. Four years of his childhood in Indonesia, plus a school record there. The actual prayer call quote is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset,” not “nothing more beautiful.” This is a starting point for Curry’s case, but in itself, not even close to proof that Obama is currently a Muslim.

“He says that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.”

–The same position was taken by the United States Senate in 1797 when ratifying the Treaty of Tripoli, and by President John Adams in signing the Treaty. Neither President Adams nor any of the 1797 U.S. Senators were Muslims.  Article 11 of the Treaty stated:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

“As President of the United States he genuflects to the Muslim King of Saudi Arabia but not the Christian Queen of England. He thumbs his nose at America’s friends and bows to its enemies.”

–I agree that Obama is deferential and obsequious to American enemies such a Hugo Chavez and the Iranian tyrants, and that he has been the most anti-British President of the United States in well over a century, and that he is seriously harming American relations with Poland, the Czech Republic, France, and other allies. But none of that is evidence that he’s a Muslim.

As for the Saudi king: Obama did not “genuflect.” To genuflect, in a literal sense, is to bring at least one knee to the ground, as a sign of respect. Obama did not do that. He gave the Saudi king a deep bow from the waist. I thought this was a disgusting gesture for an American President, but it’s not genuflection. (“Genuflect” can also be used in a looser sense, as behaving in a servile manner. In the article, however, Curry is plainly talking about literal physical actions.)

However, Obama bowed even lower to the Emperor and Empress of Japan. That’s not evidence that Obama is a closet Shinto.

As Curry accurately states, Obama gave only the mildest quasi-bow to Queen Elizabeth II. In light of what 1776 was all about, patriotic Americans should not criticize the American President for insufficient bowing to the British monarch. One can infer from Obama’s bowing patterns that he is anti-British, and one can see that in Japan and Saudi Arabia, he went out of his way to make gestures which made himself and our nation look weak and obsequious. The bowing is evidence that he’s a poor President, but not that he’s a closet Muslim.

According to Curry, “My mother believed in ‘common sense’ testing. She said if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and acts like a duck; it’s a duck….In short, Obama quacks like a Muslim, waddles like a Muslim and acts like a Muslim, so is he a Muslim? My mother would say, ‘Yes! He’s a Muslim through and through.’”

I’ll give Mrs. Curry more credit than that. The looks/talks/waddles test for duck identification involves three characteristics are shared by ducks and by no other animals. Mr. Curry, however, listed only characteristics which are common to some Muslims and many non-Muslims: thinks America is not a Christian nation, dislikes the British, acts obsequious around some non-British royals, is anti-Israel, is weak on border security, tries to ingratiate himself with tyrants. Curry might as well have written, “It has two eyes, lives near water, and eats fish.” Sure, it might be a duck, but it also might be a lots of other things. Such as a law school lecturer who agrees with most of the beliefs of the far-left Christian church he attended for twenty years.

Curry’s final item of alleged proof: “Growing up as a Muslim, Obama must have learned that according to the Qur’an it is acceptable to lie, deceive and live by a double standard provided in so doing one advances Islamic goals. Muslims only pretend to trust and be friends with non-Muslims; in the deepest of their Muslim hearts they have been taught that all non-Muslims are infidels.”

–Generally speaking, “must have” conjectures are not evidence of anything. For the sake of argument, let’s temporarily accept the claim that Islamic teaching sanctions lying in certain cases. Even so, there is no evidence that “Obama must have learned” this particular alleged teaching. His Muslim education did not continue past an early age. It might be plausible to presume that he was taught some elementary tenets of Islam (e.g., there is only one God; God spoke to mankind through a series of prophets, culminating in Muhammed; the Qur’an is scripture.) There is simply no evidence that the “lying to infidels is OK” theory of Islam is universally taught in Muslim education for young children, or, for that matter, to all persons who progress through a full course of Muslim religious instruction. That some Muslims teach the acceptability of lying, and that some Muslim scholars endorse this approach, does not prove that Obama “must have” been taught this particular theory.

It would usually be a sign of bad character for any elected official to proclaim his adherence to one religion while secretly adhering to a very different religion. However, Curry’s strongly-stated conclusion is not even remotely supported by the feeble and poorly-researched evidence which he cobbles together. The article should never have been published by Human Events. Of course even eminent publications such as The Atlantic can have a writer who wallows in malicious speculation based on extremely weak and poorly-considered evidence. 

Jerry Curry’s article is not proof that Human Events never produces good articles, nor is Andrew Sullivan’s Trig Trutherism proof that The Atlantic does not publish good articles. However, because reading time is finite, when I choose to read an edited periodical, I try to choose periodicals for which I have confidence that the editors have done a good job in selecting reliable, credible columnists. Accordingly, Human Events’ retention of Curry as a columnist, like The Atlantic’s  retention of Sullivan, often make me choose to prioritize reading other periodicals instead.

---

Copyright © 2010
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it makes the page you are viewing an infringement of the copyright. )

Original Post: Jon Caldara » PPC

R Block Party South, 7/29/10

by Nikki | 12:57 pm, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

Meeting Tonight! – at the Victory Office – see below…

Come and hear the latest in Colorado’s ever-changing political landscape.

Just in…

Scott McInnis will be joining us at the beginning of the meeting.

Dick Wadhams, CO GOP Chairman, will be kicking off the meeting…
Leondray Gholston, CO GOP Vice-Chair will be wrapping up the evening.

Questions? Come & ask!

Tonight

Thursday, July 29, 2010

6:30 pm mingle, 7:00 – 8:30 meeting

~ Need a New Pick-Up line? ~

Getting the Political Discussion Started

with

Dave Kerber, Arapahoe County GOP Chair
Jim Pfaff, Host of the Jim Pfaff Show

Arapahoe Victory Office
5950 S. Willow Dr., Ste. 306
(SE corner of I25 & Orchard)
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Join us after the meeting at…

Zink
at the Doubletree Hotel DTC
(NW corner I25 & Orchard)
7801 E Orchard Rd
Englewood, Colorado 80111

If you are interested in helping us get our
State House candidates across the finish line in November,
join us at 5:30 for a planning meeting for our Second Annual Picnic in August.

visit R Block Party on Facebook
************************************

Just curious…

by completecolorado | 11:50 am, July 29, 2010 | 2 Comments

I know I’m oversimplifying, BUT…

If only the Feds can enforce federal law, does that mean Denver Police should stop making arrests for petty posession marijuana?

Original Post: Complete Colorado Blog

The Blueprint is Alive and Well

by acmaurerco | 11:41 am, July 29, 2010 | 1 Comment

Original Post: Reclaim the Blue

Tom Tancredo posts his platform for jobs, modernizing government, securing Colorado

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:31 am, July 29, 2010 | 1 Comment

Gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo has posted a modestly ambitious plan for making Colorado a strong and prosperous place to run a business and raise a family.
His four-point agenda for Creating Jobs looks like a good conservative, pro-business, pro-worker platform. Unlike Scott McInnis, Tancredo is intellectually honest about how little power a Colorado governor has when it comes to creating jobs. That is, a governor has no power over the nation’s fiscal or monetary policies or its labor laws, environmental laws or international trade agreements. The plan with my comments in italics:

Restore the business sales tax exemptions that were eliminated by the Ritter “Dirty Dozen” Tax hikes, the Senior Homestead Exemption, and roll back the mill levy freeze.
Repeal the job-killing Business Personal Property Tax. This probably would bring more than enough new jobs to Colorado  to cover the lost tax revenues, and it would encourage much more capital investments in the state.
Revisit and revise harmful Ritter-era regulations, including the restrictive new oil and gas regulations. Colorado’s regulations favor huge companies that have staff who deal with such regulations. The Ritter regulations are anti small business and small employer. They discriminate against small, Colorado-based exploration and production companies and drive them to other states.
Protect American workers (and help honest employers ensure that their employees are legally in the country) through the use of a mandatory workplace verification system such as E-Verify. Every honest employer is for this plan. Employers who exploit underpaid illegals and the lawyers, educators, health workers and social workers who profit from helping illegals oppose fixing the system. Illegal immigrants distort American labor markets in favor of unscrupulous employers and against under paid American workers.

His four point agenda for Modernizing Government (instead of Fiscal Conservatism as posted yesterday) looks conservative, but not all independents will go for it. My comments are in italics:

Build a “zero- based” budget. Lots of politicians have proposed this over the years. I don’t know that any legislatures ever went along. Colorado has a weak governor form of government, and I doubt this is doable.
Restore the limit on state spending. This is a really broad statement. Would this be done in cooperation with the General Assembly or by ballot initiative?
Achieve cost savings by contracting with the private sector, where appropriate, to carry out certain state services. This makes a lot of sense provided that the state retains the powers and hires the talent needed to ensure that private contractors improve the quality of state services while containing or reducing expenses. Today, we contract out road building and other construction services in ways that encourage over building. Contractors are major contributors to Colorado’s political campaigns, and they contribute to the candidates who they think will spend the most money on their services and will hire them.
Refuse federal dollars that come with unsustainable, long-term state spending commitments or harmful federal mandates. Nice and idealistic but a not totally practical plan. If we don’t take our dollars from the Fed, New York, Illinois and other unionized and nearly bankrupt states get them. Tancredo needs to explain which dollars he would take and which he wouldn’t. The General Assembly may not go along.

Securing Colorado is the agenda everyone’s waiting to see. It looks great to me. I think it will appeal to most conservatives who aren’t trying to exploit illegal immigrants’ low wage demands, and a lot of independents will like the plan. Republicans who want to see this plan implemented must help the GOP take back the legislature and elect Tancredo. The plan:

Implement tough new Arizona-style interior and employer enforcement laws.
Withhold state funds from local governments that enact so-called “sanctuary policies”
Oppose providing taxpayer subsidized in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.
Audit state and local government compliance with state immigration laws.

LINKs:
Tom Tancredo for Governor.

Original Post: Business Word Blog

Michigan: Just Another Case of Phony Alternative Teacher Certification “Reform”

by Eddie | 10:52 am, July 29, 2010 | 1 Comment

From Michigan comes today’s reminder that education “reform” does not always mean real reform. History teacher Ryan McCarl writes for the Education Report that a new bill in his state designed to promote alternative teacher certification, well, really does very little or anything of the kind. In fact, he calls it “meaningless”:

The text of House Bill 5596 exhibits a continuing addiction to strict state regulation of the teacher labor market and a fundamental lack of trust in the capacity of local school officials to use their professional judgment to evaluate prospective teachers on a case-by-case basis, just as hiring professionals do in most fields in the private sector. Michigan policymakers continue to presume that traditional certification provides some sort of quality guarantee that alternative certification does not. But this position is not supported by either evidence or logic.

The alternative routes to teaching created by the new law will retain most of the same costs as the traditional route, adding Michigan to the growing list of states that have set up a framework for alternative certification that is really no alternative at all.

The main reason for the weakness of most alternative certification laws is that they are written under the heavy influence of teachers unions and schools of education. These powerful groups are deeply invested in the traditional certification process.

Presuming Mr. McCarl is accurate in his description of the legislation (and I have no reason to doubt him), then his analysis is 100% correct. It’s reassuring to see a teacher speak out on this issue, to pull back the curtain on the feeble arguments bolstering traditional teacher certification. I think I’ll add his website Wide Awake Minds to my regular reading list.

Now, no one — not even as young as I — should be so naive as to believe that Michigan represents the first test case of phony-baloney alternative teacher certification, or anything close to it. In fact, three years ago, Kate Walsh and Sandi Jacobs wrote a paper for the National Council on Teacher Quality called Alternative Teacher Certification Isn’t Alternative (PDF).

The good news is that states with real alternative teacher certification — groups like ABCTE — show a strong connection to improved reading and math scores.

Original Post: Ed is Watching

Could Ken Buck be Colorado’s Sharron Angle?

by Rossputin | 9:43 am, July 29, 2010 | 7 Comments

Since Sharron Angle won the Republican Senate primary in Nevada on the back of strong Tea Party support, her campaign has been imploding under the weight of her verbal gaffes.

In political betting on Intrade.com, during the two weeks before Angle’s victory, Harry Reid was trading between 30 and 40% to win re-election.  Angle’s victory alone caused those odds to jump to about 50%, and that was before she started doing a lot of talking.

In the past two weeks, Reid’s betting chances of re-election have jumped to 62%, based on a combination of Angle foot-in-mouth episodes followed by a full retreat from answering any questions of the media and then a return to her gaffe-prone ways.

Some of Angle’s unforced errors included:

• Threatening to sue Harry Reid for re-posting a prior version of Angle’s campaign web site, an odd position for someone who presumably favors the First Amendment over almost all campaign finance and communication restrictions
• Saying that the DISCLOSE Act, which has recently failed to pass the Senate, is existing law
• Suggesting that the US might be, and possibly should be, moving towards armed revolution.
• Saying that “Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted – like I’ve been misquoted – out of context” regarding the issue of separation of church and state.  Essentially, Angle seems to be arguing that separation of church and state is unconstitutional even though it is not only comes directly from the Constitution but is also strongly supported by Jefferson’s own words in private writings (and Madison’s as well.)
• Saying, or at least appearing to be saying, (and then somewhat retracting) that unemployed people are spoiled.  (Presumably she meant to say that over-generous or over-lengthy unemployment benefits have negative incentives for seeking employment…)

Many people said, going into the primary, that the opponent Reid would most like to have is Sharron Angle.  They’re being proven right. Let me be clear about something here: While some of Angle’s views may be wacky, they’re not all wacky. Some of these errors are mistakes in rhetoric rather than in policy position, but they’re still politically very damaging.  The ability to muzzle onesself is an important characteristic of a candidate. This is not to say a candidate should lie, but he or she should be able to explain a position in a way that can appeal to voters without being hyperbolic or being easily demonized by the media whose favorite game to play with Republicans is “gotcha.”

I’d also add that Harry Reid is so unpopular that with some decent coaching and a bit of common sense, it’s still possible for Angle to win this thing.  I hope she does, although under most circumstances I probably wouldn’t vote for her for dog catcher.

While Ken Buck is smarter than Sharron Angle and not nearly the fringe figure or boneheaded rookie that she seems more to be with every passing day (in part because the media loves to help boost both of those unflattering portrayals in order to help Harry Reid), I can’t help but wonder whether Mr. Buck’s string of bonheaded remarks makes him the candidate that Michael “Who?” Bennet or Andrew Romanoff would most like to run against.

Some of Ken Buck’s recent unforced errors:

• Walking away from, then around, then toward Tom Tancredo’s statement made at a Buck fundraising picnic that Barack Obama is the greatest threat facing America
• Calling Tea Party members who question President Obama’s place of birth “dumbasses” in a moment when he didn’t realize he was being recorded.
• And a foot-in-mouth moment which may perhaps be more important than I first expected when Buck said that people should vote for him because he doesn’t wear high heels, an obvious jab at Jane Norton, and one of the most boneheaded things I’ve heard in some time.  Indeed, Time Magazine (no friend of Republicans generally) is calling it Buck’s “Macaca” moment.

The primary reason for my endorsement of Jane Norton was, all else being equal – since I think she and Buck are remarkably similar on policy positions – that she is more electable.

While some argue that Buck’s primary campaign experience will serve him well in a general election, the past couple weeks have increased my fear that a Buck win will leave not just the Senate seat more vulnerable to Democratic retention but that when combined with the horrendous GOP Governor situation, it could damage the Republican’s chances to take back one or both chambers of the state legislature.

Demotivating Republican voters is the last thing we need. Demotivating women voters, when conservatives desperately need to narrow the “gender gap” is especially damaging. There’s already a move afoot on Facebook to “Undervote Colorado’s GOP Governor Primary“, a position I understand and might end up agreeing with (after further digesting my meeting with Dan Maes last night.)  If we get a Senate candidate who is also unmotivating to a substantial segment of CO Republican and independent voters, that could spell the difference in turn-out needed to keep the GOP from taking back one or both chambers of the General Assembly.

Again, Ken Buck is smarter than Sharron Angle, but I wonder if we might be having a peek into our potential future if Ken Buck wins the nomination and keeps stepping on his own tongue as we watch Sharron Angle take the GOP from a huge favorite to a big underdog to unseat Harry Reid.

I hope Buck starts getting a little better rhetorical self-control, whether he wins or loses the primary.  In the meantime, I continue to believe that Buck and Norton are nearly identical on policy matters but that Norton has a better probability of beating the Democrat canddiate in the general election.

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

Quick Dan Maes interview update

by Rossputin | 7:04 am, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

For those of you who are waiting for the write-up of my interview of Dan Maes, which happened yesterday evening, I’m going to try to write it up today and post it early tomorrow.

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

PPC’s Helpful Research Monkeys Correct Norton Attack Ad

by Eileen | 7:00 am, July 29, 2010 | 10 Comments

***Updated at 2:00 pm on 29 July 2010***

Out here on the lazy shores of the Potomac, campaign watching is a local past time.    Whoever said that short of war, there’s no excitement anywhere to match the American campaign season was right on*.

So, there I was,  sitting around, polishing my high heels, and checking out the races, when I came across something I just needed to fix.

Jane Norton’s Senate race has a new ad, with a six figure media buy backing it up, which seems to be the latest volley in an increasingly vicious primary battle.

Here it is, with thanks to Jane Norton for Colorado and the fine folks at YouTube:

Well, that’s hardly right…there’s a whole chunk missing in the middle of the Ken Buck Footage.  We know because we’re the ones who took it.

Here’s our original, over at www.PeoplesPressTube.com – our own lil’ online video shack.

We just wanted to make sure there was some context on this epic battle over footwear. And that it’s getting out there. PPC has already covered this in our posts, “Buck Responds To Norton Ad: “She Has Questioned My Manhood” on July 17th and “Norton/Buck Footwear Flap Hits National News” on the 21st.

Jane’s campaign attack ad already has over 5,000 views at YouTube and the ad is at the top of the queue on her site, so we knew she’d be glad someone was making sure the references and citations were all in order.

Just next time, let us know you’re using our footage.  It’s much easier for us to keep an eye on things that way.

***Update in response to our comments***  It also helps avoid long letters from lawyers like these: Cease and desist letter from PPC, the Norton campaign’s response, and PPC’s final cease and desist letter

* It was Theodore White.  We checked.  We’re research monkeys.  That’s how we roll.

Peter Ferrara: The Timeless Principles of American Prosperity

by Rossputin | 6:31 am, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

I noted earlier this morning that the Financial Times’ Martin Wolf has written an essentially dishonest description and condemnation of supply-side economics.  In that note, I offered a couple of links to pieces of “intellectual ammunition” for readers.  But one article, the first in a short series being written by Peter Ferrara, deserves special mention if only to try to get as many of my readers as possible to read it.

I highly encourage you to read “The Timeless Principles of American Prosperity” by Peter Ferrara for the American Spectator and to keep up with Ferrara’s upcoming writings on the same topic.

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

The political motivation of opponents of tax cuts

by Rossputin | 5:41 am, July 29, 2010 | No Comments

H/T Mark Smither

My liberal friend Mark pointed me to an article in the Financial Times entitled “The political genius of supply-side economics” by FT economics commentator Martin Wolf.  Wolf essentially argues that supply-side policies of cutting marginal tax rates are simply a political strategy to make deficit spending easier to sell to the American people.

I’m throwing the flag on this one.

My response to Mr. Wolf’s article (in the form of a comment on the FT web site) was as follows:

It strikes me as quite dishonest to intentionally conflate over-spending with taxation.  One would think that a discussion of whether tax cuts are good policy would at least mention the fact that major tax rate cuts generally result (at least in the US) in the short/medium term in MORE net revenue to the government due to increased economic activity.  Supporters of high taxes always predict that a tax rate cut will slash actual tax payments because they (ridiculously) assume that people’s behavior doesn’t change with changes in tax rates.

[A couple of pieces of intellectual ammunition:

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts
And the president’s own economic adviser wrote a paper arguing that “tax increases are highly contractionary”]

It’s also dishonest of Wolf to say that supply-side is about a free lunch.  There is nothing inherent in supply-side theory regarding big spending or deficit spending.  Over-spending is a separate issue, and a huge problem.  But budget deficits cannot be properly laid at the feet of tax cuts.

Furthermore, people like Mr. Wolf seem to operate under the assumption that the government has the first claim on our earnings rather than we, the citizens, owning the fruits of our labor. 

“Starve the Beast” has not worked because Republicans have been horrendous when it comes to spending, particularly in the past decade.  That said, the Democrats in the last 18 months are making the GOP look like pikers.  Just because trying to cut taxes hasn’t worked well doesn’t mean it’s an unworkable strategy.  I certainly  haven’t seen a better tactic, anyway, as part of a strategy to reduce the size, cost, an intrusiveness of government.

What’s Mr. Wolf’s solution?  Tax more so government gets ever bigger and more expensive?

I think the answer is yes.  Overall, this note by Mr. Wolf is simply politics masquerading as economics and its dishonesty is rather reprehensible, though Wolf still hasn’t reached the depths of Paul Krugman.

Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective

Midweek Update – covering Clear The Bench Colorado’s victory over “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do), Colorado Supreme Court elections and vacancy replacements

by CTBC Director | 11:33 pm, July 28, 2010 | No Comments

After Sunday’s Denver Post editorial (”Unintended consequences in judicial push“) missed the point of Clear The Bench Colorado (hint: it’s not about selecting replacements for the incumbent justices; it’s about holding the current justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and the citizens whose rights they are sworn to uphold) and ended up by spinning an implausible scenario of justices “retiring” after being voted out this November (the ol’ “you can’t fire me; I quit! routine), the remainder of the week brought out more serious news coverage related to Clear The Bench Colorado and the Colorado Supreme Court.  (Unfortunately, none of the actual news appears to have been covered by the Denver Post – although they did publish the important stories such as the “supporting roles” of Romanoff’s family on his campaign, Bennet’s time spent with his daughters, and the theft of “more than 100 gnomes” in Arvada.  Yep, hard-hitting investigative reporting and “serious” journalism…)

Meanwhile, other more topically substantive publications have been following the unraveling of the “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” campaign finance “complaint” against Clear The Bench Colorado.

This week’s coverage of the story opened up with Monday’s radio news segment on 1310AM KFKA with Face The State managing editor Brad Jones discussing how “liberal litigation shop Colorado Ethics Watch is ordered to pay up for a misfired lawsuit.”  (The “Colorado Ethics Watch” – CEW, pronounced “sue”, it’s what they do – segment begins at 10:45 on this audio clip).  A few highlights:

“Colorado Ethics Watch in particular exists solely to tie up conservative causes in court… and that is an established campaign tool.  Mark Grueskin, a major Democratic attorney who takes up a lot of these kinds of cases… basically admits as such.  Litigation is now an expense, both in prosecution and defense, for campaigns…

The part that’s really important to note here is that… in Colorado, an attorney being forced to pay the opposing counsel’s attorneys fees is a very rare event indeed, because under Colorado’s judicial rules, when a lawyer signs that complaint, they are certifying that it is a legitimate question of law… and in this case, the judge said that ‘you have no business filing this complaint because you knew that the facts were not with you and that you had no chance of prevailing, but you pursued it anyway…

On Tuesday, Law Week Colorado picked up the story of last week’s ruling by Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer which not only dismissed CEW’s frivolous, groundless, and vexatious “complaint” against Clear The Bench Colorado but also took the rare step of directing CEW to pay thousands in legal fees because the “complaint” was so completely without merit.  Law Week’s article (”Denver Administrative Judge Upbraids Colorado Ethics Watch“) noted that the judge soundly rebuked ”Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) in his written order (published Monday), which the article also included in full.  Some excerpts:

An administrative law judge has chastised a Denver-based ethics-watchdog group, calling a recent complaint filed by the group “substantially groundless and frivolous.”  …

In the written order, Spencer said Ethics Watch “was in possession of facts putting it on notice that its claim was groundless but at no time did it seek to voluntarily dismiss its claim.”

Today, Law Week also covered Clear The Bench Colorado’s request (filed Tuesday) for the Secretary of State’s office to provide legal clarity (and foreclose CEW’s plans for an endless cycle of additional “complaints” in their ongoing efforts to harass our grassroots movement) by issuing a definitive ruling which codifies the guidance issued by that office to Clear The Bench Colorado over a year ago:

Clear The Bench wants the Secretary of State to adopt a rule that says “a committee whose purpose is the support or opposition of the retention of a judicial seat shall register as an issue committee…” The group, which all state Supreme Court justices now up for retention, registered as an issue committee on the advice of the Secretary of State’s office.

Clear The Bench Colorado also received coverage in the context of the controversy currently surrounding the Colorado governor’s race.  In addition to the Denver Post editor’s misguided assumptions about what constitutes a “good outcome” for CTBC’s efforts to hold our incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices accountable to the law (hint: it’s not dependent on who’s governor), Clear The Bench Colorado received national exposure in the latest Human Events article by Colorado correspondent Ross Kaminsky (”GOP in Disarray in Colorado Governors Race“) which highlights the importance of the Colorado Supreme Court vote in upholding the principles of constitutional limits on government power, in Colorado and beyond:

In addition to the redistricting following the results of this year’s census, there is also a grassroots movement called Clear the Bench Colorado which aims to get Coloradoans to vote out three ultra-liberal state Supreme Court justices.

CTBC has put enough pressure on the judges that the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, a woman who has demonstrated no respect for the rule of law or the will of the people, announced her retirement a few weeks ago rather than face the voters.  If CTBC is successful in causing the removal of one or more justices, the next governor will appoint the replacement(s).  As important as Kagan or Sotomayor is on a national level, these vacancies will be at least as important within our state. [emphasis added]

Also today, the Face The State radio minute (broadcast on a variety of stations across Colorado) focused on the unethical practices of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) conducting legal harassment of opposing groups.  The broadcast segment (entitled “Names can be deceiving”) called CEW to task for its habit of filing harassing “complaints” without legal merit:

Would a group called Colorado Ethics Watch ever do something out-of-bounds? Names can be deceiving…

Political attack ads are often funded by some group with a name like, “Coloradans for fluffy bunnies” or “The campaign for rainbows and sunshine.” Names can be deceiving. Take for example Colorado Ethics Watch, which purports to use the courts to pursue unethical political behavior. Well, so long as the target is a conservative, that is. Despite their intentions, the group has every right to access the legal system. But last week, CEW was slapped with attorneys fees for filing a complaint it knew had no merit. In Colorado, fees are assessed sparingly, and only in clearcut cases like this. It’s the second time in four years CEW has been rebuked like this. Legal harassment doesn’t sound very “ethical” to me.

Finally, in news breaking later in the day, Law Week also published the number of applicants (31 people applied) for the impending vacancy on the Colorado Supreme Court that will be created once the announced retirement of Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (who announced her intent to retire rather than be held accountable by voters in the November elections) becomes effective (currently scheduled for November 30th).  In keeping with current practice and tradition (but not as a statutory requirement), the Judicial Nominating Commission has NOT released the names of the would-be Colorado Supreme Court justices to the public.  (Clear The Bench Colorado is pursuing that information in the interest of public accountability and government transparency – stay tuned for upcoming announcements).

We The People can (indeed, as citizens, we must) hold our public officials – both elected and appointed – accountable.  Be a citizen, not a subject – get informed, then exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice – soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions – and exercise your right to vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Original Post: Clear the Bench Colorado

More Posts »

Follow PPC

Search

Peoples Press Collective on Facebook

Blogroll

• Complete Colorado
• Defending the Electoral College
• Liberty Ink Journal
• Northern Colorado PPC
• The Constitutionalist Today
• Who Said You Said

Contributors

• BlueCarp
• Business Word Blog
• Clear The Bench Colorado
• Colorado Spending Transparency
• ColoradoFreedom.net » ppc
• Complete Colorado Blog
• Complete Colorado’s Blog
• Constructively Reasonable
• Denver Metro Young Republicans
• Ed is Watching
• El Marco blog
• ExPat ExLawyer
• Free Colorado
• GneissGuy » PPC
• Government Underground
• Live Free Colorado
• Looking at the Left
• MarsBlog
• Mount Virtus
• Night Twister
• Northern Colorado Tea Party
• Patient Power Now
• PerlStalker’s Ramblings
• Pieces of Liberty
• Reclaim the Blue
• Red Rocks – Liberty on the Rocks » PPC
• RightWitch » PPC
• Rocky Mountain Right
• Rossputin
• Seng Center w/ Jimmy Sengenberger
• Slapstick Politics
• The Amy Oliver Show
• the cauldron, by caldara
• The Constitutional Reporter
• The Daily Blogster
• The Drunkablog
• The Toxic Hypoxic
• wakalix
• WhoSaidYouSaid » PPC

Recent Posts

• The party never ends…
• Colorado Governor’s Race: Endorsing Nobody
• Politically incorrect Ken Buck losing to Jane Norton?
• Unplug.
• Price for State Board to Adopt Common Core Standards Is Simply Too High
• Governor endorsement at 6 AM tomorrow
• Backbone Radio, August 1, 2010: All Colorado Politics, All the Time
• Getting to know Dan Maes
• Tom Tancredo EXCLUSIVE on Seng Center
• Ad blasts Scott McInnis’ plagiarism

Recent Comments

• Brian Wilson on Politically incorrect Ken Buck losing to Jane Norton?
• Rebel on Politically incorrect Ken Buck losing to Jane Norton?
• Donald E. L. Johnson on Is Ken Buck as unethical as Americans for Job Security?
• Donald E. L. Johnson on Ad blasts Scott McInnis’ plagiarism
• Laura Victoria on Is Ken Buck as unethical as Americans for Job Security?
• Cindy L. on Price for State Board to Adopt Common Core Standards Is Simply Too High
• Val on Is Ken Buck as unethical as Americans for Job Security?
• Laura Victoria on Governor endorsement at 6 AM tomorrow
• Heather Cundari on Price for State Board to Adopt Common Core Standards Is Simply Too High
• RCBurkhead on Getting to know Dan Maes

Advertise Here!

info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

Categories

Select Category 2010 Barack Obama blogging Capitalism Colorado Colorado Amendment 46 Colorado Amendment 47 Colorado Amendment 49 Colorado Amendment 54 Colorado Amendment 59 Colorado Democracy Alliance Colorado Politics Colorado Supreme Court cory gardner Dean Madere Democrats Diggs Brown DNC DNC Events Economics Elections Environmentalism Events Featured First Amendment Governor Grassroots Health Reform Healthcare Humor Liberty Live Mayor John Hickenlooper Media Bias Medical Moonbattery Obama Open Thread Philosophy photos Political Commentary Political interviews Politics Pop Culture PPC Press Release Rallies republicans Rule of Law Second Amendment Senator Michael Bennet Seng Center Radio Show Sheeple Small Government State House State Senate Syndicated TABOR tea party tom lucero Transparency Uncategorized Unions Video

Archives

Select Month July 2010  (394) June 2010  (379) May 2010  (354) April 2010  (325) March 2010  (346) February 2010  (317) January 2010  (311) December 2009  (248) November 2009  (267) October 2009  (265) September 2009  (262) August 2009  (286) July 2009  (225) June 2009  (230) May 2009  (240) April 2009  (272) March 2009  (230) February 2009  (211) January 2009  (190) December 2008  (123) November 2008  (134) October 2008  (219) September 2008  (426) August 2008  (368) July 2008  (4) June 2008  (2) May 2008  (1) April 2008  (4) March 2008  (2) September 2007  (1)

Meta

• Register
• Log in
• Entries RSS
• Comments RSS
• WordPress.org

Buy a Tea Party Poster!