August 24, 2010
Another Boulder Power Boondoggle
Perhaps you've heard about the "green" power initiative called "smart grid." According to Wikipedia, "A smart grid, is, in essence, an attempt to require consumers to change their behavior around variable electric rates or to pay vastly increased rates for the privilege of reliable electrical service during high-demand conditions." Well, who in their right mind wouldn't want THAT in their home?!
As it is often eager to do, the city of Boulder, Colorado wanted to be a pioneer in transforming the smart grid into reality so they colluded with utility company Xcel Energy to wire up 23,000 homes at a projected cost in the neighborhood of $20 million. Now that the experiment is over and the final price was $45 million Xcel says, "We would not do that again over the whole service area," But in bailing out on the added cost Boulder says, "There is not a clear consensus among the members of the Boulder City Council with regard to the value of SmartGridCity in its present state or the prudence of this investment."
What? Boulder City Council considering the "prudence" of "investing" residents' money based upon "value?" Pinch me!
I've spotted the fallacy in your text. You have the phrase "... who in their right mind..." in a discussion of Boulder politics. That's like saying "... what thinking voter..." in a discussion of California politics. Sort of a sociological division by zero; logic fails, the fabric of the universe is rent asunder, Cthulhu awakens, and in the end, chaos.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 24, 2010 4:07 PMNot exactly a fallacy, merely sarcasm. For anyone who jumps up and says, "OOOh, pick me, pick me" to have his behavior dictated by the capricious pricing schemes of do-gooder utility bureaucrats (who couldn't explain a BTU with both hands) is most certainly not in his right mind.
Posted by: johngalt at August 25, 2010 3:02 PMI'm just glad I saw "couldn't explain a BTU with both hands" before I drank my coffee, Five stars for that'n.
Posted by: jk at August 25, 2010 3:13 PMAugust 19, 2010
"Public" Utilities Malfeasance
Colorado's HB 1365, which I railed against last March, directed electric utility company Xcel Energy to "study" the economic benefits of converting existing coal-fired plants to use natural gas. But don't confuse them with any facts.
Xcel now says building brand new gas fired plants and tearing down the coal units would be cheaper still. How? Well, there are some tax benefits, but there's also a new 10-year contract with natural gas provider Andarko Petroleum.
It almost sounds as though it were a fixed-price contract, but one that long would be most unusual. Historically gas contracts run only a year, said Stutz.Wouldn’t it be easier to make his case if the gas contract were made public? Perhaps, but he said the gas contract is proprietary information.
Hmmm. Proprietary information? Public utility?
But don't expect the Public Utilities Commission to look out for the public. Ron Binz, the chairman of the Colorado PUC, is an environmental activist.
Historically commissioners have not been involved in negotiating controversial legislation that they may end up implementing. A hands-off approach makes sense if you’re supposed to be a neutral arbiter. You rarely hear of judges at any level participating in legislation.But Binz was quite active in the negotiations involving HB 1365 before it was introduced, as e-mails uncovered in a court proceeding revealed.
He’s also an advocate for climate-change legislation at the national level, and heads the climate task force of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
To quote Mythbusters' Jamie Hyneman, "Well THERE'S your PROBLEM!"
August 14, 2010
Go Colorado!
Stephen Moore brings some good news:
Add Colorado to the list of states that are saying to ObamaCare: not here, thank you.Last week the state's Secretary of State certified that the Colorado Health Care Freedom Act had qualified for the November ballot. More than 130,000 Coloradoans signed petitions seeking to exempt themselves from major portions of federal health reform signed by President Obama in March.
Jon Caldara, the initiative's sponsor and president of the conservative Independence Institute, said the measure would make Colorado "a health care sanctuary state." If approved in November, citizens would be exempt from the mandate requiring them to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. They'll also be immune from government forcing them into a public or private health care plan against their will.
July 22, 2010
Harsanyi Reports on "Strip it Down"
Our favorite columnist excerpts from an interview of the operator of "Denver's iconic topless bar" and we learn that she is, surprise, a conservative (OK, an economic conservative.)
BH: Books?Matthews: I love to read. I have a Kindle, and I love it. We have a book club for the staff called Strip It Down. We meet once a week. It's a conservative reading group.
BH: Well. What do you read?
Matthews: Friedrich Hayek’s "The Fatal Conceit," "Super Freakonomics," the Federalist Papers. We talk about the prisoner's dilemma (a philosophical question about human behavior).
I couldn't resist linking this. It brings together three things we love at ThreeSources: David Harsanyi and free-market books.
Now there's a club I would join!
Maybe they'd tell me what the third thing is...
Posted by: jk at July 22, 2010 4:14 PMIf we want to join I think it'll cost us about 20 bucks per chapter. (Cash)
Posted by: johngalt at July 23, 2010 2:12 PMJuly 7, 2010
Sanctuary to the extreme
We've seen news stories posted here to criticize police for excessive force in drug cases. Here's a news story that shows poorly on America's metropolitan District Attorneys, or at least the one in Jefferson County wherin Wheatridge, CO is located.
The Jefferson County DA's office said that neither Torres nor Cardona have been charged with anything at this point, even though Torres confessed to the crime. However, the homeowner, Wallace is facing twelve felony counts, including four counts of attempted first degree murder. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Four counts? Two bullets and two fleeing larcenists, I suppose. Attempted first-degree murder? Doesn't that require premeditation, and the absence of self-defense? And not even an illegal lane change ticket for the "immigrants?" Hey, what's that smell? Smells like ... sanctuary.
Smells like someone in the DA's office is auditioning for a job in the US Department of Justice.
Posted by: Keith Arnold at July 7, 2010 4:02 PMGod help me, I haven't been this incensed since the trespassers at that general counsel's home. Every cop and magistrate who contributed to this tragedy of justice should have a .45 shoved up their assholes, and the triggers pulled to the cheers of everyone who cherishes justice. The two thieves should be strung up by their wrists and turned into human piñatas for their victims.
Putting every last one of these criminals to death is guaranteed to save lives and property in the future.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 8, 2010 9:11 PMOne for the Ages
Last night the Colorado Rockies accomplished a feat not seen since 1901, when both the Cleveland Indians and Detroit Tigers did it - they scored nine or more runs in the bottom of the ninth to rally for the most improbable of wins. (See all nine runs in 85 seconds here.) Catcher Miguel Olivo scored twice. Chris Ianetta and Seth Smith both hit 3-run home runs. Smith's came after lining out to first for the first out of the inning. Eight hits and a walk lead to nine runs, five of them charged against the Cardinals' closer.
I told dagny somewhere around the 7th, "This game isn't over. Those guys in the St. Louis dugout look like they're starting to relax but they'd better not." The score was 9-3 at the time. I won't claim to have predictive powers. I've just seen a lot of summer baseball at Coors Field.
A large fraction of the 32,922 in attendance, and likely of whatever television audience there was, never saw it. I don't feel so bad for the fair-weather Rockies fans though. The ones I really feel for are the Cardinals faithful, one time zone behind us, who went to bed thinking it was a win. Oops.
Oh man, that's nothing. There was this soccer game and a team was down 0-2 and they came back to tie!!!
Man, nobody has ever seen anything like that...
If I can tag along your sports post. Seriously, folks, the Tour de France has all the international cred and european pretension of the World Cup -- and it is honestly fun to watch.
Posted by: jk at July 7, 2010 3:22 PMjk,
I am really getting concerned about your hatred of the World Cup. And please tell me you were not serious about the Tour de France.
Posted by: HB at July 7, 2010 11:21 PMAs "Deep Thoughts" would say, I think it goes back to the time a soccer player shot and killed my Dad. Maybe I should look into therapy.
About the Tour, however, no compromise. It is one of the great sporting events. I came out two years ago today.
But I would like to direct my friend HB to this post in which I claim:
I admitted that I enjoyed watching the Tour for the excitement of sport, the beauty of the French countryside, and the preternatural athleticism of the riders. This all holds. But I am going to add that Le Tour de France represents classical liberal economics and individualist values better than any other sport.
And another ninth inning comeback for the Rocks.
Posted by: jk at July 8, 2010 10:37 AMJuly 1, 2010
Western Conservative Summit 2010
Will ThreeSources give me expenses and per diem to cover this?
Truth be told, I'd shell out my own dough to hear Michele Bachmann.
How much extra for no Rep. Tancredo?
The first time I saw Ms. Bachmann was on a YouTube my moonbat niece sent me. Bachman was on the floor of the house demanding the Ten Commandments and prayer time in public schools or such*. I replied "oh, she is clearly a nutjob."
That YouTube is gone (we've always been at war with Eurasia!) but I have not forgotten it. I have eyed her advances pretty warily since.
*I wish I could remember exactly what was said. I realize this is unfair. But I am not bashing religion here -- it was way over the top for a secular nation.
Posted by: jk at July 1, 2010 4:16 PMMichelle Bachman is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. I honestly have no idea how she was ever elected. Her seat always goes to Republicans, of course, but you'd think they would choose somebody capable to represent them. It is one of the richest areas in Minnesota - they have to have somebody better suited for governance than she.
Posted by: T. Greer at July 2, 2010 3:01 PMAt the risk of throwing a low blow, you boys did send Mister Franken to the Senate (corruption and theft are not allowed as a defense in such a "clean" State).
Posted by: jk at July 2, 2010 4:37 PMIf Rep. Bachmann has ever embarassed her party I haven't seen it. Every time I've heard her speak she's sounded reasonable and mainstream. Yes I know she's a Christian but who isn't, Republican OR Democrat?
I did some searching today for the YouTube video JK mentioned. I didn't find anything on the house floor but I found many left wing blogs villifying the bejeesus out of her. There was one video of her leading a prayer for repeal of Obamacare (as likely to work as any other impediment to bigger government) where she was calm and reasonable and some guy who, maybe it was his gathering she attended, started in with the whoopin' and hollerin' and hallalujah business. THAT guy was an embarassment - to humanity. Michele is still A-OK in my book. And I believe there is no God.
Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2010 7:35 PMI'm laughing, jg, as I went through the same process. I asked my niece if she still had the link. She found my reply and the link but the video was no longer available.
Trying to help (sweet girl) she sent me several of the ones you mention. Two minutes of Rep. Bachmann looking no stupider than your average Congressperson, wrapped in seething lefty "See!"
I don't expect you to take my word (I would not t'were our positions reversed) but it was bad enough that Mister Pragmatist called a rising GOP star a "nutjob" to a lefty.
Amusing, too, that the topic was religion in the public square, about which I am much more lenient than you. I wish I could see it again even if I could not share it.
June 12, 2010
Norton on the attack
The Jane Norton campaign team has read the poll results on the wall and decided they need to do something dramatic.
"We can't wait for 2010 to stop Obama. (...) We need to repeal Obamacare, yank it out by the roots, and end all bailouts."
I agree, of course, but as I mentioned while blogging the Colorado GOP Assembly, Norton has previously said that it's not possible to repeal it, at least while president O is still in office.
"Well, realistically, I don't think you can repeal it, with the makeup we're seeing right now, and even if we were able to put in place conservatives in all the seats, you wouldn't be able to repeal it because of the President's veto power. There's two ways that you can approach it. One is not funding those 16,000 new IRS employees that it's going to take to implement and then police this. And then, also, insuring that each component of that 2,700 page bill is indeed constitutional."
But to be fair, she was for repeal before she dismissed it and then started campaigning on it again.
This could well be the catalyst for a new American Revolution. The GOP can't save us; they're admitting so right here!
It's going to take every American opposed to tyranny to refuse to obey this law. Only then will we have enough numbers to make it impossible to jail us all.
"We must all hang together..."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 14, 2010 10:37 PMJune 11, 2010
Colorado Abortion Politics
Speaking of the Colorado GOP Assembly, the results are in on the 59 Platform Resolutions put to the 3300-odd delegates. I was interested to see the talies for the Resolutions I blogged about right afterward:
#30: It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that life begins at conception and is deserving of legal protection from conception until natural death.
79% YES, 21% NO
#31: It is resoved that Colorado Republicans support overturning Roe v. Wade.
78% YES, 22% NO
#32: It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that pregnancy, abortion, and birth control are personal private matters not subject to government regulation or interference.
74% YES, 26% NO
#33: It is resolved that Colorado Republicans oppose the use of public funds for destructive embryonic stem-cell research.
82% YES, 18% NO
#34: It is resolved that Colorado Republicans oppose the use of public funds for abortions.
94% YES, 6% NO
Conclusions:
While 4 of 5 Colorado Republican delegates support reversal of Roe v Wade, a similar majority believes that life begins at conception and is deserving of legal protection but not from the mother, whose pregnancy (or abortion or birth control) is none of the government's business.
What these delegates also denounced was public funding of abortions or stem cell research. Note the common thread - public ... funding ...
And finally, you can now tell all your Facebook friends that 3 out of 4 Colorado Republicans believe that abortion is a personal private matter not subject to government regulation or interference.
Terri, you've pretty much hit the crux of the argument spot-on. First of all, we can all agree that murder is wrong. So, it comes down to when life begins. You believe that it begins at that moment of fertilization. Others believe that it begins with the first breath outside the womb. This is fundamentally a theological question (even for non-theists, I would argue), so who's theology should reign supreme?
In a secular society, I believe we need to take a non-theological approach. Because we define death as the absense of brainwaves, can we therefore define life as the presence of brainwaves? A fetus begins emitting brainwaves at about 12 weeks and the event is medically binary; they are present or not. Such a definition would allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, etc., and would give women a limited time "to choose." But, it would prohibit the beastly practice of partial-birth abortion.
Is this a compromise that would satisfy both sides, I wonder? Probably not - more likely to piss off both of them.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 11, 2010 4:55 PMIt is a better compromise than we have now, and it has some logic behind it. I would accept this compromise, though it is not my preferred stopping point.* I doubt others would be so reasonable.
*I said this in an earlier argument (with JK!), but it works well enough to explain my reasoning here:
I would place my line at implantation -- blastocysts need not apply. The reason I support this line is twofold: 1.) For every implanted embryo, you have a dozen blastocysts that fail to implant. If the destruction of zygotes is equivalent to murder, then every Mother's body is a serial killer. 2) On a slightly related item, the majority of multiples seperate before implanting, making implantation a fair line for marking the creation of individual beings.Posted by: T. Greer at June 11, 2010 11:31 PM
Personally, I'm with the 74%. (Never thought I'd ever get to say that.)
Posted by: johngalt at June 11, 2010 11:53 PMActually I am for a woman's right to choose all the way up to the latest date of viability. (I realize this can be fuzzy)
I am against using public funds for any of it.
Put me down as a yes for "The BR compromise." And put me down as a yes for numbers 31, 32, 33, and 34. And, no, I don't see any contradiction.
I do have a pragmatic (natch) concern with the timeline. Bear with me as I was never a parent nor was biology my strong suit. But the BR plan -- while philosophically consistent -- provides a very short window between knowing you're pregnant (~8 weeks?), getting a medical evaluation, making an informed decision, scheduling surgery (12 week wait under ObamaCare). Is it realistic?
I agree with BG (yep, brainwaves), and think the sensible, real world compromise that should be sought is at the half-way point of the pregnancy. 18 weeks should be plenty long enough to find out and decide.
Posted by: nanobrewer at June 13, 2010 10:35 PMBuck Leapfrogs Norton
Shortly after the May 22 Colorado GOP Assembly JK commented that he didn't "see one position where Buck is clearly favorable." But Colorado voters in general seem to be more impressed with Ken's landslide victory at the state convention (where Norton chose not to participate.) In a recent Magellan Strategies poll via RealClearPolitics Buck now leads Norton by 10 points. Looking at where he's come from it is even more impressive.
As I suggested in my May 25 post, as more people get to know Ken they seem to like his message. Interestingly, the Buck and Norton lines cross almost exactly at the Assembly date.
No.
I would drop it, but if you are volunteer blogging for the candidate, I suggest you get something more substantive than "his wife thinks he's really tough."
Salacious? Geraldo? I'm a self professed tea partier who's sick to death of the establishment Republicans. I’ve begged two of his supporters for two months to give me one thing. Yet I've heard no issue where he differs (I disagree with both on Immigration but maybe mean old Senator McCain will intimidate her into a guest worker program).
BR, I confer with your hunch, but in her favor she has held statewide office and the establishment GOP connections I decry will help her fund and staff a good campaign. I fear you've been away from Boulder too long if you think a GOP win is any kind of a gimme.
Well, you did imply you were bored by the subject. If it doesn't mean anything to you that the business-as-usual establishment Republicans want Norton and a bunch of average Joes crawled over broken glass to support him at a convention one fine spring Saturday I'm not sure what kind of substantive difference you want. Buck wants a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Norton half-heartedly repeats TEA Party priorities. But I'll ask at the volunteer gathering on Monday and see if I can get you your "one thing."
And if you want me to rise to the bait on Maes you'll need to flesh out what you meant by "I don't hear anything" from us about him. I thought I'd made myself clear in covering Maes' Assembly performance, but maybe I was too objective. I really like the guy and think he'll be a stronger candidate vs. Hick than McInnis would.
Posted by: johngalt at June 13, 2010 1:34 AMCertainly not bored, I might be coming off grouchy but the Geraldo comment stung a little...
We prize ideas around here and -- dare I use the term -- objective reason. I'll dial my grouchy knob down to four if you'll hear me out.
1. Nominating Buck is a risk. Norton has the money machine and experience to be, on paper, a more formidable candidate in the General.
2. Nothing wrong with backing a candidate who matches your principles more closely. Again I support this and am especially sympathetic at this time.
3. But when you take a risk, you have to know risk/reward. I have spelled out the risk. The reward has been pretty touchy-feely: Norton "seems" too establishment; my brother "thinks" Buck is the tea party candidate; Buck's wife "says" he will be more principled.
The highway dollars differential was good; Norton will always be tainted by support for Ref C & D (but she was part of the Owens Administration so I give her 3/4 of a pass); and a good whack at the sclerotic Colorado GOP has some value on general principle. But I am on both of their email lists and Twitter feeds and I have yet to see any empirical difference in their positions.
What are these people crawling over broken glass for?
Put simply: An end to Republican politics as usual. If a candidate even SMELLS establishment, that's strike one. Dad thinks the candidate with less money actually has an advantage with voters this year. Hard to argue.
I read through Buck's website a bit more this morning. I don't think I've mentioned here that Buck claims to be "the only candidate for the U.S. Senate to sign the Americans for Tax Reform's Taxpayer Protection Pledge mean[ing] that I promise not to vote for tax increases as Colorado's U.S. Senator." If true (which I say only because I haven't looked it up myself yet) then that is a differentiator. How big depends on how big tax and spend are as issues for you. For me... BIG.
Ken believes strongly in HSAs as federal health policy. Jane mentions them too, along with a list of other good ideas, but concludes with a promise to "bring that same record of success to the Senate." But her record of success is incremental at best. Where's the passion? Ken talks about replacing employer sponsored health insurance with individually tax-deductable purchased policies. (Shouldn't health insurance receive the same favorable treatment as a home mortgage?)
I think the reason you haven't seen a great divide between the two Republicans is that they're both being careful not to hurt each other. Each contrasts his or herself with Bennet. Give them both credit for that. And if you're chief concern is electability, well, that's what the graph that prompted this post was all about.
Posted by: johngalt at June 13, 2010 2:16 PMI've looked it up. Norton has signed too.
Posted by: JohnGalt at June 14, 2010 10:53 AMNope, you had me -- I'm all in!
Posted by: jk at June 14, 2010 3:57 PMMay 25, 2010
Fourth Strike for Jane Norton
Don Johnson at People's Press Collective writes that Tom Wiens decision to withdraw from the CO race for US Senate and endorse Ken Buck may be seen as a "third strike" against Norton.
On Saturday, Buck gained a lot of publicity and momentum at the GOP state assembly. Satuday night, Sarah Palin failed to endorse Norton as widely expected ... And today, Wiens drops out, forcing Norton to figure out how to stop Buck.
But he didn't mention Jane's fourth strike, namely that her chief campaign argument has now been dismantled by the latest PPP poll. Jane has been claiming that she is the best, or only, candidate to beat Michael Bennet in the general election. Trouble is, that's no longer the case. Either Bennet or Romanoff now lead either Norton or Buck by a few percentage points. (Summary courtesy of RealClearPolitics.com's May 19 page)
Colorado Senate - Buck vs. Bennet PPP (D) Bennet 45, Buck 39 -> Bennet +6Colorado Senate - Norton vs. Bennet PPP (D) Norton 41, Bennet 44 -> Bennet +3
Colorado Senate - Norton vs. Romanoff PPP (D) Norton 41, Romanoff 43 -> Romanoff +2
Colorado Senate - Buck vs. Romanoff PPP (D) Buck 38, Romanoff 41 -> Romanoff +3
A look at the internals shows that Norton's personal favorability has been slipping, from 25/35 to 20/32 (favorable/unfavorable) but so has Buck's, from 21/17 to 19/24, and Romanoff's, from 45/15 to 31/26 and Bennet's, from 57/21 to 34/44. The biggest differences appear to be in the undecideds:
Bennet - 22%
Romanoff - 44%
Norton - 48%
Buck - 58%
As the only candidate with less than 50% name recognition (nearly 6 in 10 have no opinion of him!) Buck seems to have the greatest ability to make a move past the others (or, of course, fall further behind.) And then there's the factor of PPP being a Democrat polling firm.
Strike Four suggests a historical anecdote: I was once jg's guest at a football game that was rather famous for being settled with a TD scored on fifth down.
RE: Norton v Buck, I still can't get into this one. I don't see one position where Buck is clearly favorable. He'll likely get my vote in a "throw the bums out" message, but I have yet to hear a compelling differentiation.
Whose guest? I recall building a brick wall on my old Boulder house during that game. And ... it was played in Columbia.
Posted by: johngalt at May 25, 2010 7:37 PMNo, it was at Folsom Field. I rode my bike from Lafayette to your old house near campus. I broke my chain on the way back.
My recollection is that we did not notice. We cheered the Buffs late victory and read about the 5th down the next day.
It's seared into my memory, though I do not still have the hat. Was there a less famous CU fifth-down game? I fear another round of drug-legalization jokes will ensue.
Posted by: jk at May 26, 2010 9:53 AM...and if that doesn't work, I'll do what I usually do when caught in hopeless prevarication and fantasy and say "I was being allegorical."
Posted by: jk at May 26, 2010 1:31 PMFor your compelling differentiation I will generalize and say you should view a prospective Senator Jane Norton as a solid vote in the McCain Caucus. To whatever extent Senator Ken Buck tells the Arizona progressive, "No sir, I will vote my constituency instead" I say it's a good thing.
Posted by: johngalt at May 26, 2010 3:11 PMMay 23, 2010
Question 32
This is not your father's Republican Party!
I've made it well known around here that I consider the anti-abortion plank of the Republican Platform to be an electoral albatross. I know a vast majority of Republicans disagree with me, but now at least they're being asked the question. Among the 59 Resolutions which delegates were asked to vote on, sandwiched between #31: It is resoved that Colorado Republicans support overturning Roe v. Wade; and #33: It is resolved that Colorado Republicans oppose the use of public funds for destructive embryonic stem-cell research; was this gem:
32) It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that pregnancy, abortion, and birth control are personal private matters not subject to government regulation or interference.
Just ponder that for a minute. Republicans are being asked if Americans are actually capable of taking care of their own lives and decisions without assistance from a nanny-state government. What a concept.
At least one delegate was greatly offended. He fashioned a hand-written sign on a stick that read "VOTE NO ON 32!" and sat in his chair on the floor of the hall and waved it rhythmically. I let slip a wry grin.
But the greater significance of this question, to me, is that some Republican district somewhere in Colorado must have passed this resolution by majority vote for it to appear on the statewide resolution list. Glory be.
My previous precinct would have passed that easily. At the 2008 caucus, the rank and file was libertarian or very amenable to small government planks. The problem was an entrenched, establishment party leadership who saw it their right and duty to run things in a top-down manner.
I think the TEA parties have changed the expectations of the rank and file to throw off their Country Club Overlords. This might be the most significant and least discussed result of the movement.
Oh, and would not yes votes on 31, 32, and 33 be consistent?
Upon reflection, we didn't vote on resolutions until the County Assembly. I can see Boulder County (where your former precinct is located) approving this. My goal in 2012 will be to get the Weld County Assembly to pass it too. (No fair for any of you to warn them. ;)
As for things being run top down, they've got to be run somehow. We followed Roberts Rules of Order and motions were always in order.
Finally, yes. It would be consistent to vote YES on all three resolutions, but including the two adjacent questions was not intended to expose any hypocrisy. I included them to impart the flavor of the environment, which also included resolutions that "life begins at conception and is deserving of legal protection from conception.." and "oppose the use of public funds for abortions" which were #30 and 33 respectively. Taken as a set, "One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong." (Apologies to Children's Television Workshop.)
Posted by: johngalt at May 26, 2010 3:33 PM"Republicans put TEA Party Activist Dan Maes on Top of Their Primary Ballot
That's the way Fox News reported Colorado's GOP Convention vote today. I have the vote totals below and yes, Lynn Bartels did beat me to press with this one, but she only gives the share of the vote for each candidate, not the total votes. In my defense, I conserved my battery until the convention ended and powered up to look for wireless but it was pay to play and that is ten bucks that could be better spent on a Dan Maes campaign contribution.
The GOP state treasurer nomination goes to JJ Ament, with 2,788 votes to 690 for Ali Hasan. Hasan's 20% showing was below the 30% threshold to get him on the primary ballot.
The senate race was a little closer with Ken Buck's 2,701 votes surpassing Tidwell's 522, Greenheck's 56 and Barton's 35. Only Buck was voted onto the primary.
And then there was the governor's race. This one came down to the wire and the close finish was, I suspect, the reason it took nearly 2 hours to count and recount and verify and reverify the vote totals (after state party chair Dick Wadhams estimated 30 minutes.) Dan Maes drew 1,741 votes and party insider and long-time front runner Scott McInnis tallied 1,725. (YJ Mager received 21.) By a 16 vote margin the upstart "people's choice" candidate took the top position on the primary ballot. With 49% and 48% respectively, Maes and McInnis will face off in the primary election in August.
There is no picture of Scott McInnis because he and his family left before the voting ended to attend the wedding of Scott's eldest daughter in Estes Park. A campaign staffer made some cursory remarks to that effect.
In acknowledging his first-place finish Maes told the few of us remaining in the hall, "This is not about me. This is about you, the people, standing up and making yourselves heard. (...) We're just getting warmed up! (...) And to all of you Republicans in elective office out there, don't block me. This train is leaving the station and it's time to get on board. (...) The next step is to start sending in those contributions. It's time to start raising the money necessary to take this campaign to the next level." (Or something along those lines.)
UPDATE: Here's an interesting list of winners and losers from the Republican State Assembly
Winners2. Dan Maes: Edging out the party establishment’s favorite Scott McInnis, even by the narrowest of margins, gives an added boost to his campaign. Having given a great speech and recorded a strong showing today, Maes knows he has a lot of ground to make up in fundraising. But he’s in the game at least until August.
3. Ken Buck: Once Jane Norton decided to skip the assembly and petition on, a Buck victory was a slam dunk. But the Weld County D.A. put on an impressive showing of 77 percent despite the undervotes and protest votes. Primary race? Game on.
4. Cory Gardner: Clearing the 4th CD Republican field with 60 percent is a big relief for Gardner, as the GOP unites strong in its best chance to take back a Colorado Congressional seat from the Democrats.
5. Tea Party / 9-12 Project: The growing influence and focused energy of these groups was on display in Loveland. Besides the medium-sized sea of red shirts for Dan Maes, how else do you explain Bob McConnell winning 45 percent to make the ballot in CD3 and Dean Madere finishing a respectable second in CD4? Fiscal conservatism is alive and well and ready to rear its head in Colorado.
6. Republican Party unity: I think this point may be lost on some, especially on the other side, who are wishing for the opposite to happen. But despite (or maybe because of) heated primary competition, there was less dissension and infighting evident than at any of the past three state assemblies.
Losers
1. Negative campaign tactics: Ali Hasan banked a lot of his success on attacks suggesting fellow treasurer candidate J.J. Ament is a “fiscal liberal.” The delegates — whom no one could describe as anything but right of center — weren’t buying. Meanwhile, non-participating gubernatorial candidate Joe Gschwendtner bombarded delegates with robo-calls before the Assembly urging them to vote against Dan Maes saying he can’t win, a strategy that appears to have backfired. (See #2)2. Joe G: Gschwendtner’s campaign spokesman told Lynn Bartels earlier in the day: “After Dan doesn’t get his 30 percent, it will be McInnis and Gschwendtner.” Whoops. The late-entry campaign would have a steep enough hill to climb in a two-way race, but McInnis’ party establishment backing and Maes’ outstanding grassroots showing leave very little political oxygen.
4. Establishment backing: Many delegates this year seemed to be looking for candidates of integrity who have fire in the belly, candidates who send signals of running on principle rather than being handpicked by the powers that be. It’s certainly a reason Scott McInnis missed top line on the ballot, and it helps to explain why SD 16 candidate Tim Leonard was able to garner 70 percent support and avoid a primary with Mark Hurlbert.
UPDATE 2: Here's another local blogger's summary report.
Maes has won despite dismal fundraising and a few stumbles along the way. Putting some 70,000 miles on your car in less than 12 months while attending hundreds of political events can pay off. I think he comes off as being a bit smarter and more honest than McInnis, and he's willing to talk to both supporters and critics while McInnis is a glad hander who tries to avoid talking issues with supporters or, especially, the media and critics.
The TEA party has established itself as a force. I am still not certain it will be a force for good, but something had to be done.
Without it, Scott McInnis world have cruised to an easy nomination. I hate to harsh on the guy, but his picture is in the dictionary next to "establishment candidate." Bully for the TEA Party to give us a shot at Dan Maes.
PA-12 shattered my hopes for an überdevastating GOP sweep in November. And yet, perhaps better, primary results so far are increasing my hopes for a more supportable Republican Party going forward. In Congress, I have to be pragmatic, but statewide, I'd confess that I'd rather lose with Dan Maes than win with Scott McInnis.
Again, thanks for your efforts and reporting.
I applaud all of you do this but I'm not sure how much my health permits. I can do the contribution thang and I did just hit Mister Maes's.
Posted by: jk at May 23, 2010 11:18 AMSomething tells me you'd find a way to mitigate health factors in order to cover the Miss USA pageant. ;)
Posted by: johngalt at May 23, 2010 6:09 PMI try to be there when my readers need me, yes.
Posted by: jk at May 24, 2010 12:07 PMMay 21, 2010
CO-4 Midway/Final Report
At 4:15 pm MDT the speeches are over and the voting has begun. While waiting my turn I pulled out the laptop to write a few notes. Tom Lucero walked by and asked "are you just on the computer, playing around?" "I'm bloggin' man!" said I. So, ThreeSourcers, Tom Lucero says "Hi."
McInnis and Maes both received strong applause during their speeches but many more people rose from their seats for Dan than for Scott. Dan talked about his three point plan to take back Colorado: Reduce the size of government, cut taxes, and make real progress to stem illegal immigration. The details on immigration were to enforce existing Colorado law that is "much like the Arizona law," require all employers to use E-verify, and require unalterable photo-ID when appearing for social service aid.
Gotta runand vote!@
UPDATE- Just finished voting for Gardner for congress and Sue Sharkey for CU Regent. Now back to the report.
In case you were wondering, the gubernatorial and senate votes are tomorrow but those candidates spoke to our, and the other, congressional district assembly here at the Embassy Suites in Loveland.
Scott McInnis tried to sound tough. Tough on immigration. Tough in taking on Hickenlooper. Tough man, tough. His best line was his last: I can't wait to get to Denver and start the fight against Hickenlooper. Hey Hickenlooper, little buddy, I can't wait!
Low battery so I'm saving, just in case....
Jane Norton, who isn't even on the Convention ballot tomorrow (she's petitioning instead, hmm) and Ken Buck both spoke. Jane told us she is a pro-life, pro-business, pro-freedom, pro-2nd amendment, pro-10th amendment conservative. Polite applause. She said she's running for the senate because "Washington is broken" and she wants to go take it back. Polite applause. She even said she wants to repeal Obamacare. This is a flip-flop if memory serves, since she's said before that complete repeal is a bridge too far.
Here are the election results, as they're announced:
590 total votes (177 threshold to get on the primary ballot)
Gardner 359
Lucero 110
Madere 120
Sharkey 513
Barlean 76
write-in 1
Stunner!
I think I may have scooped Lynn Bartels with the speed of my reporting! :)
I wasn't terribly surprised that Lucero didn't make the 30% threshold to get on the primary ballot, but I don't think anyone expected Dean Madere to out poll Tom Lucero.
More later. Off to the barbeque.
UPDATE- I've renamed this post Midway/Final because the election results mark the end of the 4th CD Assembly. The next event we're attending is Dan Maes ice cream social this evening, then the State Convention tomorrow morning. I'm going to see if I can get Dan's thoughts on the recent PPP (Democratic) poll showing Hickenlooper and Ritter tied at 44% each. The poll didn't ask about Maes. After tomorrow, I predict they'll have to start.
CO 4th CD Assembly Blogging
1:50 pm MDT: Sitting in the front row of the 4th CD Assembly in Loveland, CO wearing my Cory Gardner T-shirt. I'll try to post a few tidbits that may be of interest. So far:
Collected a Ken Buck T-shirt in exchange for my promise to wear it to the State Convention tomorrow. Huzzah!
Found a fellow Maes/Buck supporter who said "I'm a Republican but I'm for limited government and individual rights, which really makes me a liberal." He is against the drug war and prohibition of abortion. Sorry though, JK, he's also anti-illegal immigration.
Talked for about 10 minutes with Dan Maes. Asked him how I should respond to the next McInnis supporter who says Dan was pro-amnesty on the first version of his website. Dan said he has never said anything of the sort on his website or anywhere else. He told us he had lunch with Tom Tancredo to get the lowdown on the immigration issue and that Tom seemed to come away from that meeting with the sense that Dan isn't "tough enough" on immigration. That impression, after working through the grapevine, became "Dan's for Amnesty." Dan also told us a Post reporter asked him if he, himself, is hispanic. "Maes is a hispanic name" the reporter said. Well, Dan's eldest daughter with his first wife, whose father was from Chihuahua, Mexico, is part hispanic. Perhaps that's where that rumor started from. Dad and I were both very impressed with Dan. He looked me square in the eye. He also suggested asking McInnis supporters what Scott's articulated position is on ANY issue. That gibes with my sentiment. Scott is commitment-phobic.
...and I would have attended the CO - 2nd District Assembly, but the other Republican has a cold.
Posted by: jk at May 21, 2010 4:41 PMHeh. Who does Tancredo think is 'tough enough' on immigration?
Posted by: T. Greer at May 21, 2010 5:31 PMThanks, tg, I was searching for the phrasing.
I know my buddies around here are angry that I see a little racism in the rush to enforce. One can be a principled defender of Law and order and national sovereignty and I accept that all ThreeSourcers are -- I just meet some people whom I am not sure fall into that camp...
I bring it up not to rub an old wound, but "Amnesty!" is the mirror image of "Racist!" Tancredoites hide behind it as quickly as La Mecha.
I have to say I was a bit overwhelmed at the amount of cheering from the delegates (see story above) at every mention of the immigration issue. It definitely resonates, as favorability of the Arizona law indicates, but I hope Republicans don't make it their marquee issue in the governor's (or any other) race. As this post attests, at least Dan Maes won't.
Posted by: johngalt at May 21, 2010 8:58 PMThanks, jg, that is a big concern for me. We can disagree on a lot of issues (and candidates) but immigration is so emotional, a candidate can easily decide to make it a signature issue. Hey, they don't call it populism 'cause it lacks appeal.
I don't think for a moment that the Colorado GOP would support a liberal-on-immigration candidate in the near future. But I can see McInnis leading with it.
-- And great reporting, btw, we're going to have to hold a telethon to get you an extra battery.
Posted by: jk at May 22, 2010 11:50 AMMay 20, 2010
Political Dirty Tricks in CO Governor's Race
Earlier today I mentioned the Colorado governor's race in a comment to a post on nasty politics. I speculated that Johnny-come-lately Joe Gschwendtner, whose attacks on the impressive grass-roots candidacy of Dan Maes conspicuously fail to target Scott McInnis, is a stalking horse for the McInnis campaign. Now I can offer evidence that my amateur conspiracy theory is conspiracy fact.
Fellow state delegate Joe Harrington (whom I've never met) shared my suspicions and apparently investigated the phone number that the Gschwendtner calls are coming from (208 515 7472 in my case) and found that McInnis calls have come from the same number!
Here is Harrington's letter:
I have received several calls in the last few days from the Joe G campaign pushing negative information about Dan Maes. I went back and researched the phone number that this campaign is using to call all the State delegates and it is the same number as McInnis used in early March to call us about the caucuses. In talking to the Communications Director of the Gswhentner Campaign (Joe G) this morning he admitted that they didn't have a chance but were merely trying to knock Dan Maes out of getting the Assembly 30% threshold to be on the ballot in the primary.At the same time information came out recently indicating that McInnis was pro-abortion rights during his term as Congressman (google Republicans for Choice McInnis to see more). It is apparent to me that this is a coordinated counterattack to try to deflect the heat from McInnis right before Assembly onto the Maes Campaign.
Whether you support McInnis or Maes this type of dirty politics should be exposed for what it is, and let the light of day in to show the truth to those of us who cared enough to give up our evenings and weekends to try to honestly assess who should lead our Party in November. Joe G isn't for real - he is a prop candidate set up to try to tear down Maes and that is all he is at this time.
I write this because I don't want any of us to allow negative campaign tactics and smear campaigns discourage us from voting on principle for who we think is right for our State in either the Governor's or Treasurers races as both of these races seem to have fallen into the gutter recently.
Please forward to other delegates that you may know who might want to see this.
Sincerely,
Joe Harrington
I've seen Dan Maes at Colorado TEA Parties. He's personally called me on the phone. He took a massive share of the March caucus support from the monied establishment candidate Scott McInnis - 46% to 52%. He is right on the issues and well qualified to lead our state back from the costly failures of the phoney "New Energy Economy" to a healthy reality of innovation, sensible regulation, and prosperity.
McInnis supporters strongest argument over the past months has been "only Scott can beat Hickenlooper in the general election." I had strong doubts on that count to begin with but the controversies that continue to accumulate around McInnis only weaken his position. In this anti-establishment climate I personally believe Dan is better positioned to beat the popular Denver democrat than is Scott. At this Saturday's Colorado Republican Convention this delegate will vote for, and campaign for, Dan Maes for Governor of Colorado.
Huzzah!
I have been very impressed with Maes (and simultaneous unwowed by the blinding charisma of Rep McInnis).
It seem that ThreeSources' Colorado division has been consumed with the Buck - Norton GOP Senate race. I lean toward Mister Buck for county solidarity and the enjoyment of seeing an establishment candidate get whacked, but still see no appreciable policy difference.
Maes, conversely, has struck me as a real TEA Party candidate. I wish you both the best at the convention!
Posted by: jk at May 20, 2010 5:15 PMMay 9, 2010
Otequay of the Ayday
Anyone remember my mention of the Senate Conservatives Fund? It was just before our little foray into drug legalization so I'll understand if you missed it. Here's part of Jim DeMint's endorsement of Weld County (CO) DA and GOP candidate for the US Senate Ken Buck:
"There are certainly other good Republicans in this race," said Senator DeMint, "but I believe Ken Buck is a conservative standout who will fight the establishment in both parties when he gets to Washington."
Music to my TEA Party ears.
"The purpose of the Senate Conservatives Fund is to help elect strong candidates who are overlooked by the Washington establishment," said Senator DeMint. "Ken Buck is one of those candidates, and I'm confident he will win if he gets his message out. My goal with this race is to partner with freedom-loving Americans in Colorado and across the country to help level playing field and give Ken Buck the support he needs to win the primary in August and defeat the Democrat in November. I am not trying to tell the people of Colorado how to vote; I am asking for their help because we need Ken Buck to save our country."
April 13, 2010
Colorado Primary Scramble
Heard a radio report today that Jane Norton now intends to petition onto the primary ballot instead of counting on 30% minimum support at the state GOP convention next month. ColoradoPols covers it here. She joins Tom Wiens as one of the candidates who doesn't energize the grassroots activists enough to waste a few weekend mornings supporting her (or him.) Apparently John McCain's PAC money can buy petition signatures more reliably than it can buy energetic supporters.
Related: Heard Dick Morris tell KOA Denver's Mike Rosen yesterday that "Jane Norton has to beat Bennet or Romanoff in November. It's imperative. Hopefully not very many Republicans will flake off and support a weaker candidate." Come on Dick. You'll just have to start helping Buck raise campaign cash after he's OUR nominee.
I received a lengthy email from the Norton Campaign today, explaining their position. If Morris supports Norton, you've just made your most salient pitch for Buck!
Posted by: jk at April 13, 2010 5:38 PMBlind squirrel, at your service...
Posted by: johngalt at April 13, 2010 11:18 PMApril 12, 2010
New Software Tax
Good thing this new sales tax on software doesn't have any onerous compliance costs:
Q: We have a customer that has a large presence in Boulder. We sold to a group in New Jersey, to be used in Poland, and paid for out of Chicago. But the Boulder facility may (they aren't sure) use the system with our software, but probably running on servers in New Jersey.Colorado: If the software is sold for multiple points of use, the purchaser is liable to remit the tax, not the vendor. The purchaser should give the vendor a multiple points of use exemption certificate. Tax should be apportioned on the purchase price on the basis of the location of the users that are licensed to use the product at the time of purchase. If those locations are not know, the purchaser should use its best business judgment to identify the number of expected users in Colorado based on the facts as they exist at the time of the sale.
Boulder: A delivery or download address must be established to determine where taxation should occur. If it is not clear, Boulder would tax the use of the software here unless proof could be provided that a legally imposed tax was charged and paid somewhere else.
Sounds like the Boulder I was happy to move out of. 'Round nineteen eighty something I took out a building permit to convert my single car garage to a double. They charged me sales tax on my estimated materials figure and said, "You can tell your suppliers you've already paid the city tax." "What if I buy outside of Boulder?" I asked. "Then you'd be liable for that city's tax."
Great. Glad you're here to help.
Posted by: johngalt at April 13, 2010 2:34 PMMarch 22, 2010
Colorado to Join ObamaCare Suit
Two great things about health care:
-- I am proud of the GOP
-- I am proud of my State:
DENVER (AP) — Colorado is joining at least nine other states in suing to block federal health care legislation.Republican Attorney General John Suthers said Monday he will join the suit, despite the objections of Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter.
Suthers said the bill's requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or be subject to fines is an unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's powers. He says Congress has the right to control interstate commerce but can't force people to participate in commerce.
Suthers said his decision isn't politically motivated. Republican state lawmakers urged him to join the lawsuit earlier in the day but Suthers said he didn't meet with them to reach his decision.
Good story. True. I'm concerned about the GOP though: they need to proceed on several fronts: I believe most Americans would be horrified to realize that this changes the most basic agreement between the gov't & the governed; WHO NOW OWNS AND DIRECTS WHOM? So, education/clarification, probably through private ads. They need to broaden their views on potential cand's (who's that guy from FL? I think it's Marco Rubio? And Thune (or is it Thane?) So, Diversity & careful choice of the right cand @ the right time. 3rd: & have already shown signs of beginning to do: growing a set: knowing who & what they are & speaking the truth continually and clearly without rancor. So, know their ground & STAND UP for it. 4th (& final for now) better involvement by & coordination of Volunteers, who, aware of their danger too late (perhaps) are eagerly scrambling to find a way out of this affront to every man, woman, child and beast who ever died to keep us a free people.
Posted by: Bilbe at March 23, 2010 10:39 AMBeing an advocate of free speech, I leave one copy of the above comment -- it's moderately on-topic for blogspam.
I removed the duplicate and the link to a cellphone plan.
Posted by: jk at March 23, 2010 12:13 PMMarch 18, 2010
Will She Even Bother to Run Again?
Despite what meager effort I and my family and those I emailed in CO-4 could make, today's fake CBO report gave Betsy Markey the cover she wanted to commit political suicide in this traditionally conservative district. I hope voters remember the "Markey Mistake" for a long, long time.
Markey's decision to vote in favor of the bill will almost certainly become a dominant issue for Republicans as they try to oust her in November. Markey in 2008 became the first Democrat in 36 years to win the 4th Congressional District seat, and national Republicans have made ousting her a top priority this year.Two recent polls released by business groups opposed to the Democrats' health care bill showed a majority of district residents were against the bill.
Markey said her decision to support the bill was about policy, not politics.
"I'm not a career politician and I've said this before, this is not a stepping stone for another career. I'm not here as a place to retire," she said.
Ironically, I think she just did exactly that.
She shoulda held out for the plane ride.
I've seen many TV commercials lately asking me to "call Betsy Markey and tell her to keep up the fight."
I think we lost, boys. I got overconfident less than one month ago. But today it feels very much over. Most have given up on stopping it and are choosing to revel in November's gains. Small damn comfort.
I've been overconfident before. I don't know if my pessimism now is a reaction to that or just to the Markey disappointment. You do realize that if they pass Healthcare with this unsavory process there's no reason for them not to pass every other leftist wet-dream on their wish list too. Perhaps the spectre of that will be enough to stiffen the resolve of the less progressive Dems.
Laura Ingraham told Bill O'Reilly today that Bart Stupak told her for every vote Pelosi switches to a yes, his guys are switching a no. Sounds like Stupak might really be all in after all.
Might there be, dare I say it - Hope?
Posted by: johngalt at March 19, 2010 1:02 AMMy pessimism has the same source. Kucinich covers the left, Markey covers the middle, game over. I see that it is still a fight, but the bogus CBO score and the Speaker's calling for a vote portend bad things.
Posted by: jk at March 19, 2010 10:37 AMMarch 17, 2010
Destroy America or Become a National Hero?
I just called my congressperson, U.S. Representative Betsy Markey of CO-4. Her website touts a report that she is one of the most centrist and independent members of congress. The House Switchboard number was busy so I called her office directly and got right through.
I asked if the congresswoman had decided how she intends to vote on the Health Care bill. Her staffer told me that she is waiting for a cost analysis by the CBO and has not yet made a decision. I said, "I am her constituent, residing near Fort Lupton, and I would like to encourage her to vote NO. I think if she votes yes then this won't be the United States of America any more and if she votes no she will become one of a handful of national heroes."
I was asked for my name and contact information, which I gave. (Not that they couldn't have guessed I'm a registered Republican anyway.)
Her D.C. office number is: 202.225.4676
UPDATE: 3/18 4:25pm MDT
The verdict is in: GUILTY
Colorado following California into Anti-Coal Stupidity
Watch out Pennysylvania, you're probably next. Yesterday Colorado's lame-duck governor announced a "Clean Air - Clean Jobs Act" that looks like it's on the fast track through the state legislature, having "bipartisan" sponsorship in both the house and the senate. The sponsoring GOP senator, in particular, draws my ire. It's been a while since I've felt the need to publish outside of the friendly confines of ThreeSources, but I wrote the editor of the Denver Post about it.
Re-thinking Josh PenryDear Editor,
Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry has been making a name for himself in conservative circles but it may be time to reconsider. The Post reported Tuesday that he co-sponsored Governor Ritter's new "Clean Air - Clean Jobs Act" that outlaws coal power in Colorado. Have we not learned from California's mistake? Electricity costs 40% more there, largely due to their coal ban. Why do it?
Penry isn’t quoted but reasons given include anticipation of federal regulations that could “lead to a 4 to 6 percent increase in rates.” That’s still 34% less than California. Xcel Energy and natural gas companies support the plan. The latter because coal always wins in a free-market; the former because they’ll get money for new plants and cover for raising rates. It’s like light bulb manufacturers encouraging the ban on cheap light bulbs.
And then there are coal’s higher carbon emissions. As Curtis Hubbard alluded last month on his Post blog, if the events of the past year haven’t convinced us that the whole ‘Climate Change’ issue was a fraud we have reason now to at least ask the question.
UPDATE - March 24, 2010:
Not long after my post I heard radio ads SUPPORTING this bill. They were paid for, if I'm not mistaken, by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a natural gas lobbying group. [No, I just heard it again. It's America's Natural Gas Association.] Jackasses.
Fortunately, the coal guys are fighting back. Today I heard the first ad against the bill deriding the mad rush to pass the bill "and raise electricity costs for Colorado residents for decades to come." The ad was paid for by American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal lobbying group.
Which to side with? The one that doesn't want to restrict the market - Coal.
March 16, 2010
Caucus Nite!
In addition to Cory Gardner I'll be caucusing for Ken Buck tonight:
Whenever your caucus is, wherever you live ... GO. Find the grassroots candidates. Support them. Tell the McCain PAC money boys (and in Colorado's case, girls) to go home. The GOP primary is the only place you can make a real difference. By the time the general election rolls around it's just lesser-of-evils time. In Colorado, tonight's the night. 7 pm.
CO GOP caucus location info here: http://www.cologop.org/
UPDATE:
Caucus Report - There were 13 participants from our precinct who chose 4 delegates from 5 nominees. Yours truly was one of those selected (and the only one to be chosen unanimously, with 13 of 13 votes.) This is even more remarkable when you consider that one of the couples in attendance had expressed their strong preference for Jane Norton, since they know her personally. Even though I was unabashedly for her chief rival, Ken Buck, the both of them voted for me. I had chatted them up about the other races and the general condition of the country. I also volunteered to be precinct secretary and one of two precinct chairmen for the next go 'round. When given my chance at a mini campaign speech I said I'm not a member of any TEA Party or 9.12 groups but I attend the Tea Parties when they happen and that best describes my priorities. I said that I consider over taxation and regulation at the federal level to be the chief reason for the sad state of the economy these days. Charity should start at home and that sort of thing. In closing I joked that everyone should "vote for me because I WON'T buy your vote."
Our precinct/district results were:
Buck - 9/49
Norton - 4/20
McInnis - 7/42
Maes - 6/38
Gardner - 11/49
Lucero - 2/16
Brown - 0/9
Statewide results for Senate and Governor are here.
As of (Good Lord!) 1:15am MDT (last updated 11:25pm with 94% reporting) the numbers are:
Governor
McInnis - 15,213 (60%)
Maes - 9,952 (39.3%)
Senate
Buck - 9,324 (37.9%)
Norton - 9,295 (37.7%)
Wiens - 4,054 (16.5%)
Thoughts:
- If the rankings hold through the final count this is a major coup for the grassroots candidate Ken Buck over the much better funded Norton. I think he was just hoping for a good showing to get some credibility. An outright win is a bonus.
- Wiens spent a lot of ad money too, mostly hammering Norton for supporting the tax grab Referendum C. If he drops out none of his support will go to her.
- Buck's current margin of victory is 29 votes, of which two were my dad and me. It sure feels good to make a difference like that.
Good night. And, goodnight!
UPDATE II:
As of 10:30 AM 3/18, 99.69% reporting -
Governor
McInnis - 15,385 (59.1%)
Maes - 10,421 (40.1%)
Senate
Buck - 9,776 (38.2%)
Norton - 9,613 (37.5%)
Wiens - 4,223 (16.5%)
Buck's margin has grown - from 29 to 163.
Winner winner, chicken dinner!
Still not sure about Ken, I will keep an open mind. I definitely like the idea of Dan Maes over Scott McInnis.
This video is not compelling. The problem is...Lobbyists? Really? Fat cat bankers in Greenwich, CT? I just don't get it.
He tweets "Tonight, CO has the opportunity to stand against D.C. special interests. Please support my campaign at your..." Sounds like John Edwards! Gonna fight the drug companies for me!
Posted by: jk at March 16, 2010 7:23 PMHeaded to Legacy School in Frederick by any chance?
Posted by: jk at March 16, 2010 7:33 PMYou didn't like the improved fuel economy promise from his bumper stickers?
For Buck it's all about the national PAC money being funneled to Jane Norton. You can't blame the guy for feeling a little like Rodney Dangerfield: The NRSCC has reportedly reserved domain names for Norton's general election run already.
And no, it wasn't "fat cat" bankers, but "bailed out" bankers. When I hear that I think Lehman Brothers. I understand if you think he's just talking about arm-twisted TARP recipients. In the final analysis though, for me it's about the Republicans who brung us attempted amnesty, half-hearted SS reform, no adult supervision over spending and entitlements, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama versus the mad as hell types who reluctantly chose to take on the careerists and show Democrats what a REAL "party of NO" looks like.
And no, we weren't in Frederick but the other direction - Fort Lupton Middle School.
Posted by: johngalt at March 17, 2010 3:02 AMOh yeah, I love the message to the national GOP (cough losers! cough!) I was actually more surprised at Dan Maes's showing. I think the grassroots spoke loudly and clearly.
Ft. Morgan, huh? Big town! You probably went in early for sushi and stayed late to catch a show...
Posted by: jk at March 17, 2010 10:44 AMYou made the same mis-identification that my dad repeatedly makes. I have no idea why it's so easy to recognize Ft. Collins but Ft. Lupton is easily confused with Ft. Morgan. As for the civic charms of our nearby little burg, I've come to appreciate that what it lacks in size, demographics and amenities it makes up with history and friendliness.
Posted by: johngalt at March 17, 2010 12:31 PMMy best to your Dad. I make it <italics>repeatedly</italics> as well. No idea why. I go to Ft. Lupton for license plates and maybe drove through Ft. Morgan ten years ago.
Posted by: jk at March 17, 2010 7:23 PMMarch 15, 2010
"I'm Going to Pick a Fight"
Those were the words of William Wallace [1:03] as he set out to meet representatives of English tyranny over Scotland. They're the same words I heard a GOP candidate for CO-4 say to a fellow debate attendee. She had asked him, "How long do you want to keep this job?" Cory's reply was, "I don't want to go to Washington to make friends, I'm going to pick a fight." There were only a few of us standing around him at the time so I don't believe it was a rehearsed line, but it sure made an impression on me: He's going to pick a fight with representatives of federal tyranny over America.
Cory was the only one of the four candidates not wearing cowboy boots so I joked with dagny, "Cross him off the list!" But by the end of the debate the other three had not won me over like Gardner did. I went to meet him afterwards and that's where the quote comes from. My question for him was whether he would have a problem having any of the other three candidates on his "team" to which he said, "Not at all." I had a better question for him this morning, which you can read about below the fold.
I intend to stand for election as a delegate for Cory at tomorrow's GOP caucus.
I called Cory this morning and he called me back. I asked him about his 2010 plan which, for spending reform, only says we need a balanced budget amendment. He said that the 2010 plan is a sort of bare bones summary. He essentially wants to push for a Colorado style TABOR law at the national level, which includes restraints on the growth of spending. He said that neither of these things is required in order to roll back spending. I said, "You're right, if congress wanted to cut spending they could. But what are you going to say when your colleagues say 'You're asking me to vote against something that's popular in my district - what are you going to vote against that's popular in yours?'" He said he's recently gone to the well of the Colorado legislature and proposed a cut in spending by the agriculture department, and that this is a big deal for a representative from a rural district. I agreed and asked if that sentiment would extend to the federal farm bill. He said, "Absolutely." He then explained that the 1996 farm bill was written by Wayne Allard and a senator from Kansas to wean farmers off of subsidies over a 6-year period but subsequent congresses, with Republican complicity, undid the effort.
We also talked briefly about government employee unions and ridiculous pension plans. He said that's a problem at the state and the federal level and it needs to be reformed at multiple levels. I asked if it is as simple as candidate McInnis' pledge to reverse the executive order allowing state employee unions. He said that Gov. Ritter's order gave state employee unions the right to bargain collectively - that's what would be reversed if McInnis or Maes is elected. He said it's an important first step but not the whole solution. (I was impressed by his inclusion of Dan Maes who I'm just learning about since he's getting zero press but is what I suppose you'd call "the TEA Party candidate.")
I told him I know that he has experience resisting the pressures to go along against his principles at the state level but the pressures in Washington will be even stronger. I said that I think Senator Bunning has some regrets about his career in congress. He agreed and said he plans to spend as much time as possible with constituents in his district instead of in Washington.
March 12, 2010
International Club for Meddling with Local Government
One of moderator Amy Oliver's questions at last night's CO-4 GOP debate was about an international organization called the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, or ICLEI. They've changed their name to ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability.
Apparently they encourage local governments to impose environmental regulations all over the world. They describe "members" as "the strongest allies of ICLEI by contributing a yearly membership fee, but also by hosting ICLEI offices, financing events or contributing staff time to projects and activities." That would be staff time of the local governments they work for, paid by local tax dollars.
The online membership directory is unavailable: "Please accept our apologies. We are presently working to update our membership information pages. This page will be available again shortly."
They do, however, list the 1124 local governments these members come from. They include:
Arvada, Aspen, Boulder, Breckenridge, Carbondale, Denver, Durango, Ft. Collins, Frisco, Golden, Gunnison County, La Plata County, LAFAYETTE, Loveland, Manitou Springs, San Miguel County, and Westminster in Colorado.
Haverford Township, Lower Makefield, Meadville, Montgomery Township, Mt. Lebanon, Narberth, Nether Providence Township, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Radnor, Upper Dublin Township, and West Chester in Pennysylvania.
Find your town. Complain to your city council. I DON'T WANT MY TAX DOLLARS, IN THE FORM OF STAFF TIME, SPENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM.
February 26, 2010
Sucks to be Jane Norton's Spokesperson
Score one for Ken Buck:
Young energetically anti-big government PPC blogger Ari Armstrong, like many Coloradans, wanted to get straight what Norton meant this week when she said the Obama administration jobs bill was "too small," a response that suggested longtime government employee Norton was advancing a government solution to the jobs crisis. Armstrong didn't get hold of Norton; he got hold of her spokesman Nate Strauch. Suffice it to say, Armstrong got the better of Strauch in the exchange which, given what he has had to deal with week to week as Norton drops bombs at small gatherings across the state, is to say nothing against Strauch.What Norton meant to say, explained Strauch, was that she would cut taxes to small businesses!
Hat-tip: @ariarmstrong
January 6, 2010
Barone on Ritter
I am not making up this headline: Are Democrats exiting the sinking ship? Part 11: Colorado
I’ll get to Dodd in a later post, but it’s interesting to ponder what’s happening in Colorado. In 2008 it was a showcase for the popularity of Barack Obama. He accepted the Democratic nomination in Invesco Field, in front of a stage setting with fake Roman columns, to the cheers of tens of thousands. I remember seeing Ritter speak triumphantly at an earlier event, a concert in an amphitheater in the mountains above Denver, celebrating his own and Obama’s support of environmental causes (his official website calls him “Greenest Gov. in U.S.”).
Well, we certainly have the greenest President...
Part 12, takes on Senator Dodd:
It looks like a Torricelli move: Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is announcing that he will not run for reelection this year. This has the look of a not very voluntary decision.
I'm thinking we'll be seeing the doddering Dodd in the future, either as Geithner's replacement, or as the Waitress Sandwich Czar.
Posted by: Keith at January 6, 2010 4:11 PMNope. CEO of Fannie Mae!
Posted by: jk at January 6, 2010 5:30 PMjk: Barney Frank's got dibs on that one. But Dodd could be an Executive VP at Countrywide.
If he were open to a private-sector job.
Posted by: Keith at January 6, 2010 5:46 PMJanuary 4, 2010
Fact. Joke. Observation.
The Fact (well, I heard it on the TV news...): The city of Denver now has more licensed medical marijuana dispensaries than it has Starbucks®
The Gag: Obviously, we need more Starbuckses...
The serious observation: One unintended consequence I missed as a fierce proponent of medical marijuana was the incredible cheesiness of the establishments. (Again, I am trusting local TV news, so NaCl a bit, but) most of the dispensaries have much more the vibe of a head shop than a Doctor's office. I remain a proponent of full-out legalization and can classify this as freedom's exploiting a loophole. But I remain disappointed that I was thinking of serving Angel Raich more than Snoop Dogg. Not as far as regret, but definitely disappointment.
October 12, 2009
Play ball!
For a blog with PA and Colorado ties there's been a surprising silence about the NLDS between the Rox and Phillies, the only one of four first-round series not to end in a sweep. It's about time somebody changed that.
Dagny and I left the big girls with Opa and took the baby to the game last night. We were just as ready and willing to bundle up the night before but the baseball powers that be (Pelosi and Reed?) somehow decided that yesterday's 30.0 degree first pitch was sufficiently better than Saturday's 26.6 degrees that they gave us a start time of 8:07 PM MDT (10:07 pm Eastern.) Great. After the four and a quarter hour game we arrived back at the farm around 2 am, the same time the game ended on the east coast.
Today's first pitch will be warmer (it's 44.1 and rising at the moment) and in the daylight at 4:07 local time. But the weather isn't the story, Rockies pitching is. Losing Jorge DeLaRosa in his last regular season start was a body blow. Hammel has done well this year, being one of five Rox pitchers with 10 or more wins this season, but I'd have preferred to see him start a road game instead given his bipolar performances home vs. away.
I wasn't confident going in last night but still felt the home team would pull it out at the end. The magic never struck. The hill was too steep. While Phillies fans moan that Lidge walked two in the ninth, freezing Coors Field partisans howled on every first pitch ball and each of the eight, yes EIGHT, bases on balls given up last night by the pitchers we have come to rely on since June 5th. Today, however, I'm more confident. As Tulo says, those other games were never "must win." This one is. This team has pride and today's starter has the goods. The Phillies go back home today but the Rockies invite themselves along for a one-game playoff tomorrow. Winner-take-all.
I'm leaving shortly to witness the spectacle.
Lidge makes me nervous! Prefer not to discuss to not jinx it!
Posted by: AlexC at October 12, 2009 9:00 PMWell, congrats to the Phils. I will be pulling for them all the way.
I saw the box score with a '0' in the bottom of the ninth, turned off the computer and thought all night that the Rockies had won. Ignorance was blissful for awhile...
Sorry jk, what you really wanted to see in the bottom of the ninth was an "x."
Confidence reigned throughout the game. First inning homer for the Phillies? No problem. The Rox delivered Roctober magic with 3 runs in the 8th for a 2 run lead. Huston Street had first pitch strikes that led to the first two outs of the ninth but with two on and two stikes to Howard, the last pitch was too good. For Howard, that is.
Congratulations Phillies. You out "Roctobered" the Rockies. I'm still unsure who I'll root for the rest of the way but the Phillies have a leg up in that dagny said she'll kill me if I root for the Dodgers. Hey, there's always the American League. Former Rockie Brian Fuentes closes for the Angels.
Posted by: johngalt at October 13, 2009 1:38 PMAnd I might kill if you resort to the AL. Despite Ricardian elegance, I can't handle the DH.
Posted by: jk at October 13, 2009 2:05 PMIt's settled then. Gee, that was easy!
Posted by: johngalt at October 13, 2009 2:54 PMWell, it would be more difficult for me to enforce my threats than Dagny hers...
Posted by: jk at October 13, 2009 4:07 PMSeptember 28, 2009
CO GOP GUV Primary
Okay, who's paying attention? I have an inbox full of donation requests and I think I am following all the candidates on Twitter.
I cannot say anybody has caught my eye just yet. (Nor can I claim to have exerted the effort it deserves yet.) So, ThreeSources, Who? Why?
Can't say that any of them have captured my imagination. Name recognition award goes to Scott McInnis, who was not a bad representative. He might be able to beat Ritter, mainly because Ritter has been so bad.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 29, 2009 11:33 AMAugust 23, 2009
Hope for Home!
I have bemoaned the leftward, collectivist tilt of the Centennial State for years. Michael Barone thinks there may be some hope:
But now, Colorado seems to be going in the other direction. Gov. Bill Ritter, elected by 17 points in 2006 and seeking another term next year, is trailing former Republican Rep. Scott McInnis in the polls and runs only even against a little-known Republican state legislator. Michael Bennet, appointed by Ritter to fill Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's Senate seat, has a negative job rating and runs well under 50 percent against Republican opponents. Barack Obama's job rating in the state has been conspicuously below his national average -- closer to those of still rock-ribbed Republican Rocky Mountain states than the hip states of the Pacific Coast.Campaigning, it turns out, is easier than governing.
Good piece. I gotta have something -- not much hope coming from the Broncos...
August 20, 2009
People's Republic of Boulder
To non-Centennial Staters, the Sobriquet "People's Republic of Boulder" is used non-pejoratively by Boulder residents. proud of their quirky reputation. It sadly speaks honestly to the government and electorate's embrace of collectivism and general nanny-statism.
It took the city council until 12:30 AM to get the five votes needed to limit house size, but they were able to move it on to the next step:
Generally, the council agreed that the ordinance should affect all residential zoning districts, and houses should be contained by "bulk planes" -- or invisible three-dimensional envelopes.The leaders did not, however, agree on how much of a lot a house should be able to cover, or whether the amount of finished square footage compared with lot size should be used as a regulatory tool.
UPDATE: [johngalt] I found the rest of this story on the internet. "Under the proposed rules the maximum size for new or remodeled Boulder homes is as shown below."
What utter rubbish. You should live in the Bay Area, where in any city or town you have the freedom to...oh, wait, bad example. How about New York City, where you can build a house or apartment building as tall -- ah hell, I give up!
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at August 20, 2009 2:29 PMUPDATE: I found the rest of this story on the internet. "Under the proposed rules the maximum size for new or remodeled Boulder homes is as shown here.
Have I mentioned that I moved out of Boulder in 2003? Boulder's city council was one motivation for fleeing. I've personally talked with three of the four councilmen (err, "councilpersons") mentioned in the story. Of them only Matt Appelbaum has any semblence of a clue.
Here are a few more two word answers to this story:
Weld County
Red county
Rid X (lice killer, for the inexperienced)
March 26, 2009
Just another spring blizzard
Like jk said, the Colorado wing is snowed in. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade!
These pictures are a bit misleading. The snow around the house ranges from bare patches to 3 foot drifts, depending on where the wind left it. Out in the field it's about a foot deep all over. The 4-wheeler is just 2 wheel drive and I had trouble getting through in a few places.
Thanks for the snow tube aunt Leah!
Thanks for the pix, JB. NB is down in Texas these days doing what the 21st century demands for employment (have laptop, will travel), and misses the mountains, the snow, and the Three Sources of my personal strength; two of which look a great deal like the ones riding that sled.
I hope your Tejas assignment is as temporary as can be, NB. Being away from your spouse and worse yet, your kids, is one of the highest personal costs I know of.
I recently thanked an Air Force Lieutenant for his service - at DIA en route from D.C. to Warren AFB in Cheyenne - and asked him if he has a family. He did not. "It's because people like you do what you do that people like me can devote themselves to their family," I told him. I also apologized to him for his current commander-in-chief, but that's another story.
Posted by: johngalt at March 30, 2009 12:57 PMFebruary 8, 2009
Evil Possessed Demon Horsies
When my hometown makes the Wall Street Journal, it is usually not good news. Not since Bill Owens was Governor anyway. But this one made me laugh.
I do not travel for work anymore and I am long overdue to visit Sugarchuck and get some recording done, so I have not seen the public art in question:
DENVER -- The mustang rears on splayed hind legs -- his nostrils flaring, his eyes glowing red, his taut body a slick, sweaty sheen of blue. Anatomically correct -- eye-poppingly so -- the 32-foot-tall fiberglass sculpture makes quite a statement at the gateway to Denver International Airport.But that begs the question: What kind of statement, exactly?
"It looks like it's possessed," says Denver resident Samantha Horoschak. "I have a huge fear of flying anyway, and to be greeted at the airport by a demon horse -- it's not a soothing experience."
Many people here agree, calling the muscular steed a terrifying welcome to the Mile High City.
I have not seen it but I like it already. Denver is a frontier, western city; I cannot see where it hurts to scare off a few wusses. And I like very much the idea of visiting football teams being greeted so welcomingly.
Keep the horse!
Oh come on. Even a Yankee like me can appreciate that symbol of strength.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 8, 2009 1:18 PMAnd on the Western thing, somewhere in the old family photo albums are some pictures from when we visited Denver. There I was, 7 years old, sporting a cowboy hat for the first time in my life.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 8, 2009 1:19 PMSounds good, pardner...
Posted by: jk at February 8, 2009 3:46 PMSpoken like two guys who have never seen it. This thing is UUUUGLY! It makes Mexican velvet art look classy by comparison. Target practice would be its only apt fate.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 9, 2009 12:07 PMI'm with BR. I appreciate art when it inspires good thoughts and feelings. This thing doesn't.
http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/W3PYBnyspTrQGUPqkwr0ng?select=PECRNeXp-IN3GuugrCHM3Q
This is what happens when we let governments commission works of art.
Posted by: johngalt at February 9, 2009 3:59 PMThat's a better picture than one I saw before.
Whew. Is it too late to change my mind? That's not a horse.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2009 11:44 PMOctober 20, 2008
Colorado Bests Pennsylvania by Seven!
Both our Governors received "D's" in the Cato Rankings, but Governor Bill Ritter received a 49 to lead the D's; Governor Rendell got a 42.
Oooh! In your face!
You'll have to ask the Rockies how their golf games are doing... because my Phillies are in the World Series.
Ahem.
Posted by: AlexC at October 20, 2008 4:28 PMWell, yeah, there's that...
Posted by: jk at October 20, 2008 4:58 PMI had to root for the Dodgers against the Phils because they're NL West, but as soon as they imploded the field was clear to root for that eastern team with the funny mascot.
I was looking forward to seeing how the Phils did against the Manny-less Red Sox but their multi-million dollar pitching staff couldn't silence the Rays the way they did the Rox. The two main differences I saw were that Rays batters were far more patient then the Blake Street boys. I chalk that up to better management. (disclaimer: I'm a huge Clint Hurdle fan.)
Anyway, it should be an exciting matchup between the young and talented Rays vs. the experienced and cagey Phils. Do you think Ryan Howard will FINALLY start hitting?
Posted by: johngalt at October 21, 2008 12:39 AMI have no allegiance to the division, though it's hard to imagine an instance where I'd cheer for an AL team (DH-lovin'-collectivists...)
It happens that I have been a Phils fan my whole life, until our little backwoods got a team to replace them. Not sure why, I think the name amused me as a kid -- they were cemented to the second-to-last spot in the NL, but this Colorado kid held the flame.
Damn, those Rays are scary, though. I hope some of the early polling is proven to be overly pessimistic.
October 15, 2008
More On 49
Flyover country makes the WSJ Ed Page:
When former Governor Bill Owens issued an executive order to achieve this objective for all state government workers, union collections fell by more than half. But that edict was rescinded by current Governor Bill Ritter, a Democrat and union ally. Thus the need for Amendment 49, which the state's unions are spending furiously to defeat.What is remarkable about Amendment 49 is that it has the endorsement of most major newspapers in Colorado, including the center-left Denver Post. Perhaps that's because even many liberals understand that workers shouldn't be coerced into subsidizing political causes they don't agree with. In particular, income should not be intercepted by a third party -- in this case withheld by the government -- before it gets to the worker's bank account. Unions talk about raising take-home pay, except when they are dunning that pay to finance their own agenda.
No puppets, though.
October 14, 2008
Colorado Amendment #49
Sorry, Keystone Staters, while you have a team in the NLCS (Go Phils!) we have to ponder a myriad of ballot referenda. I got an email link to this "High Brow" "Ivory Tower" explanation of 49:
UPDATE: Some might recognize John Caldera of the Independence Institute. I went to his website for more on 49, and found this column which (all three) Boulder Refugee(s) might appreciate:
I came to Boulder in 1984. Since then I graduated from CU, owned a stage-lighting business here, got married here and started a family here, lost my daughter to cancer here, represented the community as an elected official on the RTD board, and wrote a column for the Daily Camera for four years here. I own a home here and my kids go to government schools. After 24 years I think it is fair to say I have every right to call myself a true Boulderite.But many of my fellow Boulderites don't feel the same way. You see, I am a free market conservative. I don't agree with the Boulder credo of, "I know how you should live." I've opposed tax increases, smoking bans, growth control, bans on "chain" stores and restaurants and all the things that make Boulder the elitist town it is. As the president of the Independence Institute I work for personal and economic freedom. Neither is in great supply here. And after 24 years here in Boulder, I still feel quite the outsider.
Although this Refugee may share Caldera's larger polical views, he has little sympathy for Caldera's predicament. Your Humble Refugee was born in Boulder in 1960. The city's move toward People's Republic status started with the war protests in the early '70s and with the Danish Plan (anti-growth named after its author Paul Danish) in 1972. The last Republican representative to be elected from that district was Don Brotzman in 1970 (he lost in 1972 to Tim Wirth). This Refugee has a hard time believing that Caldera didn't know what he was moving into in 1984. He certainly had to know after four years at CU.
Once last point: you can't claim refugee status until you leave!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at October 14, 2008 5:14 PMSeptember 25, 2008
Appalachia On The Platte
The DC Examiner had an article on Senator Joe Biden's Coal-fired Gaffe Machine. While other gaffes were considered stupid, Chris Stirewalt considers the "no-coal-plants-in-the-USA" to be especially impolitic.
But Biden getting caught on tape last week denouncing the use of coal to an eco-warrior on a rope line will be a blunder that will put a wrinkle in Biden’s blue collar. “No coal plants here in America,” Biden said of his ticket’s energy plan.It’s probably just something Biden said to dodge a question, since he surely knows that we get half of our electricity from coal and couldn’t meet the needs of the next two decades without burning even more.
But swing states Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado all have substantial coal mining industries and residents who identify themselves as part of a coal culture.
Colorado coal culture? I have lived the past 19 years in communities that were founded on coal mining, but thought it all ended with the WPA. Minus ten points: the Colorado Mining Association claims Colorado is seventh in the USA in Coal Production.
So I can be personally offended by one of Biden's gaffes -- excellent!
September 14, 2008
Centennial State Spirit
"Near Lyons" would be the foothills in Boulder County, pretty reliable Democratic territory, though I am not sure the participants live around there. I like the poll at the end of the clip.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
You go grrlz!
One has to wonder though if they have trouble getting a good sight picture through their burkas.
Oh yes, that's right - they aren't required by religious law of the land to WEAR a burka. That's because they live in the United States of effin' America!
And that woman caller to Boulder's progressive radio station thought Sarah Palin was "frickin' scary." Wait'll she gets a load of THESE ladies!
Posted by: johngalt at September 15, 2008 2:51 PMProgressive women are calling the Samtec Shrouded Header Hotline???
Posted by: jk at September 15, 2008 3:26 PMOops. My work is showing! Too many tabs open at once or something...
Try this one.
Posted by: johngalt at September 15, 2008 6:41 PMAugust 7, 2008
Nostalgia for 2005
Stop the presses! Federalism works. Lower taxes increase prosperity -- as does reduced regulation.
In an article in American Magazine called The Path to Prosperity, (Do they have to pay Larry Kudlow to say that?) Amela Karabegovic and Alan W. Dowd summarize a report to which each contributed.
Common sense tells us that low taxes, limited government, and flexible labor markets will help to spur economic growth. The Fraser Institute’s 2008 Economic Freedom of North America (EFNA) report offers a striking, yet unsurprising, picture of the benefits that flow from such policies.In 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, Colorado, Georgia, Delaware, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Texas—states with consistently strong records of promoting economic freedom—had an average per capita GDP that was more than $4,300 above the U.S. average. Their total growth from 1981 to 2005 was nearly 20 percentage points higher than the U.S. average.
The report attempts to rank the 50 states and 10 provinces in freedom and economic activity as Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World index has done for countries.
What struck me as a resident of a highly ranked state was fear that the most recent data came from 2005. Colorado elected a Democratic Senate and reelected a Democratic house in 2004. Democrat Bill Ritter was elected governor in 2006 to replace Republican Bill Owens. Owens was dedicated to freedom and low taxes.
The new regime will not be so friendly to the taxpayer or employer. No doubt the state will fall in the growth rankings as well.
"Owens was dedicated to freedom and low taxes.*"
* Until, that is, he decided to support the $10B tax increase known as "Referendum C" in the same election that CO voters chose that Democrat governor to replace him.
Colorado Democrats recognize the state's economy as a fairly unmolested 'golden goose.' Now they're in a position to gore that goose to their hearts' content.
Posted by: johngalt at August 10, 2008 4:41 PMJuly 17, 2008
Why are we in Iraq?
"Joe from Denver wants to know, 'Why are we in Iraq and how will we know when we've won the war?'"
Listen to Bob Schaffer, Colorado's Republican candidate for the US Senate, explain it.
In politics this is what's known as a direct hit.
But Bush Lied!!! There were no WMDs!! My poor Congressman was duped -- it's Bush's fault!
Posted by: jk at July 18, 2008 10:50 AMIt don't get any better'n that!
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 18, 2008 12:10 PMFebruary 6, 2008
If Guiness Says It...
This establishment is about halfway between JohnGalt's house and mine.
Denver Post:Henry Sawaged has been telling skeptics — especially his brother — that he is running a cathedral of booze, a wine and spirit colossus unmatched anywhere.
Finally, last month, he got framed proof. It is a certificate from Guinness World Records declaring Daveco Liquors in Thornton the largest liquor store in the world.
January 14, 2008
RomneyCare: Coming to Colorado
Part of me worries about the Centennial State; the rest of me has given up. We have a Democrat Governor, both houses under Democratic rule, every tax increase passes easily, a massive light rail project passed in 2004.
Next is RomneyCare. Just because it is an abject failure in Massachusetts, why not have it here? (Justice Brandeis, call your office!)
Boulderite Brian T. Schwartz, Ph.D. calls it "Collective Punishment" in TCSDaily.
When government policies increase insurance costs, the first to drop coverage are the young and healthy. Those remaining in the insurance pool are at higher risk to incur medical expenses, so premiums rise again, which again drives out the healthiest remaining customers. It takes some nerve to support policies that make insurance prohibitively expensive and then make it a crime not to purchase insurance.Compulsory insurance is based on collective punishment, a perverted form of justice found where troops patrol the streets and spitballs go splat. It punishes both the insured and uninsured for the misdeeds of politicians. Legislators should stop scapegoating the uninsured for the mess they've perpetuated. They should repeal legislation that inhibits the free market from delivering affordable high-quality medical care.
UPDATE: (Make lemonade Dept.) I found a good website: Colorado Freedom Report. Welcome to the blogroll.
Rendell's trying to pass the same thing in PA! Surprised Alex didn't jump on this.
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at January 14, 2008 10:04 PMDecember 20, 2007
Sen. Salazar Responds
To my letter:
Dear John:Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me regarding federal agriculture subsidies. I appreciate hearing from you.
As someone who grew up on a family farm and ranch, I recognize the importance of ensuring the viability of our small producers and the future of rural America.
I understand your frustrations with large farms receiving the vast majority of federal agricultural dollars. I believe it is important to provide a strong and efficient safety-net for our small and medium-sized family farmers, and do all we can to direct agricultural payments to those who need them most.
The 2007 Farm Bill makes a number of important reforms that will improve the integrity of federal subsidy payments. The bill lowers the Adjusted Gross Income eligibility limit by seventy percent; eliminates the three-entity rule; requires direct attribution of subsidy payments; cuts the maximum annual subsidy payment allowance by five percent; and denies subsidy payments to owners of land that had once been used for agricultural production but is currently used for residential purposes. All told, these reforms will help reduce federal spending for the commodity title by $7.5 billion over the next five years.
I supported these reforms, and I also joined an overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the Senate to pass the 2007 Farm Bill by a vote of 79-14. The Farm Bill now awaits action in a House-Senate conference committee.Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views. Please rest assured I will keep them in mind as Congress continues its work on the 2007 Farm Bill.
Sincerely,
Ken Salazar
United States Senator
So as someone who grew up sucking at government's teat, he continues to support the notion of stealing money from Peter to make a livelihood for Paul.
What a bastard.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at December 21, 2007 12:23 PMYup. As Democrat bastards go, I think he might be one of the better, but it was a heartbreaking loss in 2004. Pete Coors would have made an outstanding Senator and, I suspect, have been a favorite around ThreeSources. Sigh.
Posted by: jk at December 21, 2007 12:32 PMNovember 30, 2007
Colorado Politics Prediction Market
A good friend has started a prediction market for all Colorado House races and Allard's Senate seat.
You can sign up at inklingmarkets.com to play on existing markets or to create a new (say, Pennsylvania) market.
Overconfident? I bought Bob Schaffer big as my first trade; the +16% you see is mine. This is a trade, I fear Udall will win, but this should tighten up. I'm guessing I could get out at Schaffer 40 before the election.
Posted by: jk at November 30, 2007 4:27 PMI'll have to check that out for Pa... thanks.
Posted by: AlexC at November 30, 2007 5:05 PMNovember 21, 2007
Only In Boulder
Boulderites love the phrase "Only In Boulder." It is used as a compliment. I saw a guy at the dog park in a tux and high tops last night -- OIB...
The city has much to recommend it. I am not impervious to its charms, but I am deeply suspicious of its politics. David Harsanyl, a Denver Post reporter who has written a book about the Nanny State, has a frightening story about its capital:
The story is so absurd, so unfair, so ludicrous, I had a difficult time believing that it could actually happen - even in Boulder.
You have to read the whole thing. The short version is that a couple bought a piece of property in the 80s and did not develop it. When they tried to build a house in 2006, they found that a Boulder bigwig now owned a significant piece of it:
Former Boulder District Judge, Boulder Mayor, RTD board member - among other elected positions - Richard McLean and his wife, attorney Edith Stevens, used an arcane common law called "adverse possession" to claim the land for their own.All McLean needed was to develop an
"attachment" to it.
Undoubtedly, his city connections couldn't have hurt, either.
I certainly think Kelo v. New London was poorly decided, but it pales against this. Because this guy frequently trespassed, it is now his. And he will get away with it,
Only in Freaking Boulder.
Hat-tip: Insty (oddly, the place I learn about something that happened ten miles from my home...)
Not an uncommon law unfortunately. I've heard of this before in a lot of places. This is why when children trespass on your land as a 'short cut', all them old farts yelling at them know the real deal. If it gets used enough, it can be seized!
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at November 21, 2007 6:54 PMThat's a drag for property rights. However, I will really enjoy owning the Starbucks drive-thru...
Posted by: jk at November 21, 2007 7:37 PMAmazon just let me know that Harsanyl's book has shipped. I had to buy it after reading the whole title: "Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children"
Posted by: jk at November 22, 2007 12:22 PMNovember 10, 2007
Purple, Heading Toward Indigo
I started to hijack jg's excellent post on Global Warming and its foothold in the Colorado schools. I was going to digress enough that a new post is likely in order.
Out of staters may not have seen, but in our odd-year election, I think every single tax increase on the ballot all across the state passed. There's a hunger for government in the Centennial State. We gave both legislative houses to the Democrats in 2004 and elected a Democratic Governor in 2006.
People who think Americans yearn for liberty have every right to be disheartened that it is slipping away in a part of the country that cherishes independence and has had great prosperity from low taxes and limited regulation. If you can’t sell freedom in Colorado – and you apparently can’t – you need a new PR firm.
Ryan Sagar's Brilliant Elephant in the Room talked about little-l libertarians in the mountain west who tend to vote Republican. I certainly saw myself in that picture, but I do not see a model for electoral success. Nevada sends Harry Reid to the Senate, Arizona -- Goldwaterland, mind you -- has a Democratic Governor, New Mexico and Colorado are in play every election. Utah could not overcome Union resistance to school vouchers.
I think Giuliani might appeal to enough Republicans and moderates to carry Colorado, but I bet my current Congressman, Jeff Udall (yeah, one of those Udalls), will be our next Senator. As Sager says, John Kerry could have just as easily flipped enough votes in the Mountain West to win the election as in Ohio. The machine is broken out here. I don't know how to fix it.
April 24, 2007
Noah, Prepare the Ark
In the semi-arid high desert of Colorado, any accumulation of rainfall exceeding one inch in a single day is big news. Atlantis Farm is in danger of floating away today. (See "Precipitation" in the Daily Statistics table.)
Better load the cats and horses up -- it is still pouring over here.
I am still reeling from jg's using a biblical reference. Is it, perhaps, raining fire?
Posted by: jk at April 24, 2007 5:49 PMWhen in Rome...
Posted by: johngalt at April 25, 2007 1:43 AMFebruary 1, 2007
Propeller-Head? Moi
Dagny is rolling her eyes by now, but I just have to post a banner showing the local weather conditions at... Atlantis Farm.
On Monday I received my new weather station, assembled it and installed the batteries. Tuesday evening I mounted the sensor suite on a post in the yard. Tonight I installed the software and connected the console to the PC. Then I configured it to upload data to Weather Underground every 5 minutes, from whence this banner originates.
Dagny thinks it's cool, but not as cool as I do.
My vote is for "very sweet."
Posted by: AlexC at February 1, 2007 1:46 PMI live about 12 miles from jg, at about the same elevation. You can bet my weather is pretty close. I think we need to get the Pennsylvania weather now. AC? I'll find them both a home in the navigation bar.
What concerns me is that the Longitude and Longitude coordinates could be used by the forces of darkness and the enemies of modernity to program into their GPS bombs.
Despite what I might think, I'm not sure Mrs AlexC would think $1,000 for a weatherstation would be that "sweet."
But my zip code is 19426 if you're interested.
Man... I'd like to see my poolside temp on the web though....
Posted by: AlexC at February 2, 2007 12:24 PMI forgot. I was reminded on TV this morning that Pennsylvanians predict the weather with rodents. You wouldn't need a $1000 weather station.
Happy early spring! Happy Groundhog Day!
Yes, I was hoping you'd make it a permanent addition.
There are other stations available for way less than $1K. Some are from Davis (wireless version for $100 more) and some from elsewhere. I got a 40% discount on Davis through my employer that I could proxy for any interested ThreeSourcer.
There are other personal weather stations that may be even closer to you JK (and anyone else for that matter.) They can be viewed graphically here. (Just enter your zip code)
Posted by: johngalt at February 2, 2007 9:13 PMHere are the personal weather stations around Collegeville, PA (zip code 19426) presented graphically on a Google Map. Which one is closest to you, AlexC? Maybe we can create a banner for that station.
Posted by: johngalt at February 3, 2007 7:05 PMSeptember 30, 2006
Red November, CO-4
The race is heating up in Colorado 4 and state wide for the governor's mansion. Ads are multiplying on TV and radio and in our mailboxes. Current status according to realclearpolitics.com is Republican pork slayer Marilyn Musgrave leading tax dodging, student loan defaulting, bankruptcy filing, tax hiking liberal democrat Angie Paccione by single digits. (It shouldn't be this close.) The governor's race is even more frightening with gun-grabbing, plea bargaining DA Bill Ritter leading congressman Bob Beauprez by double digits. (Maybe they're only polling in urban centers?) The actual election should be a nail biter.
Additional kudos go to Musgrave for being one of only 39 US Representatives (9% of the House) with a 100% rating from Americans for Tax Reform. Hat tip: Bob Beauprez campaign website.
I hope it’s a Red November. Colorado lost both state houses to Democrats in 2004 and the gubernatorial race is looking pretty frightening.
I hate to whack our beloved outgoing guv, but this underscores the folly of his supporting the “temporary” roll back of TABOR (TAxpayers Bill Of Rights). If Colorado goes all-Democrat, the limitations on taxation will blow away like a tumbleweed in Kit Carson County.
August 29, 2006
Colorado sheep dip
A few weeks back I celebrated Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's (R-CO) position on Club for Growth's legislative pork scorecard. She voted fifteen times in nineteen chances to kill a pork bill in Congress. So imagine my surprise when my wife receives a political mailing that claims Musgrave "never saw a pork barrel project she didn't like." A prior mailing also charged, essentially, that Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Delay are the same person!
So who is making these charges? A Republican group! They're called "Coloradoans for Life." Yeah, they're Republicans. Right? Aren't they? Well, it's hard to tell with this shadowy bunch but it ain't bloody likely. In addition to slamming Musgrave they've also mailed us to say what a louse Bob Beauprez (R for CO governor) is, and run radio spots to say just how peachy Angie Paccione (D for Musgrave's seat) is. But they've chosen "Coloradoans for Life" as their official name. Why? Because rural Coloradoans and country radio listeners are predominantly Republican and will ignore every word CFL says if they know who is saying it. And CFL sure isn't saying who they are anywhere on their web site.
Ah, politics. Reminds me of the feed lot down the road.
Trekmedic - I think this qualifies as a "Red November Initiative" post, but I'm no blog techie. Your post said, "Email me and I'll send you the blogroll" or something like that. I don't know what I'd do with a blogroll unless it had cinnamon and frosting. (Starbucks French Roast - straight up.)
Posted by: johngalt at August 29, 2006 4:54 PM(Sigh) Yeah, John, I'll add this story to my Red November Initiative!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 1, 2006 10:00 AMAugust 6, 2006
CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave, "Pork Slayer"
JK blogged a couple weeks ago about Club for Growth's legislative pork scorecard. Poor JK's representative, Mark Udall in CO's 2nd district, rarely saw a pork bill he would kill. Mine on the other hand, Marilyn Musgrave of CO-04, is a veritable "pork slayer" by comparison. Her score: 15 of 19. Who can say exactly why she failed to oppose four of the earmarks without in depth research (or maybe calling her office to ask) but who has time for that? A cursory analysis shows that three of them were agricultural earmarks (and hers is a heavily ag district) and a $4M "education research" sop. (I guess nobody is willing to take on the NEA.)
Despite the heavy rural component in CO-04 it also includes the heavily liberal Larimer county, home of Colorado State University and the usual "progressive" suspects. In '04 Musgrave beat an established state Democrat, Stan Matsunaka, 51% to 45%. It's not a 'gimme' district for the GOP so it attracts national attention from the DNC. This year appears to be no different.
There's already been no shortage of radio spots for Paccione, criticizing the "Bush/Musgrave" agenda on Iraq and illegal immigration. This weekend, Marliyn started shooting back. Her first radio spot cites Paccione's votes in the CO legislature for state tuition subsidies to illegal immigrant students, then informs us that ol' Angie defaulted on her very own student loans! The CO student loan board apparently took her to court and her solution was to declare bankruptcy. Ouch, that's gonna hurt!
I thought you were in CO-07. Well done either way, but you have to leave a few of us moles back in Boulder County to see what they're up to...
Posted by: jk at August 6, 2006 5:31 PMJuly 27, 2006
Three out of Nineteen
Club for Growth has created a scorecard for every congressional representative, based on his/her votes on Rep. Flake's 19 contra-porcine amendments.
Thanks to Congressman Jeff Flake's 19 anti-pork amendments, we now have every House member on record regarding their positions on earmarks.
And if you expected Colorado's Second District (Boulder and environs) to be inclined more towards statism than taxpayer freedom -- well, give yourself a gold star. Democratic Scion and former Boulder mayor, Mark Udall, scores a big 3-for-19 on opposing pork.
May 22, 2006
Fair Tax II
One of my coworkers lives in Boulder, and is pretty hot on the fair tax. You might remember his response from Congressman Udall.
He inquired about the fair tax of Senators Allard and Salazar.
See the extended entry.
Senator Allard:
- Thank you for your letter concerning "Fair Tax" legislation. I believe that the Federal tax burden on hard-working Americans is excessive and overly intrusive, and reform of the IRS is long overdue.
I strongly support a simplified tax system. While I was a member of the Colorado legislature, we implemented a 5 percent flat tax for Colorado. We should take similar action on the Federal level. It is my belief that the tax code should be reformed to the point where American families can file their tax return on a one page sheet or post card. While this would involve the elimination of deductions and loopholes, it would be more than offset by a lower rate.
While I support the concept of a flat tax, there are many details that would have to be worked out. In particular, I want to make certain that any reform is a benefit to the middle class. The vast majority of taxpayers are in the middle class, and they have borne the burden of the current system. Reform should also reward saving and investment.
The "Fair Tax" legislation would implement a national sales tax. I am willing to consider this, and one aspect that I find appealing is the fact that this might permit the elimination of the IRS. However, mechanisms would have to be put in place to ensure that the collection burden on small business would not be excessive, and that the income tax could not be resurrected. The worst scenario would be for Americans to end up with the burdens of both an income tax and a national consumption tax. This is the unfortunate situation in many European nations.
The first step towards a simpler, fairer system is elimination of the current tax code. It would be up to Congress to replace it with a simple, fair system that applies a low rate to all Americans. The replacement system must provide tax relief for working Americans without penalizing marriage or family, protect the rights of taxpayers, and reduce tax collection abuses. Finally, the replacement system must eliminate the bias against savings and investment and promote economic growth and job creation.
Your thoughts will be helpful to me as tax issues are debated in the Senate.
Senator Salazar:
- Thank you for contacting me regarding tax reform.
As you know, S. 25, The Fair Tax Bill of 2005, was introduced in the Senate last year. This legislation would repeal the federal income tax, abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and establish a federal sales tax administered by the states.
I agree with you that the Nation's tax code has become too complicated and burdensome. However, I do not believe that abolishing the IRS is a viable solution.
I support making the President's tax cuts permanent for 98% of Americans. I will fight to close unfair tax loopholes that encourage big corporations to move their headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes, and other unfair tax breaks, while supporting corporate tax changes that encourage domestic investment. At the same time, I will be a strong voice for fiscally conservative policies that don't saddle our children and grandchildren with even more debt.
I will keep your views in mind as Congress debates tax reform policy this year.
Wow. Right in the city limits, huh? I live in Lafayette (ten miles east) and it is scary enough driving in behind all the Volvos and Subarus.
The Salazar comment saddened me. He is a decent Democrat, but it is an agonizing reminder what we lost when Pete Coors lost. The white haired gent you see strolling through the mountains in the commercials would have supported the Fair Tax, and would not have presumed to choose which 2% do not get to keep their Bush tax cuts.
Posted by: jk at May 22, 2006 7:29 PM