Struggling with the governor’s race

by Rossputin | 7:27 am, September 7, 2010 | No Comments

For one of the few times (or maybe the only time) in my memory, doing my radio show on Sunday may have changed my mind – or at least made up my mind – about a political issue.

To start, let me say that at this point in the race for governor, I strongly prefer Tom Tancredo to the other candidates.  John Hickenlooper is a radical environmentalist leftist-in-moderate-clothing who will preside over redistricting us (non-leftists) to death if he gets the chance.  Dan Maes is an incompetent man of too many stories and too many questions even though I think he mostly has conservative gut instincts.

Tom Tancredo is a man who means what he says and says what he means.  Even though I am not in agreement with him on the aggressiveness of his anti-immigration views (not just anti-illegal immigration), I feel that he’s a trustworthy and principled guy.  I am not at all sure he has the skill set to be the CEO of a state…but I am not sure he doesn’t have it, and I am sure Dan Maes doesn’t have it.

John Hickenlooper’s popularity outside of Denver, and his ability to increase that popularity with advertising, is quite limited, especially in an anti-Democrat year like this.

It’s not absolutely inconceivable that he could be beaten, even in a three-way race, but it would require one of the other candidates to get no more than 20% of the vote, perhaps no more than 15% of the vote.

It is inconceivable to me that Dan Maes can beat Hickenlooper in a 3-way race, which means that Tancredo has the only chance.

I went into the radio show last night thinking that with enough beating up on Dan Maes, not least by the media whom I expect to put out more negative information about him, enough conservatives and Republicans could be convinced to vote for Tancredo that Tom might have a decent shot.

And that possibility left me wondering whether it makes sense for anti-leftists of all stripes to allocate some of our limited resources, whether in terms of time or money, to Tom’s campaign to try to help him to victory.  I was leaning toward saying we should.

After Sunday’s radio show, I’m not so sure.

In particular, two of the three calls we got while I was interviewing Tancredo were people who said they were long-time fans of Tom’s.  One, an older lady, said he had always been the only politician she felt she could trust and that she gave him a hug when she met him at a Republican event some months ago.  The other caller was a gentleman who was also a long-time supporter of Tom’s.  They both said, however, that they were supporting Dan Maes for governor.

While I don’t think there are nearly enough of these people to give Dan Maes a victory, they represent precisely Tom’s electoral challenge, and I do think there probably are enough of them – people who will vote for the “R” no matter what, like yellow dog Democrats, ham sandwiches, etc. – that they could keep Tancredo from winning.  In other words, they will keep the vote split too evenly for either to win.

It was remarkable when the woman said that she thought Dan Maes was a man of integrity because of his stated views on issues. It showed a lot about how when people get emotionally involved with a candidate, their choice becomes for the next few months until the election akin to a secondary religion, not susceptible to criticism based on facts or logic.  The idea that Dan Maes must be a man of integrity because he said some right things about taxes or regulation or whatever in the face of his repeated lies or errors of omission is stunning unless viewed in the sense of someone with a religious attachment to his or her candidate.

Other supporters of Maes hitched their wagon to his horse early on and want Maes to succeed because they’ve staked their own political capital and their own hopes for moving up in GOP party hierarchy on a Maes victory.  This isn’t quite religion, but the behavior of such people is the same.  They refuse to admit that their candidate is fatally flawed, if they admit that he’s flawed at all.

The more I come to believe that many Republicans, especially those who are not political junkies like me and the readers of these pages, will just vote for the Republican in November, while many others who are paying attention (as well as quite a few independent voters) will vote for Tom Tancredo, the more I think Dan Maes will still get more than 20%, but less than 1/3 of the vote.  Hickenlooper will get 40%, and that will be the end of it.

This has a couple of ramifications for me:  First, I’m starting to think that conservatives should not spend money on this race.  People get the government they deserve.  George W Bush and Republican idiocy earned us the penalty of Barack Obama.  Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, and the supporters of both, will earn us the penalty of John Hickenlooper.  Too many voters are too stupid, too loyal, or too mind-numbed to realize that not only can’t Dan Maes win, but he shouldn’t win.

Dan Maes only won the party’s nomination because Scott McInnis was so unpalatable (even before the plagiarism scandal), and because he was a fresh face.  He has absolutely zero relevant experience.  He is sort of a blank slate upon which Tea Party activists and other political newbies (not that all Tea Party activists are rookies at this game) projected their fondest hopes and dreams.  And who does that description remind you of? (Hint: he’s President of the United States)

Sure there were some real supporters of Maes, but many Maes votes were really protest votes against McInnis.  Furthermore, the undervote in the primary was likely the cause of McInnis’ loss in that those who were supporting McInnis were more disgusted than those who were supporting Maes.  Maes is the accidental nominee.  He’s the guy who got to third base on a wild pitch and two errors and is telling people he hit a triple.

But there are enough Republican voters who will say “He would have hit a triple if the pitcher hadn’t thrown the wild pitch first” that Maes will still probably get enough GOP votes to keep Tancredo from winning while Maes himself has no chance that I can see.  The state GOP won’t help. The Republican Governors’ Association won’t help.  Most of the GOP big hitters have abandoned him.  He won’t raise even half of what Tancredo raises, and Tancredo won’t raise half of what Hickenlooper raises.

The more I think about it, the more I think this race is over and that conservatives and libertarians should focus on making sure that Ken Buck, Ryan Frazier, Scott Tipton, Cory Gardner, and a slew of state legislative candidates win.  Send your money to them. Volunteer for them. Vote for Tancredo or Jaimes Brown (Libertarian) or Jason Clark (Independent).  I’ll probably vote for one of the latter two, actually, though I haven’t decided yet other than that I  know I won’t vote for Hickenlooper or Maes.)

I really like Tom Tancredo personally. I like talking with him over a beverage.  He strikes me as the most direct politician I’ve ever known.  But he’s very controversial, even divisive, including among Republicans.  He’s not difficult to demonize from a distance, though it won’t sell with people who really know him.  The problem is not that many people really know him, and he can’t get enough people to know him in two months.

It pains me to say it, but my inclination at this point – with apologies to Tom Tancredo – is to give up on the governor’s race and do everything we can to take back a majority in at least one house of the state legislature.

Indeed, to the extent that we maintain a divisive dialog among Republicans and conservatives about the governor’s race, we damage the likely enthusiasm to contribute to, volunteer for, and fill out ballots for down-ballot races which are so critical in 2010.

It should be noted that one of the people whom I mentioned earlier in terms of supporting Maes no matter what because he’s spent his own political capital and has his own in-party hopes tied to Maes’ success has posted a note to Facebook saying that he has hired a law firm to try to get Tom Tancredo disqualified from election and to make sure “the people know that Tom Tancredo is on the ballot illegally whether or not the Colorado Secretary of State agrees.”

To me, this is a fairly disgusting move, essentially saying that even if the appropriate regulator says that Tancredo’s candidacy is absolutely legitmate, they intend to tell people it isn’t. It’s reprehensible and shows what depths people will stoop to in order to win their political battles, even if the battle is in support of the worst Republican candidate I’ve seen for major office in my several years in Colorado.

The move shows that it’s not about good government or a good candidate, but just trying to beat up another conservative even if they have to effectively lie to do it.

It’s a stark contrast to Tancredo himself: when I suggested that the dynamics of the race were such that he’d have to spend a lot more time attacking Maes than Hickenlooper, Tancredo said “I hope not” and that fighting against a Republican is “the worst part of all of this.”

Maes and his supporters, not all but too many, seem to be birds of a feather, willing to say anything to win in order to extend their already undeserved 15 minutes of fame.  Maes does not deserve the support of any voter in Colorado.  Tom Tancredo does, but the dynamics of this race are such that we are still very likely to be looking at a horrific sight of John Hickenlooper moving into the governor’s mansion.

Time for Republicans and conservatives to focus on winning races we can win while doing what we can to keep the governor’s race from opening a Referendum C-type wound within the just-healing-from-that-fiasco GOP.  As far as the punishment that deserves to be doled out to those who gave us Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, we can do that after November.

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

Vote your conscience.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 6:49 am, September 7, 2010 | 1 Comment

Original Post: BlueCarp

Flying the American Flag in America is Offensive

by PerlStalker | 6:36 pm, September 6, 2010 | No Comments

The Denver Channel is reporting that a student was ordered to remove two large flags flying from his pickup because they might make other uncomfortable.

A high school student in Northglenn is upset that campus security told him to remove the large American flags flying from his pickup truck because it might make others uncomfortable.

Apparently the security officer didn’t recognize the student’s flags were the same as the star-spangled banner flying from a flag pole in front of the school.

The principle at Northglenn High School seems reasonably sane.

“I am unaware of that situation. So I need to talk to that person, see why they did that, if they did that,” said Northglenn High School principal Dr. Mary Lindimore. “We have ‘em in the hallways upstairs. So we promote flying of American flags.”

…

When 7NEWS asked Lindimore if she could imagine any scenario in which the American flag would disrupt the educational environment, Lindimore said no.

It is never inappropriate to fly the American flag in America. Anyone who’s offended by that needs to seriously reconsider which country they live in.

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

Original Post: PerlStalker's Ramblings

Under Nanny State, We Don’t Feel Like Dancing

by Ari | 11:25 am, September 6, 2010 | 4 Comments

The following column originally was published September 3 by Grand Junction Free Press.

Under Nanny State, we don’t feel like dancing

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The grocer looked incredulous: “What’s 3.2 beer?” While visiting New York City, your younger author Ari had asked about alcohol restrictions in grocery stores, noting that most grocers in Colorado can sell only low-strength beer.

In New York you can buy regular beer in grocery stores, and so far this has not caused social mayhem. (Colorado’s liquor police needn’t worry; New York has plenty of other sales restrictions.)

But in New York it’s illegal to dance in most clubs and bars. Yes, dance, as in, move your feet and sway your hips to music. Politicians couldn’t possibly allow people to freely dance; think of the children. If people were able to dance at will, what might they think of next? It would be anarchy! You can drink a beer, and you can listen to music at the same time, but adding a little jig to the mix, never mind a moonwalk, is entirely out of the question.

“While it sounds like a joke,” LegalizeDancingNYC.com admits, “the NYC Cabaret Law is very real and has for the last several years adversely affected our city’s economy, culture and community.” The organization holds that “dancing is a fundamental right that need not be regulated by government and that a flourishing dance culture is good for the NYC economy and culture.”

While dancing didn’t merit a mention in the Bill of Rights, it’s still pretty important, and certainly politicians have no business restricting it.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has admitted, “We have dance police. This is craziness,” reports the New York Times. However, reports the paper, a 2008 proposal to ease the dancing restrictions fell apart because it threatened other onerous controls on bars. That is unfortunate; the paper notes that the law has been used in the past to thwart interracial dating and more recently to lock up establishments deemed by the authorities to be a nuisance.

The anti-dancing laws are a real problem for the phenomenally talented New York pop band Scissor Sisters. (Ari caught the New York show on August 24; the band will play in Denver soon.) They even have a song out called “I Don’t Feel Like Dancin’,” but we dare you to listen to it without at least feelin’ like dancing.

Sister singer and fashion diva Ana Matronic said at the show (we’re closely paraphrasing): “Elect us as mayor and the first thing we’ll do is get rid of the f’ing cabaret license” and free up dancing. (She said the band had a license for the show.)

Maybe if we elected one of the Sisters to office in Colorado, we could finally get rid of the anti-freedom restrictions on liquor sales. Incredibly, the Denver Post reports, some have even proposed reinstating the “blue laws” outlawing Sunday liquor sales because of “the damage to convenience and grocery stores’ bottom lines.”

How about this: let stores sell whatever they want to willing customers. It’s called a free market, also known as liberty.

But at least in Colorado we don’t have Big Nanny forcing businesses to post calorie listings. In New York McDonald’s posts on its menu board that “2 for $3 McGriddles” sport 1120 calories. A big donut at Gristedes market is 450 calories.

We have nothing against restaurants posting calorie notices, so long as they do it voluntarily in accordance with their customers’ shopping preferences. But mandatory postings violate the rights of property and voluntary association.

Moreover, mandatory calorie postings insult the intelligence of shoppers. Do we really need some bureaucrat to tell us that deep fried sugar is bad for you? Consumers can make wise decisions without the “help” of meddlesome politicians.

Indeed, by encouraging people to depend on politicians and bureaucrats for their health and safety, Nanny State laws ultimately stunt people’s independent thinking. Nothing is more dangerous than that, whether for people’s health or the health of the republic.

It’s easy enough to mock Nanny State laws like restrictions on dancing or grocery-store beer sales. But never forget that, once government gets in the business of forcing us to do what politicians think is good for us, it can very quickly cross the line from Onion-worthy headlines to frightening Orwellian-style police-state action.

Consider persecution of homosexuals. The founding members of Scissor Sisters happen to be gay, so, unsurprisingly, their music touches on related issues. But until 1980 New York adults could be arrested and criminally prosecuted for consensual gay sex, and not until 2000 did that state’s legislature formally repeal the sodomy laws. Former Colorado legislator Jerry Kopel points out that our state repealed sodomy laws in 1971.

Throughout much of the Middle East, religious zealots continue to murder homosexuals — as well as women caught in adultery charges — under Islamic sharia law.

The only proper job of politicians is to protect individual rights. If we’re worried about public morality, nothing is so perniciously immoral than allowing some to forcibly control the consensual acts of other adults.

Original Post: Free Colorado

Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 3)

by CTBC Director | 7:47 am, September 6, 2010 | 6 Comments

For the first time in the history of Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” process for placing and removing the occupants of judicial office, Colorado Citizens are being presented with substantive information not only on the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices who will appear on the November ballot, but also on the three nominees (the governor will pick one of the three) to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would resign rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November).

Thanks to the increased attention on the Colorado Supreme Court this year, and the consistent efforts of the legal-affairs journal Law Week Colorado for longer than that, the public applications of the three finalists (complete except for removal of purely personal information shielded for privacy reasons – entirely appropriately) which include some relevant background on the candidates for judicial office – were made public.  The public applications may be viewed in their entirety on the Law Week website (”Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“) or downloaded to review in detail.

The governor’s office has even requested public input on the nominees – providing Colorado Citizens the opportunity to weigh in on who will become Colorado’s next supreme court justice; but act fast, the governor is expected to make a decision next week (”Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace… Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees“).

The Denver Post – which, after noting in February that “Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections” was largely silent on this important issue until very recently (possibly in response to criticism that their [lack of] coverage may have been influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the Colorado Supreme Court’s current landlord) when an article acknowledged that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election.”

Bygones.

Denver Post courts reporter Felisa Cardona has written up a series of profiles of the three finalists to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice – the third and last of which (”Supreme Court Finalists: Candidate’s writings show clarity of thought“) appears in today’s (Monday) paper.

Clear The Bench Colorado commends the Denver Post for (finally?) shedding some light on the individuals who may next be elevated to our highest court.  We have called upon the Denver Post editors to join us in requesting greater transparency in the process by which the nominees are selected, as well – and most importantly, to join us in holding the incumbent justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and (ultimately) to the citizens of Colorado.

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

Original Post: Clear the Bench Colorado

Democrat “Triage” won’t stop their bleeding

by Rossputin | 7:36 am, September 6, 2010 | No Comments

Much has been made in recent days of the NY Times’ weekend story entitled “Democrats Plan Political Triage to Retain House.” The short version of the story is that the Democrats will abandon trying to help incumbents whom they think are pretty much dead in the water – the apparent poster child being Colorado’s own Betsey Markey, who was against Obamacare before she was for it, and is going to get demolished by State Rep. Cory Gardner.  They’ll take the money they would have spent on those lost causes and try to focus it on enough closer races to keep their House losses below the 40 seats the GOP needs to take back a majority.

Nancy Pelosi, who until recently has never expressed any fear of losing her gavel, is singing a different tune: “She called out Democrats who were delinquent on paying their party dues and instructed members with no re-election worries to tap into a combined $218 million from their campaign accounts to help save their majority.”

Some Republicans argue that it would be better for the GOP, especially for their prospects in the 2012 presidential election, for Democrats to keep control – but not enough of a majority to get anything done – so that Republicans can run against the image of an utterly ineffectual Democrat government.  I think that’s too clever by half.  Having control of the House brings so much power and visibility, the GOP would be crazy to even consider thinking not having it might be a good idea.

The main value, of course, is the committee chairmanship.  The party with the majority controls the committees, meaning they control what subjects become committee hearing topics and who is summoned to testify before those committees.

Imagine the value, not just political, but in terms of true education for the citizens, of hearing Donald Berwick, Obama’s socialist recess-appointee to run the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, pontificate on the virtues of British socialized medicine…which is bankrupting England while providing a far lower quality of care than we receive here.  Imagine the value of making EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explain the radical – I would argue insane – positions her organization is taking in trying to control the nation’s economy.

And, politically, imagine the value of the GOP finally being in a position to prove that it is currently the Party of No, but not the Party of No Ideas, as the left likes to portray it.

This presumes of course that the Republicans have ideas and that they’re willing to campaign on them.  So far, few other than Paul Ryan (R-WI) have shown that courage.  But I think Ryan is leading the way toward, dare I say it, a new spirit of intellectually- and philosophically-based government, a government which can (and should) be truly based on outcomes rather than claims of good intentions.  It remains to be seen whether the GOP leadership understands that the public is ready for principle-based leadership – and that it has almost always been a success when tried.

Meanwhile the Democrats have a real problem: their own agenda and the president.  As Politico.com points out, several Democrats who voted against Obamacare are running ads trumpeting their opposition to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s signature “achievement”, while not one of the 219 House Democrats who voted for the legislation is running an ad highlighting their vote or their part in destroying the quality and raising the cost of American health care.

A few political bettors have apparently read the NY Times article and think the Dems may have some success, with the chances of the Democrats keeping control of the House rising by 8%, a very large move in a short time with no “real” news.  Still, the betting still has the Democrats with just under a 1/3 chance of keeping the House, quite a remarkable thing to see given the party’s 77-seat majority.

Nancy Pelosi seems like to be encouraging her minions to spend millions of their campaign war chest dollars on hopeless races.

A little research into the history of campaign finance shows that one of the most imbalanced years in terms of various industry groups giving to Democrats more than giving to Republicans – which is what’s happened in this cycle – was the 1994 cycle.  And since money is fungible – meaning it will have the same effect, or lack of effect, whether it comes from Democrats’ campaign coffers or a trial lawyers PAC, it’s hard to see Pelosi’s efforts having much impact.  In all but the closest races, wherever a Republican is tied or in the lead in polls now, I expect the Republican to win by a wider margin than the current polls show, even if the Democrat spends 50% or 100% more money than the Republican.

A really expensive ad campaign trying to get me to buy rotten meat won’t overcome the cheap and infrequent ad campaign reminding me that no matter how that stuff is packaged, it’s still rotten.

That said, one can’t underestimate the importance of the Republicans having at least some money to respond to the Democrats packaging their rotten meat as gourmet steak tartare.  Furthermore, if the election ends up being closer than I currently expect, it’s not out of the question for several million dollars dumped into a small number of races to be the difference between a GOP and Democrat majority.  I don’t think the election will be that close, and political betting still has an over 40% chance of the Republicans taking 50 seats or more. (They need 40 to have the majority because the Dems have a 77-seat lead right now and there are two vacancies.)

One likely (and pleasing) outcome could be Democrats spending millions to defend seats they lose anyway, and then not having that money available in 2012.  If I were a relatively safe Democrat sitting on a pile of campaign cash, I’d be very worried about that outcome, especially if a strong GOP presidential contender were to arise for 2012, someone whose coattails could pose electoral danger for a Democrat who manages to skate through this cycle.  Therefore, I think Nancy Pelosi will have minimal success in her call for Democrat congressmen to spend their money helping other Democrat congressmen.  I also think her lack of fund-raising success will snow-ball, with more and more industry groups moving away from donating to Democrats, as the securities industry has done in rather spectacular fashion, going from 70% to Democrats in March, 2009 to 68% to Republicans in June of this year.

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are about to reap the whirlwind.  It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of tyrants.

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

Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 2)

by CTBC Director | 9:12 am, September 5, 2010 | No Comments

For the first time in the history of Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” process for placing and removing the occupants of judicial office, Colorado Citizens are being presented with substantive information not only on the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices who will appear on the November ballot, but also on the three nominees (the governor will pick one of the three) to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November).

Thanks to the increased attention on the Colorado Supreme Court this year, and the consistent efforts of the legal-affairs journal Law Week Colorado for longer than that, the public applications of the three finalists (complete except for removal of purely personal information shielded for privacy reasons – entirely appropriately) which include some relevant background on the candidates for judicial office – were made public.  The public applications may be viewed in their entirety on the Law Week website (”Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“) or downloaded to review in detail.

The governor’s office has even requested public input on the nominees – providing Colorado Citizens the opportunity to weigh in on who will become Colorado’s next supreme court justice; but act fast, the governor is expected to make a decision next week (”Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace… Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees“).

The Denver Post – which, after noting in February that “Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections” was largely silent on this important issue until very recently (possibly in response to criticism that their [lack of] coverage may have been influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the Colorado Supreme Court’s current landlord) when an article acknowledged that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election.”

Bygones.

Denver Post courts reporter Felisa Cardona has written up a series of profiles of the three finalists to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice – the second of which (”Supreme Court Finalists: Breadth of experience seen as balancing youth“) appears in today’s (Sunday) paper.

Clear The Bench Colorado commends the Denver Post for (finally?) shedding some light on the individuals who may next be elevated to our highest court.  We have called upon the Denver Post editors to join us in requesting greater transparency in the process by which the nominees are selected, as well – and most importantly, to join us in holding the incumbent justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and (ultimately) to the citizens of Colorado.

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

Original Post: Clear the Bench Colorado

“Consumer protection” vs. thinking for yourself

by Brian T. Schwartz | 5:04 pm, September 4, 2010 | 1 Comment

From an article by Linn and Ari Armstrong:

We have nothing against restaurants posting calorie notices, so long as they do it voluntarily in accordance with their customers’ shopping preferences. But mandatory postings violate the rights of property and voluntary association.

Moreover, mandatory calorie postings insult the intelligence of shoppers. Do we really need some bureaucrat to tell us that deep fried sugar is bad for you? Consumers can make wise decisions without the “help” of meddlesome politicians.

Indeed, by encouraging people to depend on politicians and bureaucrats for their health and safety, Nanny State laws ultimately stunt people’s independent thinking. Nothing is more dangerous than that, whether for people’s health or the health of the republic.

Read the whole article, which starts of describing New York’s Cabaret Laws, which restricts dancing in most clubs and bars: Under Nanny State, we don’t feel like dancing.

For more on nanny state restrictions, see Radley Balko‘s  What’s the Matter With Chicago?

Original Post: wakalix » PPC

Cost Shifting Argument Against Amendment 63 ´Wrong And Deceptive´

by Mike Krause | 11:50 am, September 4, 2010 | No Comments

Over at the opinion page of the Colorado Springs Gazette, Independence Institute research associate and health care blogger Brian Schwartz exposes both the flaws and deceptions in the ¨cost-shifting¨ argument being used against Amendment 63, the ¨Right to Health Care Choice¨ citizens amendment.

While seductive at an emotional and superficial level, the ¨cost-shifting¨argument simply falls apart under some solid scrutiny.

Re-printed in its entirety:

Mandatory insurance takes what’s wrong with health insurance and makes it worse. It means higher costs, affordable insurance becomes illegal, and less incentive to please patients. Amendment 63 would block Colorado politicians from imposing mandatory insurance. It would also prevent the feds from pressuring the Colorado legislature to enforce Washington’s version of it.

In opposition, Edie Sonn of the Colorado Medical Society says Amendment 63 “will lead to higher health care costs for insured individuals and businesses as they are forced to absorb the costs of the uninsured.” This cost-shifting argument is both wrong and deceptive. Mandatory insurance will increase costs and impose much larger cost shifts.

President Obama says we’re “paying 900 bucks on average” because some uninsured patients don’t pay medical bills. He’s referring to a Families USA study that Independence Institute economist Linda Gorman has shown to be highly flawed. The study over-estimated the cost of uncompensated medical care. It “disregarded categories accounting for roughly 33 percent of the payments” for the uninsured such as auto insurance, community health centers, and various government programs.

The cost shift is no more than $85 annually per insured Coloradan, according to the Lewin Group’s 2007 “Baseline Coverage and Spending” report for the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission. This amount is trivial compared to how much mandatory insurance increases premiums. Consider Massachusetts, which has mandated insurance since 2006. The most affordable plans sold through Massachusetts’ insurance exchange cost almost three times more than those available in Fort Collins. The Boston Globe reports that the premiums in Massachusetts are the highest in the country and emergency room visits and costs have increased.

Mandatory insurance entrenches the main cause of high health care and insurance costs: The patient is rarely the paying customer. Health care prices decrease or stabilize when patients pay, rather than insurers. Examples include Lasik, and cosmetic surgery, and whether you like it or not, abortion.

But patients are rarely customers because the tax code and other controls favor excessive insurance. The typical health plan is not insurance, but prepaid health care. If car insurance worked this way it would cover routine and predictable expenses such as oil changes and new brakes.

Prepaid health care insulates patients from the true costs of treatment. Patients are typically oblivious to prices or more affordable alternatives. Since the patient isn’t paying, physicians have incentive to exaggerate diagnoses such that third-party payers (insurers, Medicare, Medicaid) will finance expensive treatment. Prices of health care and insurance soar as a result.

Mandatory insurance makes this worse by banning lower-cost insurance policies. Politicians mandate costly benefits and limit deductibles, which both increase premiums and further distort insurance into prepaid health care. A typical mandated benefit increases insurance premiums by about 0.75 percent, concludes a 2008 study lead by MIT economist Amanda Kowalski.

Legal health plans under the Obama health control law must include at least ten mandated benefits such as laboratory, preventive and wellness services (HR 3590, sec. 1302). If you paid cash for such services you’d make sure they were necessary. Such discretion isn’t needed if your health plan pays.

The CMS opposes Amendment 63 by objecting to cost-shifting. But mandatory insurance does this, too. Instead of saving money to self-insurance, banning lower-cost policies makes people buy more costly and comprehensive insurance than they’d like.

For more affordable insurance and health care, politicians should repeal damaging political controls, not add them. For example, change the unfair pro-insurance tax code so it no longer punishes people for paying cash for medical care.

There’s no right to medical care, but we have the right to seek it through voluntary exchange. Colorado Amendment 63 would protect Coloradans from politicians seeking to violate this right.

Original Post: Jon Caldara » PPC

Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post

by CTBC Director | 11:11 am, September 4, 2010 | 1 Comment

For the first time in the history of Colorado’s “merit selection and retention” process for placing and removing the occupants of judicial office, Colorado Citizens are being presented with substantive information not only on the three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices who will appear on the November ballot, but also on the three nominees (the governor will pick one of the three) to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who announced in June that she would retire rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters this November).

Thanks to the increased attention on the Colorado Supreme Court this year, and the consistent efforts of the legal-affairs journal Law Week Colorado for longer than that, the public applications of the three finalists (complete except for removal of purely personal information shielded for privacy reasons – entirely appropriately) which include some relevant background on the candidates for judicial office – were made public.  The public applications may be viewed in their entirety on the Law Week website (”Governor’s Office Makes Public Applications Of Justice Finalists“) or downloaded to review in detail.

The governor’s office has even requested public input on the nominees – providing Colorado Citizens the opportunity to weigh in on who will become Colorado’s next supreme court justice; but act fast, the governor is expected to make a decision next week (”Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace… Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees“).

The Denver Post – which, after noting in February that “Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in elections” was largely silent on this important issue until very recently (possibly in response to criticism that their [lack of] coverage may have been influenced by the fact that the Post is being paid $1.6 million per year as the Colorado Supreme Court’s current landlord) when an article acknowledged that “four state Supreme Court justices [may not] survive an attempt to remove them from the bench this election.”

Bygones.

Denver Post courts reporter Felisa Cardona has written up a series of profiles of the three finalists to become the next Colorado Supreme Court justice – the first of which (”Colorado Supreme Court finalist Prince applies diligence to his cases – and his barbecue“) appears in today’s (Saturday) paper.

Clear The Bench Colorado commends the Denver Post for (finally?) shedding some light on the individuals who may next be elevated to our highest court.  We have called upon the Denver Post editors to join us in requesting greater transparency in the process by which the nominees are selected, as well – and most importantly, to join us in holding the incumbent justices accountable to the Colorado Constitution, the rule of law, and (ultimately) to the citizens of Colorado.

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

Original Post: Clear the Bench Colorado

Save Our Tree

by acmaurerco | 10:11 am, September 4, 2010 | 2 Comments

In the field behind my house on the other side of the cattle fence were two Ponderosa pine trees infested with pine beetles. I asked the owner to cut them down; he wouldn’t. I asked the county to force him to cut them down; they couldn’t. Finally, I cut one of them down. But by that time, the beetles had attacked one of my trees, which was bigger, straighter, older and yet stronger than the two infected trees. The forester later told me that the beetles instinctively know when a tree is vulnerable and swarm to it.

It took a lot of hits–I counted something over 200 pitch tubes, meaning the beetles had gotten through the bark and into the tree’s core. The County forester told me it was beyond hope, that I should cut it down and treat the wood to prevent it from infecting my other trees.  You can’t replace a 100-year old tree overnight. I hadn’t planted it obviously; I’d gotten it with the land I bought. But I decided it was worth saving and against conventional wisdom, I tried.

I sprayed it with insecticide using a spray bottle and a garden hose. I couldn’t reach the highest hits but I did the best I could. By some miracle it survived. The beetles didn’t infect any other trees the next year. That was seven or eight years ago. The tree still stands.

Unless you live in Black Forest like I do, why should you care about my tree? Because the story is a fitting analogy for this year’s Colorado governor’s race.

The two trees on the other side of the fence are Tancredo and Hickenlooper. Dan Maes is our tree. We in the Liberty movement and the Republican Party didn’t plant him or grow him. We listened to his message and because it is like ours, we bought into him and his candidacy. It was our support rather than his brilliance as a politician and campaigner that brought victory at the state assembly and the primary election. He’s not the most beautiful or strongest tree in the forest, but he’s our tree. And he’s a whole lot better than those two infected trees on the other side of the fence.

He’s taken some hits this week. The beetles that are the establishment press, the pundits, and the self-appointed power brokers are focused on destroying him. When they’re done with him (or their ratings start to decline), they’ll move on to the next target. Abandoning him will not save the other candidates on the ticket–quite the contrary, it will embolden these insects to attack someone else.

No, We the People and the new alternative media are the insecticide. You see, the beetles are not all-powerful. Not all of the beetles carry the fungus that destroys the tree. Strong trees can survive and even thrive if assisted. The insecticide I used was pretty old; I wasn’t sure it was going to work. Our insecticide is old too–it dates from 1776.

Dan said yesterday that he is in it to win it. Always has been.

Are we?

Original Post: Reclaim the Blue

Ken Buck and Dan Maes

by Rossputin | 9:00 am, September 4, 2010 | 2 Comments

I wrote the following as a comment on Ken Buck’s Facebook page in response to some who were criticizing Buck’s withdrawal of support from Dan Maes…

As many of you know, I was a supporter of Jane Norton (though not because I thought badly of Ken.)  As the campaign went on, however, I came to like Ken’s style and policy views more and more, and I’m gladly supporting him now and have contributed to his campaign. 

I called for Maes and McInnis both to get out of the governor’s race, while knowing they probably wouldn’t.  While I like Tom Tancredo personally, my preference was for a different candidate entirely, with quite a few names that would have satisfied me.

[I offer all that information as context to show that I am not an “anything Ken says” person, nor a supporter of any of the current candidates for governor, and therefore relatively neutral among politically active Republicans on these issues.]

I am very pleased with Ken’s decision to withdraw support from Dan Maes.  I’m sure it wasn’t an easy decision, but it was the right one.

Dan Maes, while probably not a bad person, is a horrendous candidate, hopelessly unqualified for the job of governor.  Every week brings a new story of a gaffe or lie.  And he hasn’t hired a campaign manager which says something about his fund-raising or his giant ego or both.

At this point, my focus is keeping conservative and libertarian voters motivated to support the good candidates who can win, including particularly Ken Buck but also Cory Gardner, Ryan Frazier, and Scott Tipton as well as the many solid Republican candidates for the state legislature.  Indeed, the state legislature could be the most important races for the state with redistricting coming up and the Maes candidacy likely to give the governorship to Hickenlooper.

Finally, I will add that although I have been leaning toward voting libertarian in the governor’s race, I am reconsidering.  If I can be convinced sometime soon that Tom Tancredo really could win this thing, I will encourage voters to support Tancredo even though I am not on the same page as he is regarding his signature issue of immigration.  (In particular, while I want to enforce our borders, I want to increase the level of legal immigration into the country.)  The governor is not someone who has much impact on federal immigration policy, and I would support a move to eliminate “sanctuary city” policies.  Tom is smart and principled, though of course he is still a politician.  Unlike most politicians, however, you can almost always guess what his position will be on an issue because he’s not shy about telling the truth, whether he thinks you want to hear it or not.  I’d rather have him than Dan Maes or John Hickenlooper.  (I’m not even sure I can honestly say I’d rather have Maes than Hickenlooper, speaking as someone who thinks we need to live through a bad government from time to time to remind people what bad government means.)

Anyway, I repeat that I am pleased with Ken Buck’s decision to withdraw support from Dan Maes.  Just because some group supported both candidates, i.e. a particular Tea Party group, that doesn’t mean the two candidates need to be joined at the hip.  Republicans need to get away from Maes as quickly as possible and move on to candidates who can win.

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

Backbone Radio, September 5, 2010: Of Maes, Missions and Multipliers

by Rossputin | 8:46 am, September 4, 2010 | No Comments

Topic 1: Maes (and the state of the 2010 election in Colorado)

Earlier this week, former Senator Hank Brown withdrew his prior endorsement of Republican gubernatorial hopeful Dan Maes. Brown was soon followed by others, not least Backbone Radio’s own former President of the State Senate and candidate for governor, John Andrews, withdrew their prior endorsements of Republican gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes.  (Other unendorsers included Ken Buck, Mike Coffman, Hear Us Now, Pete Coors, and Bob Beauprez.)

Maes, the gift who keeps on giving (to talk radio) is losing support even faster than Barack Obama is.

Nevertheless, despite intense pressure, Maes decided to stay in the race, dashing the hopes of people (like me) who had hoped beyond hope that we’d get a good last-minute replacement (I was rooting for Jane Norton.)

In our first hour, we’ll talk about the governor’s race with John Andrews, including the implications for Colorado politics on a broad scale.

Topic 2: Mulitpliers (and the cost of government)

When it comes to economic policy, the president and his advisors are full members of the Keynesian cult of big-spending lovers of government power. They only consider the cost of their beloved Nanny State to the extent that it might impact their next elections.

The cost of government is truly massive. Much more massive than most people understand. But the good people of Americans for Tax Reform are trying to remedy that educational gap with their “Cost of Government Day” project.

In the 6-o’clock hour, we’ll speak with ATR’s Mattie Corrao about the project which recently reported that “In 2010, Cost of Government Day falls on August 19. Working people must toil 231 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government - 8 days later than last year and a full 32 days longer than 2008. In other words, in 2010 the cost of government consumes 63.41 percent of national income.” Colorado comes in 33^rd, with 2010’s Cost of Government Day landing on August 21^st.

The freedom of a people should, at least in part, be measured by the cost of its government. Learning just how massive this burden is on Americans is a sobering event. We can only hope that rather than lead to sadness and resignation, this sort of information encourages anger and non-violent anti-government pushback, with citizens reclaiming our republic at the ballot box and returning government, even if it takes generations to do so, to the limited scope and cost which our Founders envisioned.

The concept behind “stimulus” spending, responsible for much of the recent increase in the cost of government, is the fatally flawed idea that each dollar of government spending creates more than one dollar of economic activity. This “multiplier”, assumed by Obama and friends to be more than one, is more likely less than one and perhaps less than zero, meaning that each dollar of government spending probably creates, at best, something less than a dollar of net economic activity and perhaps actually causes a contraction of the economy as the private sector anticipates the future tax increases necessary to pay off the spending.

We’ll discuss the idea of the multiplier in some detail as it represents perhaps the most important and least well understood basis for essentially the entirety of the Democrats’ policy suggestions for helping the economy. The reality of a near-zero multiplier means that the government’s demanding more “stimulus” to pump up the faltering economy is like a medieval doctor who treats a worsening patient by taking even more blood from his veins.

Topic 3: Missions (and a president who views them as distractions.)

On Tuesday evening, President Barack Obama gave a speech from the Oval Office. While the topic of the speech was ostensibly the departure of the last American combat troops from Iraq, much of the speech was focused on the mission in Afghanistan and on the sputtering American economy.

The speech was, in usual Obama style, read from his teleprompter with very few mistakes while delivering a message almost entirely free of substance. With the word “victory” uttered only once, and that in a context of the success of “our partners”, with yet another subtle jab at George W. Bush, and with some of the most meaningless rhetoric yet used to describe the current economic situation and his counter-productive plans to improve it, Barack Obama proved again that, as others have noted, war is to him little more than a distraction on his intended path to “fundamentally transform America.”

We’ll talk about the speech, about the prospects in Afghanistan, and about the American economy.

In the 7-o’clock hour, you’ll hear this month’s installment of Backbone Business by Joshua Sharf. This month’s topic: Entrepreneurs, covered in four segments:
1 – Rolling your own: Shop-at-Home
2 – Franchising
3 – The other side of the coin: VCs
4 – Startup Culture, Startup Nation

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

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

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

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

Friday Funnies: Colorado Supreme Court promotes lawlessness

by CTBC Director | 9:33 pm, September 3, 2010 | No Comments

A rash of recent thefts may have been inspired by a Colorado Supreme Court ruling…

The Colorado Supreme Court’s ‘Gang of Four’ under their ringleader Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey (who’s skipping town rather than face justice in November) have gotten away with a series of crimes against our Constitution over the last few years, including:

• ‘Mill Levy Tax Freeze‘ property tax increase (”Freeze!” Property tax, reach for the sky!)
• ‘Dirty Dozen‘ tax increases (2010) and the 2009 tobacco tax increase (”Hand over your Tax Credits & Exemptions“)
• ‘Colorado Car Tax’ (It ain’t a mugging – er, tax; it’s a “fee”)
• ‘Telluride Land Grab’ (What’s yours isn’t yours if WE say so)
• ‘Mary-Mandering’ legislative districts (grabbing redistricting power from the legislature, where it belongs)

The crime spree isn’t over yet; the ‘Gang of Four’ is targeting yet more tax increases and has gun rights in their sights, too.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s rampant lawlessness has apparently inspired other, more petty crimes. Recently, your uncaped crusader for justice was the victim of such a crime: my license plate was stolen (right off my car!)

How is this petty crime linked to the Colorado Supreme Court, you ask?

As I discovered this morning when at the DMV to obtain replacement plates, such thefts are far from rare; indeed, there has apparently been a rash of such thefts, since the Colorado Car Tax (er, vehicle registration “fee” increase – brought to you courtesy of the Colorado Supreme Court) went into effect a year ago.  Most of the thefts seem to be inspired by the desire to avoid the punitive “late fees” – an over $31.5 Million ‘Highway Robbery’ aided and abetted by the Colorado Supreme Court.

Unintended consequences?

Criminologists (and parents) know that if bad behavior goes unpunished, it will only get worse.

Colorado has seen an intensifying pattern of bad behavior by our state supreme court over the last ten years of the Mullarkey Majority’s reign.  Colorado Citizens have the right – indeed, we have the duty – to hold those behaving badly accountable, at the ballot box.

Don’t let them get away with continued bad behavior – exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, now 3) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice; soon minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax (er, “fee”) increases, your right to defend your home and business from being taken away through abuse of eminent domain, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO“ vote against retaining these incumbent unjust justices in office for another 10 years!

Original Post: Clear the Bench Colorado

Maes stays in; Tancredo dismisses him, challenges Hick to Mano-a-Mano debates

by Seng Center | 5:14 pm, September 3, 2010 | 5 Comments

In a press release sent out late this afternoon, American Constitution Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo took the unprecedented step of dismissing embattled Republican nominee Dan Maes as “no longer a viable opponent” and challenging Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to six one-on-one debates that would not include the Maes.

“Today the Secretary of State will certify the November ballot with Dan Maes  as the Republican candidate for Governor.  Five weeks ago I told Republicans that Mr. Maes was both professionally and personally unqualified to be their candidate.  I gave them several opportunities to get him out, even offering them my candidacy as an inducement.  The time for inter-party squabbling is over.  Now we must all move forward—for the sake of our state.  Beginning today I will focus all my time and energy on winning this election.   Since Dan Maes is no longer a viable opponent today, I am challenging Mayor Hickenlooper to six one-on-one debates.  My staff will gladly work with his as to the time, place, and format.  I look forward to a healthy and vigorous campaign with my Democrat opponent that is in the interest of the voters of Colorado.”

Dan Maes continues to reel from this week’s series of withdrawals of support and cries for Maes to drop-out of the race, which have come from a number of major Republican and Tea Party officials and groups, including GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck, U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, former CO Senate President John Andrews, former Congressman and gubernatorial candidate in his own right Bob Beauprez, “beer scion” Pete Coors, Hear Us Now!, and others.

These prominent un-endorsements and the fundraising effects they will have probably spell certain doom for Maes, as they will undoubtedly have a considerable impact on what limited ability the Evergreen businessman retains to beat back against John Hickenlooper in the face of third-party candidate Tom Tancredo and the continuing negative stories about Maes.

Roughly an hour before the 5pm filing deadline, Maes announced to his supporters via Facebook that he would not be pulling out of the race, despite the intense criticism and calls for resignation.

After speaking with, and hearing from, numerous Coloradans – from former Senators to family farmers – I’ve determined that I cannot turn my back on the 200,000 voters who nominated me to run for this office. This campaign found success through hard work, palm-pressing, and shoe leather, and that’s how I plan to engage voters over the next two months and claim victory on November 2nd.

Maes’s decision to remain in the race in the face of the staggering developments comes as a surprise to few, including this commentator.  I find it doubtful, though, that Hickenlooper and the various media outlets and debate-hosting organizations will go along with Tancredo’s one-on-one debate idea, ignoring the major Republican Party’s nominee altogether, especially when the latest polls (which have not taken into account this week’s developments) still had Maes ahead of Tancredo as of earlier this week.

Where would Dan Maes go?

by Rossputin | 3:35 pm, September 3, 2010 | 7 Comments

Reader “Airbus” says he thinks Maes will withdraw, but not until after the deadline “so he can stick it to the party.”

I think that’s not a bad bet, but I disagree.

My guess is that Maes stays in to the end.

At this point, it’s about his ego and his future.

Remember, he’s a very modestly successful businessman…or rather he was.  Now he’s an unemployed former re-seller of credit reports and voice mail services.

Where’s he gonna go if he drops out?

At least if he stays in, he can put a few bucks into his bank account by draining his campaign contributions via “mileage reimbursements.”

He probably thinks – and it probably would have been right a few weeks ago but no longer – that his chances of winning some other political race in the future would be damaged by dropping out.

At this point, I repeat, where’s he gonna go if he drops out?

He doesn’t have money to start a new business.  At least one former employer has said publicly that he would not re-hire Maes, not least because Maes secretly planned started a competing business while working for him.

Maes has become the butt of insults and even jokes. If I were Maes, I’d almost feel like I need to move out of the state if I don’t win the election.

Furthermore, if Maes really wants to spite the GOP, he’d be better off staying in the whole time than getting out after the ballots are certified.

What else?  It basically doesn’t cost Dan Maes anything to stay in.  He gets to extend his 15 minutes of fame while having no responsibility other than keeping track of the very small number of campaign contribution dollars he’ll receive in the future.  He hasn’t hired a campaign manager, though he does have a “communications director” (quite a decent guy whom I feel sorta sorry for at this point.)

 

I hope, for the sake of Colorado, that Dan Maes has the good sense to quit the race within the next hour.  But I doubt he will.  After all, where’s he gonna go if he does?

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

The ¨New Energy Economy¨A False Bill Of Goods

by Mike Krause | 2:52 pm, September 3, 2010 | No Comments

Over at the Denver Post, Amy Oliver-Cooke from the Independence Institute and William Yeatman from the Competetive Enterprise Institute have a teriffic co-authored op-ed on the ¨false bill of goods¨ being sold to Coloradans as part of the ¨New Energy Economy.¨ Money quote from the piece:

Up until 2007, Xcel was obligated to provide electricity at “least cost.” Now, however, the Public Utilities Commission says that climate change — rather than affordability — is the “main driving force” behind resource planning. Xcel customers are poorer as a result, no matter how the politicians spin the costs of green energy.

Whole thing available here.

You can also catch Amy and William doing a little free-market critique of Xcel Energy´s tiered summer pricing scheme (aka the air-conditioner tax) in this Denver Business Journal piece from back in June.

Colorado’s electricity industry has been centrally planned since Woodrow Wilson was in the White House. During that time, competition among electricity providers has been illegal. Yet without competition, there is no incentive for improvement, which is why the American electricity industry hasn’t changed fundamentally in 100 years.

Read the whole thing here.

Original Post: Jon Caldara » PPC

Back To Work

by Nikki | 2:49 pm, September 3, 2010 | 1 Comment

I admire Dan Maes for what he has accomplished.
I admire all my fellow grass roots groups for what they have accomplished.

We rose up, took the bull by the horns, taught ourselves the process and have given up countless hours to stop the destruction of our country and state.

We all had to get up to speed quickly. The learning curve has been incredibly steep and has been fraught with landmines and snakes along the way. And so much is at stake.

But at this point, we all need to take a deep breath, step back and take the emotion out of the decision-making process. After all, we are conservatives. We rule with our heads, not our hearts.

We need to take a clear-eyed look at where we are, and plot a course going forward.

The gubernatorial race is not the only race we are invested in. Although by judging from the time and energy expended in the past few weeks, it would be hard to tell.

Dan Maes is not a bad man. He is not perfect, as none of us are. Many of the circumstances that are harming him now can be contributed to the fact that he is a political neophyte, as most of us are. But this is where Dan’s path and our path diverges… we are not running for the highest elected office in the state. Our leaders don’t need to be perfect, but competence matters. Leadership skills matter.

What does it take to be a good leader? I submit that it takes honesty. Honesty requires that you look at yourself and recognize your own shortcomings and weaknesses. Honesty requires you to question your motivations on a regular basis. Honesty requires you to examine where you have gone wrong in the past  – and then work to do a better job. Every day.

You then need to surround yourself with the right people. Assemble a team. Choose people who have the depth of knowledge and expertise that you lack. Find those that compliment your skill set and can help you with the areas where you are weak.

Unfortunately, that never happened with Dan’s campaign. Over the past year, many came forward; many left. Had he had the right team around him, a lot of the problems that are so damaging to him now, could have been avoided.

I ask you, what would happen if he did ascend to the Governor’s seat? Would he be able to assemble the team that he would need to govern? Would he seek out and listen to those who know more? Would he seek out and heed the expertise he lacks?

And if he stays in the race, what will be achieved… more media attention, more distraction from other races, more disagreement amongst ourselves? What a waste of energy.

We need to be looking for the unintended consequences. Many of which, I am not even aware of. I am too new to this game.

How many of us know what this does to the down ticket races? To the Treasurer’s race, the US Senate race, to the Secretary of State’s race? To all of our fine men and women who have stepped forward for the first time ever and put their necks on the line to run for State House & State Senate?

What about them? They deserve so much more than this. I wouldn’t want to do it. Thank goodness there are those that do.

How often in the past week have you stepped away from the constant drama in the gubernatorial race and turned your time and attention to a House District race?

I resent having to spend so much time on this debacle. I am angry for our many candidates who will suffer from this, through no fault of their own.

It’s time to recognize that we may have lost this race, no matter who the candidate is. I am not willing to let any other races slip through the cracks due to navel gazing.

I am done talking about, reading about, obsessing about the gubernatorial race. It takes too much time.

We have a State House and Senate to win. We have a Senator, Treasurer, Secretary of State to elect and Congressional Districts to win.

And after November 2nd, we have a whole new course to plot.

I’m going back to work.

The race to unendorse Dan Maes

by Rossputin | 2:23 pm, September 3, 2010 | 8 Comments

UPDATED as of 2 PM Friday, 3 hours before Maes can “do the right thing” or all but ensure we live through at least one term of Governor Hickenlooper.

This probably won’t last long, one way or another, but just for fun let’s keep a running track of those calling for Dan Maes to get out of the race, particularly those who had endorsed him before.  I’ll update the list as more people join the chorus:

Senator Hank Brown

State Senator John Andrews

Bob Beauprez

Pete Coors

Hear Us Now!

Erick Erickson of RedState.com

Ken Buck

Mike Coffman

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

Breaking: Rep. Mike Coffman to withdraw support for Dan Maes

by Rossputin | 1:41 pm, September 3, 2010 | No Comments

UPDATE: It’s official.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 3, 2010
CONTACT:  Debbie Brown, 720-280-0511
debbie@coffmanforcongress.com

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

Breaking: Coffman Withdraws Support for Maes

by T.L. James | 1:14 pm, September 3, 2010 | 2 Comments

Hot on the heels of Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck’s announcement, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CD6) will announce shortly that he is also withdrawing his support for Colorado Governor candidate Dan Maes.

Time is running out for Maes to make a decision — SoS Buescher is looking to certify the ballot by close of business today.

UPDATE: Here’s Mike Coffman’s announcement:

“It is because of my concern for the working families of Colorado that I am asking Dan Maes to quit the governor’s race. Colorado can’t afford to have the Mayor of Denver as our next governor who would continue the failed policies of Bill Ritter.” – Rep. Mike Coffman

UPDATE II: The Politico (for what it’s worth) suggests that there may be another Dan Maes-related scandal waiting to erupt:

In a meeting Friday morning, party chairman Dick Wadhams and other members of the state GOP executive committee met with Maes to present what one called “damaging evidence” that hasn’t yet been made public but would further erode his standing as a candidate, according to the source.

A second Republican consultant confirmed the account and said while there was no explicit ultimatum presented by the chairman to Maes, the message was clear.

“It was: Do you really want to put your family through this? If you stay in the race, you’ll have to endure this and this,” said the Republican, citing potential reports by the Denver Post.

UPDATE III: Dick Wadhams tells Complete Colorado that the Dan Maes “damaging evidence” story at Politico is false.

It’s official: Ken Buck unendorses Dan Maes

by Rossputin | 1:02 pm, September 3, 2010 | No Comments

http://cbs4denver.com/campaign2010/governors.debate.maes.2.1895365.html

Any bets on whether Dan takes the hint and gets out of the race?

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

Ken Buck Joins List Of Ex-Dan Maes Supporters: U.S. Sen. Candidate Says Maes ‘Struggling’ Over Withdrawal From Colo. Governor’s Race

by Laura Victoria | 12:58 pm, September 3, 2010 | No Comments

Ken Buck’s U.S. Senate campaign just released a statement that provides the strongest evidence yet that Colorado Republican candidate for governor, Dan Maes, is seriously considering withdrawing from the race.  Buck has now withdrawn his already less than robust support, saying:

After having a lengthy conversation with Dan Maes, it is clear to me that Dan is struggling to determine the best path for his campaign, his family and for Colorado.   I have decided that I can no longer support his candidacy for governor of Colorado.

This latest loss of support combines with that of all conservative bloggers and the Denver Post, prominent GOP leaders, and perhaps most signficantly, leading Colorado Tea Party activists.  The Republican Governors Association also snubbed the stumbling Maes and refused him financial support.

Republicans have until Tuesday, September 7  to formally announce a replacement for Maes so that the new candidate can make the ballot, should Maes listen to what just about every conservative in the state is urging him to do.

The Democratic candidate, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, is vulnerable after a series of police misconduct scandals where he has at best been tardy and detached, and recent disclosures of his funding for a number of extreme left-wing political organizations, including ACORN.

Right wing conservative candidate Tom Tancredo, running under the ACP banner, has made noises he would opt out of his bid if  Maes withdrew and the Republicans appointed an  acceptable replacement candidate.

Original Post: ExPat ExLawyer

Lessons from the Maes Fiasco

by Ari | 11:35 am, September 3, 2010 | 2 Comments

Dan Maes didn’t exactly “win” the Republican primary for governor; he took advantage of scandal-plagued Scott McInnis losing it. But Maes did earn the support of many Tea Party activists through hard work and amendable rhetoric. He is now losing much of that support. Now, even if Tom Tancredo does not split the conservative vote, Maes has little chance of pulling off a victory. So what are the lessons?

First, being an “outsider” is not enough. Indeed, merely lacking political experience is no qualification whatsoever. The problem with McInnis was never that he was an “insider” (a former congressman), but that he held no stable or well-articulated positions, he seemed to routinely tell people what he thought they wanted to hear, and he made some unethical decisions in his work on the water papers. While it is true that “power tends to corrupt,” it is also true that any given individual in power need not grow corrupt. Moreover, the powerless also can suffer corruption. (Indeed, some people remain “outsiders” simply because they are corrupt.)

Second, what matters most is ideas, not status. I’ll pick a credible candidate with good ideas every time, regardless of that candidate’s level of political experience. The critical issue is simply this: does a candidate understand and support individual rights? Does a candidate endorse freedom of speech and religion and liberty in economics? Frankly, Tea Partiers were so worried about Maes’s “outsider” status that they neglected to check whether his rhetoric reflected deep principles or a calculated effort to win.

Third, credentials do matter. Please notice the qualifier “credible” in the paragraph above. No, political experience is not necessary to successfully hold political office. However, a candidate — especially one for so high an office — needs an established and credible resume. Maes lacks that. Not only has Maes’s experience in business and as a police officer provoked some tough questions, but Maes has, so far as I can tell, devoted very little of his life to the study of political philosophy.

As they tend to do, Republicans probably have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in glorious fashion. Democrats everywhere are on the ropes, and Governor Ritter has put in a lackluster performance. John Hickenlooper, while a nice guy and a credible candidate, remains the mayor of Denver. Practically any high-profile Republican could have beaten Hickenlooper: Shawn Mitchell, Hank Brown, Mark Hillman. If the race continues on its present course, Maes and Tancredo will split the conservative vote and Hickenlooper will skate to an easy victory.

Of course, this race has already taken more odd turns than anyone could have predicted. So perhaps it will take some more.

Original Post: Free Colorado

Is Tom Tancredo ineligible to run as a third party candidate?

by Rossputin | 9:29 am, September 3, 2010 | No Comments

As pointed out by Todd Shepherd over at CompleteColorado.com, the Constitutionalist Today newspaper (some of the earliest and strongest backers of Dan Maes) has run an article making a case that Tom Tancredo is not eligible to be the American Constitution Party’s candidate for Governor Colorado because he has not been a party member for long enough.  The real question comes down to whether the Constitution Party’s bylaws allow the wiggle room to get around the state law requirements.  I’m not a lawyer, but my take is that this is no worse than 50/50 for Tancredo’s run, not least because the Colorado government is run by Democrats who are probably quite happy to see Tom in the race. Furthermore, on a less partisan note, if it truly is a judgment call given lack of clarity in law or party bylaws, government should err on the side of allowing rather than disqualifying a candidate.  Rather like a judge erring on the side of letting a jury hear a case, because that’s how our system is designed to work and how it (usually) works best.

It should be noted that this is not the first time the issue has come up.  From a July article in the Colorado Independent: “Rich Coolidge, director of communications for the Colorado Secretary of State, says ‘party bylaws trump state law when there is a vacancy.’ He says the executive committee of the American Constitution Party will have to vote by two-thirds majority to designate a replacement for the candidate who withdraws from the race.”  However, as Getchey points out in his article, it is not clear that this 2/3 majority exception applies to Tancredo’s situation.

For your reference, allow me to highlight some relevant sections of Colorado election law:

Section 1-4-1002 of Colorado Revised Statutes says, in subsection 2.3 which discusses a party vacancy occurring after a primary and before a general election, that

No person is eligible for appointment to fill a vacancy in the party nomination unless the person meets all of the requirements of candidacy as of the date of the primary election.

Section 1-4-1304, subsection 2, which discusses qualifications for nomination, says:

Nominations by a minor political party, to be valid, shall be made in accordance with the party’s constitution or bylaws. No nomination under this section shall be valid for any general election held after January 1, 1999, unless the nominee:

(b) Has been affiliated for a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of nomination with the minor political party that is making the nomination as shown in the registration books of the county clerk and recorder unless otherwise provided in the constitution or bylaws of the minor political party; and

© Has not been registered as a member of a major political party for at least twelve months prior to the date of nomination unless otherwise provided in the constitution or bylaws of the minor political party.

I would expect some Republican to file a challenge to Tancredo’s candidacy.  I can’t help but wonder whether the Constitutionalist Today ran this article in an effort to give Dan Maes reason to stay in the race. The paper is “all-in” for Maes…unfortunately.  If that was their intention, they need to start considering the good of the state rather than their reputation for judgment in backing candidates.  The same can be said of many current Maes supporters, some of whom are clearly sticking with him just because they expended some of their own political capital and are staking some of their own political reputations on Maes’ success.

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

Airbus: High Plains Grifter

by Rossputin | 8:13 am, September 3, 2010 | 2 Comments

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

Democrats cling to hope in their echo chamber

by Rossputin | 7:33 am, September 3, 2010 | No Comments

Long-time Democrat insider Susan Estrich wrote a piece for Rasmussen Reports on Wednesday called “The Generic Race” in which she argues that a generic ballot lead isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, primarily because the number is volatile and because specific candidates, not generic ones, are on the ballot.

Estrich is living in a Democrat echo chamber, saying for example that Democrats have been hoping for Joe Miller to win in Alaska because they see him as more vulnerable to a Democrat challenger.  Perhaps that explains why political betting odds at Intrade.com (in a very thin market) have Miller at an 89% chance of winning.  (That’s the last trade as I write this, with the bid-ask being 81% – 90%.)

Also, while Estrich is, typically for a Democrat, troubled by the open faith-related aspects of the Beck/Palin rally – and while I have a certain related but less intense concern about getting too much religion involved in politics – she misses the point that most Americans probably find it quite refreshing to see that hundreds of thousands of people can rally in support of First Principles, rather than of a candidate or party.

Democrats have very few First Principles and those they do hold are antithetical to the philosophy of government and liberty embodied in the American Founding.  They are all about outcomes, not philosophical foundation.  Democrats will do and say anything to win, and can do so without really being hypocritcal because they generally don’t run on principle.  They run on redistributing wealth. Therefore, at any given time they can say a particular tactic furthers that aim.  The public is well and truly over it, having for the first time since FDR seen the faces of the haters of capitalism and recognized them for the destructive force they are.

Glenn Beck, even though I don’t love his recent laser-like focus on church, serves a few very useful functions.  In particular, he gets people thinking about the proper role of government, the proper place of a philosophy of governing within that government, and the fact that Democrats believe in little other than playing Robin Hood, buying peoples’ votes with their own money, not least by redistributing our money to thuggish union leadership who are sure to return the favor.

Estrich, like Pauline Kael, doesn’t understand the real America, rather remarkably for someone who has been involved in nuts-and-bolts politics for many years.  Obama and his advisors are no different, perhaps suffering an even more acute version of the same disease, which is why he comes across as so tone-deaf at almost every opportunity to speak to the American people.

I love to read well-placed Democrats arguing that things are, or at least might be, just fine for their party.  The more that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama believe they should just keep doing what they’re doing and saying what they’re saying, the more intense and long-lasting will be the voter reaction against them.

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

Is Ken Buck next off the Dan Maes train?

by Rossputin | 7:19 am, September 3, 2010 | No Comments

Ken Buck issued the following statement on Thursday evening. While not an outright withdrawal of support, it certainly seems to foreshadow one: “I have attempted to reach Dan Maes today. I am deeply concerned about the recent events that have come to light. I want to give Dan the chance to do the right thing, but I haven’t been able to reach him today to express my concerns. I will have a full announcement tomorrow, after I speak with Dan.”

On Friday morning, Mr. Buck told me that he “will make an announcement later today.”

Dan Maes has precious few hours to “do the right thing” and withdraw from the governor’s race. He should do so regardless of Tom Tancredo’s intentions.

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

Clear The Bench Colorado moves to dismiss ‘Supplemental Complaint’ by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do), requests legal fees for continued harassment

by CTBC Director | 11:45 pm, September 2, 2010 | No Comments

Clear The Bench Colorado filed a motion to dismiss an additional frivolous, groundless, and vexatious attack (er, ‘Supplemental Complaint”) filed by left-wing attack organization “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) earlier this week (Wednesday).

After Secretary of State Bernie Buescher failed in his duty to provide legal clarity and act to forestall an ongoing series of harassing attacks (er, campaign finance “complaints”) launched by his roundly rebuked ideological ally “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against judicial accountability organization Clear The Bench Colorado, “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) continued attacks despite knowing that they lacked legal merit.

In fact, CEW’s Supplemental Complaint selectively omits key language from the Colorado Constitution in an attempt to deceive the judge – a clear violation of legal ethics (Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11).  Indeed, CEW’s actions demonstrate a consistent pattern of pursuing harassing and ‘vexatious’ attacks against Clear The Bench Colorado:

A vexatious claim “is one brought or maintained in bad faith to annoy or harass, and may include conduct that is arbitrary, abusive, stubbornly litigious, or disrespectful of truth.” (ref. Colorado Court of Appeals, No. 08CA0425. Munoz v. Measner.)

Even knowing the facts of law and the Secretary of State’s guidance to Clear The Bench Colorado, “CEW chose to litigate the matter and file its Supplemental Complaint, subjecting Clear The Bench to additional attorney’s fees and costs, damage to its reputation, and hampering its fundraising efforts due to the cloud created by litigation.”  (Clear The Bench Colorado Motion to Dismiss, Case No. 2010-0009)

So, to summarize: CEW’s latest attack fits an ongoing pattern of unsuccessful, politically motivated “ethics” complaints designed to distract, disorient, and sling mud in the (vain) hope that something might stick.  Ultimately, they don’t care if they win or lose the case (their lopsided loss-win ratio bears this out), since their priorities are (1) smear, (2) frame the media debate and gain attention, (3) divert resources & attention, (4) intimidate, and (5) maybe (if they get lucky) occasionally win a case.

Now more than ever - stand with Clear The Bench Colorado in defense of your constitutional rights. Exercise your right to vote “NO” on the 4 (er, 3 now) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon to be minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business from against eminent domain abuse, your right to fair representation in government, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.” Support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and your contributions - and exercise your right to vote ”NO“ on retaining these unjust justices in office for another 10-year term!

Original Post: Clear the Bench Colorado

GOP AND Tea Party Leaders: Daniel K. Maes, Will You Please Go Now!

by Ben DeGrow | 11:17 pm, September 2, 2010 | 1 Comment

Denver Post headline this evening: “Maes loses support from GOP, grassroots; vows to stay in race”:

…Hank Brown, a former U.S. senator and former University of Colorado president, withdrew his endorsement, setting off a domino effect not only among prominent Republicans, but Maes’ core, grassroots base.

Tea Party leaders across the state today said in often harsh terms that they wanted Maes to drop out….

Let me explain. No… let me sum up:

Tea Party leaders are not “party bosses.” They and many more who should otherwise be inclined to support the accidental Republican nominee for governor recognize the obvious: There is no path to conservative victory in the governor’s race with Dan Maes or Tom Tancredo. Where in the world does Maes expect to get support? And what can he do from here on out except drag down the rest of the ticket? I hope and pray that Maes is ready to do the honorable thing, but I won’t lose sleep waiting for it to happen.

Quoth Dr. Seuss, “The time has come.” Will Dan Maes go? If not, this picture will become a fixture at Mount Virtus for the next two months:

(And this will be my final word on the topic. Let’s focus on the things we can win.)

On the other hand, if Maes does the right thing….

Original Post: Mount Virtus » PPC

More Posts »

Follow PPC

Search

Peoples Press Collective on Facebook

Recent Posts

• Struggling with the governor’s race
• Vote your conscience.
• Flying the American Flag in America is Offensive
• Under Nanny State, We Don’t Feel Like Dancing
• Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 3)
• Democrat “Triage” won’t stop their bleeding
• Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 2)
• “Consumer protection” vs. thinking for yourself
• Cost Shifting Argument Against Amendment 63 ´Wrong And Deceptive´
• Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post

Recent Comments

• Clarence on Vote your conscience.
• Brian Wilson on Open Thread: Should Dan Maes Withdraw?
• Laura Victoria on Under Nanny State, We Don’t Feel Like Dancing
• Laura Victoria on Under Nanny State, We Don’t Feel Like Dancing
• Laura Victoria on Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 3)
• GAS on Open Thread: Should Dan Maes Withdraw?
• Whitney on Open Thread: Should Dan Maes Withdraw?
• Kevin J Jones on Under Nanny State, We Don’t Feel Like Dancing
• Derec Shuler on Under Nanny State, We Don’t Feel Like Dancing
• CTBC Director on Nominees to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey on Colorado Supreme Court profiled in Denver Post (part 3)

National Debt Clock

Advertise Here!

info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

Categories

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

Archives

Select Month September 2010  (58) August 2010  (311) July 2010  (400) June 2010  (379) May 2010  (353) April 2010  (325) March 2010  (346) February 2010  (317) January 2010  (311) December 2009  (248) November 2009  (267) October 2009  (265) September 2009  (262) August 2009  (286) July 2009  (225) June 2009  (230) May 2009  (240) April 2009  (272) March 2009  (230) February 2009  (211) January 2009  (190) December 2008  (123) November 2008  (134) October 2008  (219) September 2008  (426) August 2008  (368) July 2008  (4) June 2008  (2) May 2008  (1) April 2008  (4) March 2008  (2) September 2007  (1)

Meta

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

Buy a Tea Party Poster!

Blogroll

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

Contributors

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