Colorado Politics 2010: Building The PPC Blogger Bench
by elpresidente | 8:00 am, February 5, 2010 | 2 Comments
**Update 3 (2/7/09): The response has been truly overwhelming (30+) so we apologize for delays in returning your emails. The window for submissions has been temporarily closed.
The first round of PPC additions will be announced early this week. We will be staggering admissions, so if you are not among the first batch of additions, this means absolutely nothing. We are simply processing folks in the order they contacted us, so stay tuned!
Help expand the PPC blogatariat!
Now that PPC’s re|design has been deployed, the much-promised “open audition” for bloggers to join our free market collective is currently open.
Please email info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org for information on becoming a PPC affiliated blogger (if you already have a blog and would like to be added to the PPC feed) or PPC contributor (if you do not have a blog). Though preference will be given applicants who are PPC Re|Education Camp alumni and experienced bloggers (ie, a track record of quality posting), we encourage anyone to apply, and accept referrals as well.
We would especially like to welcome bloggers from all parts of the great state of Colorado, not just the Denver metro area (check out NoCO PPC). So whether you live on the Western Slope, in Ski Country, the San Luis Valley, or the Eastern Plains (and everywhere in between), let us know. Read more
February Survey: Time to Help Us Take Colorado’s Political Temperature
by Ben | 11:33 am, February 4, 2010 | No Comments
This post will stick to the top until February 12. Please scroll down for newer postings.
Time flies, so here comes another edition of the Survey of Colorado’s Political Temperature. The deadline is next Friday, February 12, at 5:00 PM local Mountain time. What are you waiting for?
Click here to take the February survey
The February edition has even fewer issue statements, but introduces some interesting new items:
- Polling questions and head-to-head matchup on the 3rd Congressional race to challenge Rep. John Salazar
- Questions about your plans to participate in the upcoming caucus and assembly process
- Detailed question about your sources of local political news and information
Throughout the 2010 election year, the Survey of Colorado’s Political Temperature will re-appear the 1st Thursday of each month. So once you complete this survey, you can start counting down the days until the March edition is unveiled.
Check back here by Tuesday the 16th for February’s results. Meanwhile, here’s the official release announcing the new survey (as always, click fullscreen for a closer look):
Click below for:
Original Post: Mount Virtus » PPC
Top 10 Reasons Why Both Parties Are in Tea Party Hot Water – #10
by GrizzlyGrannyLu | 7:30 am, February 9, 2010 | 1 Comment
Most politicians still do not realize Tea Party voters are angry with both major parties for many of the SAME reasons. Democrat and Republican players (pundits and most of media for that matter) do not see that We the People can look at the parties objectively, analyze, compare/contrast, and form our own insightful opinions. We are not driven by ideology or labels but by common sense and principles. The Top 10 Reasons why both the Democrat and Republican Parties are being steeped in Tea Party hot water will be presented over the next ten days in honor of President Washington’s birthday on February 22nd as a reminder he warned us against the perils of giving up any of our power to political parties.
10. Politicians are universally arrogant and out of touch.
Speaker Pelosi called Tea Partiers “astro-turf” when her side had the pre-printed signs and paid protesters at health care rallies and protests. Despite Sen. Brown’s shocking victory, the Obama administration is trying to blame all of voters’ anger on the Bush administration instead of accepting that we reject far left policies and out-of-control spending. Sometimes it appears that Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi are so out of touch maybe we should start calling for mental competency hearings.
Even here in Colorado, the Democrat-controlled General Assembly is going against 65-71% of likely voters to pass tax increases in an election year – they are on the path to “lose or create” over 1.5 million votes for the opposition (68% of total votes from 2008 election). On the other side, some Republican power players and political pundits continue to assume Tea Partiers will vote in lock step with that party because we supposedly “have nowhere else to go.” Due to their arrogance and self-imposed lack of understanding, Democrat Colorado House and Senate members will pay a heavy price in November while Republicans may lose a big race or two if they force candidates who are not fiscal conservatives onto the ballot. We have been telling them what we expect, but most on both sides of the aisle still are not listening to the people.
As my role in The 9.12 Project for Colorado has evolved, I have met with several current and former Republican officeholders as well as party leadership plus a handful of Democrats. Most exhibit arrogance along with a total disconnect from mainstream America. Gov. Ritter’s arrogance and basic misunderstanding of the voters have lead to his not seeking a second term.
Even the few who may not be as arrogant seem to have a fundamental disconnect with the people. For example, when half of the Republican Colorado State Senators voted with the majority to go after federal Race to the Top education grants, they genuinely were surprised when we mounted a separate statewide email campaign complaining about their votes for this bill. Why were we upset with them when the bill would have passed any way? When we say STOP SPENDING, we mean it! We do not want any more “stinking” borrowed or printed federal money (always with strings attached) even for our own state. Just because we cannot convince Democrats to see the “right” way at this time, does not mean we that do not expect the Republicans to hold fast in voting for fiscal restraint and responsibility every time it comes before them.
Tomorrow we will take a look at reason #9 in our countdown of the Top 10 Reasons Why Both Parties Are in Tea Party Hot Water. Until then, keep turning up the burners on all of those tea pots out there.
Tags: American Principles > Colorado General Assembly > Democrat Party > Gov Ritter > Republican Party > Speaker Pelosi > Tea Party Movement
Democrats shift Internet tax tactics
by Rossputin | 6:39 am, February 9, 2010 | No Comments
Democrats in the Colorado General Assembly have backed away from trying to tax Internet retailers based on whether they have “affiliates” in Colorado. That approach, which would have said that if a Coloradoan had an ad for Amazon.com or Overstock.com on his web page, that would mean Colorado would deem Amazon.com and Overstock.com to be “doing business in” the state and therefore responsible to collect sales tax on items sold to Coloradoans.
The new version of HB 1193 says that if a retailer that does not collect Colorado sales tax is part of a multi-chain corporation where one of the other chains does have a physical presence in the state, then other chains of the corporation are considered to be “doing business in this state.” Then, if that out-of-state retailer sells a product (usually via the Internet) into Colorado, the retailer must tell the buyer that he owes sales or use tax.
The way I read it is, for example, that since Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s are owned by the same company and since Macy’s has stores in Colorado, this bill would argue that online purchases by Coloradoans from Bloomingdales (or other covered-by-this-law retailers) are subject to sales or use tax and that Bloomingdales will be required to:
First, tell its Colorado buyers that they owe sales or use tax and that the buyers have to file a sales or use tax return,
Second, the retailer will face a $5/incident for not telling the buyers they owe the tax
Third, the retailer will have to send “notification” to Colorado purchasers by January 31 of each year showing how much they bought from that retailer and that the buyer owes tax to the state on those purchases with a $10/incident penalty for not sending the notification,
Fourth, the retailer will file a compilation of all those notifications with the Colorado Department of Revenue, with a penalty of $10/purchaser for not filing
One State Senator I spoke with thinks this may be wrong because Macy’s doesn’t try to drive web traffic to Bloomingdale’s web site from their Macy’s stores, but I think the language is such that we would assume the Colorado Department of Revenue to try to enforce it in this way.
State Senator Greg Brophy says “This is not the camel’s nose under the tent. This is the whole camel into the tent on the issue of taxing the Internet.” Brophy believes that this bill will “set up the challenge at the Supreme Court over Internet taxation” and, going back to the camel metaphor, “we are going to have to see if SCOTUS will throw the smelly beast out.” This would essentially be a rehearing of Quill v North Dakota, a 1992 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a retailer only had to charge sales tax if they had a physical presence in that state. It should be noted that for most sections of Quill, the Court’s verdict was unanimous.
The key to Quill is this concept from the decision:
(A) mail-order house may have the “minimum contacts” with a taxing State as required by the Due Process Clause and yet lack the “substantial nexus” with the State required by the Commerce Clause. These requirements are not identical, and are animated by different constitutional concerns and policies. Due process concerns the fundamental fairness of governmental activity, and the touchstone of due process nexus analysis is often identified as “notice” or “fair warning.” In contrast, the Commerce Clause and its nexus requirement are informed by structural concerns about the effects of state regulation on the national economy.
This gets very technical, but what the Court said is that even though the state’s attempt to impose a use tax might meet the burden of a “due process” test, that does not mean the tax is not an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. It’s one of the few cases in recent years where you’ll see the Court at least implicitly recognize that the term “regulate” in the Constitution as it applies to interstate commerce meant “to make regular”, to keep from being burdened, etc., and NOT to be “regulated” in the sense that people use that word today, i.e. interfered with through regulation or law.
The Court also noted the value of stare decisis in terms of leaving business with some degree of regulatory certainty:
Indeed, it is not unlikely that the mail-order industry’s dramatic growth over the last quarter century is due in part to the bright-line exemption from state taxation created in (prior Supreme Court case) Bellas Hess… (T)he Bellas Hess rule has engendered substantial reliance and has become part of the basic framework of a sizable industry. The “interest in stability and orderly development of the law” that undergirds the doctrine of stare decisis…
The Court then went on to say that Congress could possibly change the impermissibility of requiring these sales or uses taxes by enacting federal legislation while hinting that such legislation might still end up being unconstitutional and that Congress might do itself a favor by respecting the Court’s opinion on this matter.
Legal counsel for Amazon.com believes HB1193 is inherently unconstitutional for other reasons, including a rather technical but important point that the enforcement provisions of the bill are “facially discriminatory against out-of-state retailers” who are faced with a different enforcement process than in-state retailers. This lack of equal protection thus renders the measure unconstitutional, in his opinion.
Again, it’s worth emphasizing that the Quill decision was unanimous and that the decision was written by Justice Stevens. It’s hard to imagine the “conservatives” on the Court siding with the state here and it’s hard to imagine the liberals on the Court saying that Stevens was wrong in 1992. While anything can happen, HB1193 could end up being a blessing in disguise in that it could permanently end the possibility of states imposing sales and use taxes on items purchased from out-of-state retailers with no substantial “nexus” in-state.
As far as HB1193, Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry has an amusing take: “The legislators who vote for this will be among the first in the free world to push to tax the Internet, breaking a longstanding bipartisan consensus against the Internet levies since Al Gore invented it. I’m convinced that if the Democrats in Colorado would have been alive in the Stone Age, they would have pushed for a use tax on fire, a value added tax on the advent of the wheel, and a manufacturing tax on the chisel.”
HB1193 is an Orwellian nightmare, with the State of Colorado claiming that it can tell out-of-state companies to inform on Coloradoans. Is this government “of, by, and for the people” or simply of, by, and for government and its lackies. At some point, the many people who voted for our current Democratic state legislature majority are going to have to realize that Democrats are not “for the little guy” and are not even for “the voters”. They are for unions and for amassing as much of your money and your constitutionally guaranteed power as possible for themselves. Make no mistake: Just as with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on the federal level, our tax-hiking, big-spending Democrats in the state legislature are not just misguided; they are the enemy.
As I told Senator Brophy, the day I get a letter from the State of Colorado saying that I owe them sales tax on something I purchased online from an out-of-state retailer is the day I decide to move out of Colorado. I guarantee I won’t be the only one.
Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective
Why Not Legalize ALL Marijuana?
by jccaldara | 6:15 am, February 9, 2010 | No Comments
Coloradans voted against legalization of marijuana in 2006 after approving it as a medicine in 2000. But now lawmakers are struggling with an upsurge in dispensaries and ill-defined “medical” users. How should public policly balance freedom, virtue, prudence, and practicality in dealing with this issue? Specifically, why not legalize all marijuana?
That question, and others, will be asked and hotly debated at this Centennial Institute Colorado policy debate featuring: District Attorney Carol Chambers, State Rep. Tom Massey, State Sen. Shawn Mitchell, and our own policy analyst Jessica Corry.
The event will take place next Wednesday the 17th at the Colorado Christian University Music Center – 9200 W. Ellsworth in Lakewood – from 7 to 8:30pm. It is FREE but seating is limited.
Original Post: Jon Caldara
Dem Priorities Fiddling with Tax Credits: Undercut, Don’t Empower, Families
by Ben | 6:08 am, February 9, 2010 | No Comments
Todd Engdahl at Ed News Colorado reported Friday on two educational tax credit bills (HB 1295 and HB 1296) being introduced in the legislature, and closed with this comment:
While the proposals could make for interesting debate, they’re expected to fail for three reasons: 1) Democrats control the legislature, 2) the education lobby, and 3) most lawmakers don’t want to fiddle with school finance or tax credits when the state budget is in the tank. [emphasis added]
The first two reasons are rather straightforward. Of course, Democrats don’t want to devolve power from the education establishment. And of course, the iron triangle of CEA, CASE and CASB would oppose the slightest effort to grant authentic private school choice to taxpaying Colorado parents.
But isn’t it ironic to think that “most lawmakers don’t want to fiddle with… tax credits,” when most lawmakers (i.e., Democrats) at the State Capitol indeed are (this very week) ramming through the “Dirty Dozen” tax credit repeals (aka tax hikes).
Both approaches effectively make more money available for Colorado state government. The difference is the tax credits Democrats currently are “fiddling with” would take more from businesses large and small, entrepreneurs, consumers and hard-working families and fill up the coffers. But the educational tax credits proposed respectively by Senator Kevin Lundberg and Representative Spencer Swalm would empower families, while leaving behind more K-12 money per student who remains in the public system.
Do you still wonder about the priorities of Colorado Democrats?
Original Post: Mount Virtus » PPC
Colorado House Bill 1008: force men to pay higher insurance premiums
by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, February 9, 2010 | 1 Comment
The Denver Post reports that Colorado “House Bill 1008 would bar health insurance companies from using gender as a basis for setting different premium rates for men and women.” Basically, insurers generally charge women higher premiums than men. Supporters of the bill want to make this illegal, and hence require men to pay more.
The Colorado Independent reports that “insurance companies agreed not to oppose the bill.” Interesting. One cynical reason I can imagine is that insurers are forced to charge men more, and hence make more money. Their competitors must do the same, so it’s not as if the male customers are free to buy a competitor’s cheaper product.
This bill would then make insurance a vehicle for forced charity. This is wrong.
Or maybe insurers will charge women less, not be able to profit from it, and hence design their plans such that women do not want them.
Original Post: Independence Institute: Patient Power » PPC
Rep. Jack Pommer Freaks Out
by RMR | 5:48 pm, February 8, 2010 | No Comments
Original Post: Rocky Mountain Right - ppc
Obama Cuts Bush’s AIDS-HIV Treatment Money for Africa
by Mr. Bob | 1:30 pm, February 8, 2010 | 1 Comment
#breitbart #tcot #HIV #AIDS #PPC
Freeze on HIV spending sparks concern in Africa
Must read article, the tone-deafness isn’t just here in the US, apparently this administration is clueless on all fronts. This is one thing that of course the left probably doesn’t even realize…Bush spent more on HIV treatment than any president in history. Whether you agree this is part of what the government should be doing or not, most people do not realize that he did this…that is because this is part of the news the MSN chooses NOT to print.
Original Post: The Daily Blogster
Best Superbowl Ad
by jccaldara | 1:22 pm, February 8, 2010 | 1 Comment
So what Audi’s message? Buy our enviro car, not because you care about the environment, but because it will keep the governmental enviro-nutjobs off your back.
Original Post: Jon Caldara
A Lesson in Tax Policy for Children
by jccaldara | 12:38 pm, February 8, 2010 | 1 Comment
Here’s a pretty clever way to explain taxes that even I can understand…
Original Post: Jon Caldara
The Big Bank Bailout Bill H.R. 4173 and the Committee for Truth in Politics
by chuck | 12:34 pm, February 8, 2010 | No Comments
You may have seen an this ad recently in Colorado (video and audio is bad)
Is the ad as FactCheck.org claims misleading? Technically, H.R. 4173 does give the Federal Reserve the ability to spend up to 4 trillion dollars as Bloomberg columnist David Reilly notes:
It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to provide as much as $4 trillion in emergency funding the next time Wall Street crashes. So much for “no-more-bailouts” talk. That is more than twice what the Fed pumped into markets this time around. The size of the fund makes the bribes in the Senate’s health-care bill look minuscule.
What FactCheck.org contends is that this is just a change to existing powers the Federal Reserve already has so there should be no worries. Granted, the Federal Reserve by virtue of rule 13 (3) of the Federal Reserve Act does have such powers:
“In unusual and exigent circumstances, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the affirmative vote of not less than five members, may …,” and then there’s a lot of technical language which essentially means that the Federal Reserve can lend money to “any individual, partnership, or corporation,” as long as certain requirements are met.
Not only have they had this power but the Fed has a history of using the power according to the Federal Reserve Branch of Minneapolis that the media on a whole as disregarded.
What H.R. 4173 does is add the amount of 4 trillion to the section 13(3). Those if favor would say this just gives a cap to the Federal Reserve. Others would say this gives the Federal Reserve a green light to go ahead and spend 4 trillion dollars; Congress just said it was okay. By adding the 4 trillion dollar amount to the bill, it is in effect, a “credit limit” to the Federal Reserves ever growing appetite for more fiat currency. This is akin a mother giving the kid the credit card prior to her trip to the mall asking the young shopper to spend a little bit but don’t max it out. What will happen? The child (Federal Reserve) will come back home filled with shopping bags proclaiming that she (Federal Reserve) didn’t want to spend that much money but the sales (banks) were too good (to big) to pass up (fail). The bailouts aren’t over and H.R. 4173 proves just that.
The ad was paid for by the Committee for Truth in Politics which is a group out of North Carolina formed as a non-profit in September of 2008. The only board member listed is a William W. Peaslee who appears to by an attorney in Cary, N.C. The Committee for Truth in Politics has no web site, phone number, or any other information other than the original incorporation submission..essentially they are dark.
The Committe is represented by a James Bopp who has quite a history already with the Committee for Truth in Politics and other organizations with their previous anti-Obama ads.
Is this ad correct? Technically, then Senator Obama did vote for this, but he retracted his vote immediately afterward. It did appear to be a mistake as Politico reported:
The state Senate floor transcript from the day, March 11th, 1999, includes this from Obama: “For purpose of correction. I pressed the wrong button on that. I wanted to vote Yes.”
Mr. James Bopp also filed a suit against the FEC in October of 2008, in regards to filing a report…at all:
“We believe that the U.S. Constitution protects them from having to file that report,” says Bopp. “The problem is having to file a report at all. To be regulated at all. To be accountable to the government at all.”
On Tuesday, January 26, 2010 James Bopp issued a press release via the James Madison Center for Free Speach:
The James Madison Center for Free Speech is asking the Federal Election Commission to revise its regulations in light of the Jan. 21 landmark Supreme Court decision.
The decision, Citizens United v. FEC, recognizes that federal law banning particular corporate and union spending for political speech is unconstitutional.
The James Madison Center’s rulemaking petition, filed today, asks the FEC to state that it will not enforce the unconstitutional bans against any independent spending for political speech, including independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The petition also asks the FEC to:
- Repeal FEC regulations insofar as they implement the bans Citizens United struck down.
- Acknowledge that the unconstitutional law no longer bans corporations, unions, or membership organizations from engaging in independent spending for political speech beyond people such as union members or corporate board members, stockholders, executive personnel, or administrative personnel.
- Repeal the FEC regulations recognizing exceptions to the bans on (1) corporate independent expenditures and (2) corporate and union electioneering communications. The exceptions are no longer necessary, because the bans themselves are unconstitutional.
“This is an election year. Speakers will want to exercise the First Amendment rights to political speech Citizens United recognizes, so the FEC should adopt these regulations quickly, ” said James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for the James Madison Center.
Agree or disagree about the ad, the Committee for Truth and Politics is pushing the FEC and the courts in the proper direction towards free speech and NPR isn’t happy about it at all and seemingly worried about the secret money. In their words:
Bopp may be the nation’s most experienced lawyer in challenging campaign finance laws. For 30 years, he’s been general counsel to the National Right To Life Committee, which has spearheaded opposition to restrictions on political money. He’s also a member of the Republican National Committee and counsel to Focus on the Family and the Indiana Republican Party.
I would expect to see even more ads of this nature in the near future. While some fear corporations and groups being able to purchase these kind of ads, I would argue that aware citizens can judge on their own an ad’s legitimacy and assess the bias of the ad without the government regulating free speech to “protect” us from too much information.
Original Post: Colorado Freedom » ppc
Tags: Bopp > Colorado Freedom > Colorado News/Info > committee for truth in politics > FEC > H.R. 4173 > Reilly > Syndicated
This isn’t funny anymore: CO Democrats’ Internet tax
by Rossputin | 7:55 am, February 8, 2010 | 2 Comments
[Update: The Democrat money-grubbers in the Colorado Senate will be substituting an amendment for the Internet Tax bill which is likely to be even worse than the original bill. Stay tuned…]
Colorado State Senator Greg Brophy (R-Wrea) explains the cynical and dangerous Internet sales tax bill which Democrats in the state legislature seem likely to pass into law. What needs to be noted and explained widely about the Internet-related bills which Democrats will soon pass is that their targets are largely young, middle-class, and tech-savvy, as was pointed out in Mike Garner’s comment to my Friday blog note on this topic.
These young people were part of the tidal wave that swept Barack Obama and many other Democrats into office and they’re a target audience which conservatives and Republicans should be hammering with a message of “Do you understand now what the Democrats are really about?”
HB10-1193 will cost a lot of income and jobs in Colorado, raise the cost of living for many who shop online, and give an Orwellian subpoena power to the State Dept. of Revenue. While Amazon.com or other retailer would likely win a lawsuit, it’s more likely they’ll take the lower-cost option and simply end affiliate advertising programs in Colorado. If, however, Colorado truly attempts to force those retailers to collect sales tax from and/or inform on customers who live in Colorado, Amazon may either have to fight in court or actually refuse to ship to Colorado.
I almost hope it’s the latter, for a time. It could cause the biggest electoral backlash against Democrats on a state level that anyone’s ever seen.
Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective
Colorado WINS State Union Using Coercive Tactics to Grow Membership?
by Ben | 6:05 am, February 8, 2010 | No Comments
Ever since Governor Bill Ritter signed the executive order laying out a welcome mat to unionize state government, I’ve wondered if and when the Colorado WINS labor organizing coalition would lobby for the Democratic majority in state government to entrench their status through legislation.
Given the state of the budget and the tons of political capital Democrats are spilling to push through their series of tax hikes — one of which is even opposed by Pueblo labor interests — prospects for comprehensive union legislation have faded dramatically.
But Colorado WINS has other means to extend its reach, and grow its dues-paying membership base, inside Colorado government. As Dave Ohmart of Colorado LOSES points out, reluctant state employees are being cajoled into joining in order to have “a voice in decisions about their work environment.” So states a complaint filed by Sgt. Jeff Hotchkiss of the Pueblo correctional facility. Is such activity in violation of the terms of Ritter’s executive order?
A Colorado LOSES survey shows that at best, state employees have a mixed opinion of WINS. And that while many didn’t “give a crap” back in the summer of 2008, many more seem ready to oust WINS of its exclusive bargaining rights. Stay tuned….
Original Post: Mount Virtus » PPC
Liberals just happen
by Rossputin | 5:34 am, February 8, 2010 | No Comments
Over at salon.com, a certain Scott Christian has penned a bit of pseudo-psychology entitled “Republicans Don’t Just Happen, They’re Born That Way“. Christian’s piece begins by referencing one of the most ridiculous articles I’ve ever wasted my time perusing by Jonathan Haidt, a clearly leftist associate professor of psychology whose four publicly-available political donations were all to Democrats, including two to Barack Obama. Christian refers to Haidt’s article as if it’s some sort of peer-reviewed science rather than the juvenille “I hate Republicans because I don’t understand them” polemic which it really is.
Christian’s piece and Haidt’s piece on which it’s based says a lot more about liberals than about conservatives.
I penned a too-polite comment in response to Christian’s piece, as follows:
Scott,
The problem with your analysis is that you focus too much on social issues when describing what Republicans are about. Furthermore, you lump all Republicans into the category of social-issues conservatives, which is simply not the case.
If you were to look at other areas, such as economics and free speech, it is the Democrats who support a “rigid structure” which impinges on liberty every bit as much, or even more, than the right wing’s pursuit of using government in the social sphere.
Also, your comments about Republicans somehow being more “tribal” than Democrats strikes me as ridiculous and just another not-so-subtle attempt by a liberal to paint Republicans as less evolved or otherwise inferior.
Your comments about Fox News perhaps show your liberal bias more than anything else. You seem to miss the fact that a substantial percentage of Fox viewers are NOT Republican. According to a poll a few months ago, “46% of those who watch FOX News “just about every day” are Democrats or Independents as are 50% of those who watch it “several times each week” or more.” And then you say that MSNBC “offers individual expression and a focus on individual rights”??? You must be kidding. You can’t tell one MSNBC talking head for another, and they most certainly do not support individual rights on any issue outside the social sphere (and neither does our president.) Meanwhile, there’s a huge difference between, for example, Bill O’Reilly’s populist so-called conservatism and Glenn Beck’s libertarian point of view. Not to mention the fact that Fox routinely has Democrats/liberals on air to give that point of view.
While you’re pretending to write a non-partisan article about psychology, you (just like the people you admire on MSNBC) can’t stop your misunderstanding of non-liberals from causing you to misstate basic facts and obvious conclusions.
Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective
Progress Now: The New Reactionaries?
by T.L. James | 2:02 pm, February 7, 2010 | 1 Comment
Found another typically-overwrought missive from ProgressNow Colorado’s Bobby Clark in my email this morning, decrying comments made by former CD-6 Congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo at last week’s Tea Party convention.
Last week, at the national extreme-right “Tea Party” Convention, former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo said that “people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House.” He added that President Obama was elected because “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote.” (NY Daily News, 2/5/10) [link added]
Tancredo praised the radical ‘Tea Partiers’ for launching a “revolution,” and told the audience gathered that “it is our nation.”
Click here to tell Tancredo he doesn’t speak for you.
“Civics tests” to vote have a long and ugly record in America, primarily as a means of denying minorities the right to vote during the so-called “Jim Crow” era of legal discrimination and segregation. Such “tests” were banned by the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1964, ending what is universally considered today a dark chapter in American history.
Rep. Terrance Carroll, the first-ever African-American Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, rejected excuses made by Tancredo for these statements, saying Tancredo should know “how hateful those tests were and how hateful that period of history was.” (Denver Post, 2/6/10)
Let’s send a message to Tom Tancredo and the xenophobic, extremist “Tea Party” supporters who cheer him on. Click below to respond to Tancredo and tell him that this country belongs to all of us, and we won’t let him and his band of fringe supporters divide us. We’ll share your comments with the media and send them to Tancredo:
http://www.ProgressNowColorado.org/ItsOurNationToo
Thanks for speaking out, and reminding America that Tom Tancredo does not speak for Colorado.
Bobby
I don’t know that there’s any point in defending Tom Tancredo here – he’s perfectly capable of doing so himself, and besides, defending the man from mendacious attacks from the left would be a full-time job (just as making the attacks in the first place provides full-time employment for people at organizations like ProgressNow Colorado).
So no, I’ll focus on two small points in the email:
- Smell the Fear: Why does ProgressNow put out emails like this, denouncing their fellow citizens’ political involvement, calling Tea Partiers xenophobes, extremists, racists (as Michael Huttner is wont to do), etc., etc.? Why do they pretend to get so worked up over the Tea Party movement and similar pro-liberty grassroots organizations, and put such effort into demonizing them and attempting to polarize opinion against them?Simple: they sense a valid threat to their own power and influence. The pro-liberty movement is, like the netroots itself in 2004, just finding its legs. Statist activists like Mr. Clark and Mr. Huttner recognize that libertarians are waking up, and are learning from the same tactics and organizational structures their own groups pioneered over the last six years – and learning it from successful example, rather than reinventing the wheel on their own. If a pro-serfdom movement can obtain one-party rule at the state and federal levels through these means, what is to stop the pro-liberty movement from doing the same – if not better?
The hard-won political power now held by the Democrats it too great a victory for them to simply let go of now. Therefore, any threat to that entrenched power must be vigorously opposed, and preferably neutralized before it can gain traction with the voting public. Hence the use of smears, guilt by association, namecalling, and other means to paint the pro-liberty grassroots (of which the Tea Parties are but one part) as dangerous radicals who threaten the (new) status quo.
- Mind Your Framing: ProgressNow Colorado considers Tea Parties “radical”. When did “radical” become a dirty word to Progressives? Was it when they became the establishment themselves? Seems like not too long ago, being a “radical” was, for Progressives and leftists/statists generally, a badge of honor – it meant that you aimed to bring dramatic and immediate change to The System, to bring down The Man, to [insert your favorite 1960s counterculture cliche here].If Tea Partiers are now radicals, and ProgressNow Colorado stands in opposition to them, does that not make ProgressNow Colorado a reactionary organization, interested in stopping dissent and reinforcing the status quo?
My, how times have changed. We’re clearly not in the golden age of the “radical” 1960s anymore.
Tags: Bobby Clark > Grassroots > Media Bias > Michael Huttner > Obama > Progressive Reactionaries > progressives > ProgressNow Colorado > ProgressNowAction > radicals > tea party > Tom Tancredo
I demand you read this!
by David K. Williams, Jr. | 7:38 am, February 7, 2010 | No Comments
There is more than one problem with Mark Hillman’s Denver Post column published yesterday. (Trial Lawyer Hypocrisy Act.)
One, however, really jumps out. Twice he writes how plaintiff attorneys can “demand up to 40 percent” of the eventual recovery.
How does that “demand” work?
Circle K can “demand” consumers spend $5.00 for a “fun size” Snickers. So what? Ain’t nobody gonna be meeting that demand.
I can “demand” Sandra Bullock’s appearance at dinner. That demand ain’t gonna be met either.
People that have been injured by the someone else’s negligence have a wide selection of attorneys from which to choose to represent them. Almost none will hire an attorney who “demands” 40 percent. It is called a “free market,” something Republicans usually extol the virtues of.
Original Post: BlueCarp
Illinois’ Democratic nominee for US Senator
by Rossputin | 5:49 am, February 7, 2010 | No Comments
Now that Alexi “the mob’s banker” Giannoulias has become the Democratic Party’s nominee to challenge Republican Mark Kirk for the US Senate seat being vacated by Roland Burris, I think it bears reminding people (especially in Illinois) of an article I wrote about Giannoulias before most people (especially outside of Chicago) had heard of him or thought of him as a major political player.
This kind of stuff must make Mark Kirk quite happy to have this guy as his opponent. Rasmussen Reports‘ most recent survey (taken Tuesday and Wednesday) has Kirk leading the mob’s banker by 6% continuing the trend of the last several months of Kirk’s position improving relative to Giannoulias.
Please see “Will Alexi Giannoulias be Obama’s next ‘not the man I knew‘?”, by yours truly, 8/27/08
http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/will-alexi-giannoulias-be-obama-s-next-n
Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective
Couldn’t we get a few more levels of government involved?
by David K. Williams, Jr. | 9:40 am, February 6, 2010 | No Comments
Today’s Denver Post declares in a broad headline
Original Post: BlueCarp
Tags: Government Incompetence > Government Waste > Syndicated > Union Station
Colorado Democrats Dig Themselves Deeper on Dirty Dozen Tax Hikes
by Ben | 5:34 am, February 6, 2010 | No Comments
At this point, ramming through the Dirty Dozen tax hikes has Colorado Democrats in such political hot water, why not just go ahead and swim in it? That must be the reasoning behind the effort to make things even worse by changing the temporary tax hikes into permanent tax hikes.
It used to be about half the bills would eventually reduce the respective tax rates to their current level. Not anymore:
Republicans believe that Democrats are using the current budget crisis as an excuse to permanently raise taxes on Colorado families and businesses. “If the tax increases are only meant to help the state fill the budget gap, as Democrats claim, then why aren’t we making them all temporary?” asked Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield.
Then there’s HB 1193 in particular. As Rossputin points out, Colorado Democrats are going to drive Overstock.com’s affiliate program out of the state with this legislation. That is, unless they regain their senses first. As I noted before, HB 1193 passed the state house by the narrowest of margins (33-32), with Democrat Wes McKinley as the deciding vote.
Will the majority party in our state senate wise up, are they just simply Stuck on Stupid? Many of these bills will end up in conference committee, which will just increase the harsh glare of public scrutiny on the Democrats’ bad policy and terrible politics. Sayonara.
Original Post: Mount Virtus » PPC
Obama protecting Yemeni terrorists more than US citizens
by Rossputin | 4:02 am, February 6, 2010 | No Comments
Over the obvious objections of thousands, maybe even millions of Americans, Barack Obama decided (though he will soon be forced to change his mind) to risk the safety of American citizens by trying al-Qaeda 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan. (Not to mention the cost and inconvenience that he wanted to put New Yorkers through as if they haven’t suffered enough due to KSM.)
Next comes the underwear bomber. The feds stupidly Mirandized him after less than an hour of interrogation during which it is reported that he was answering questions and providing actionable intelligence.
Obama has tried to say that others, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, have been responsible for these decisions. But I don’t buy it, particularly for the KSM trial decision. It’s just too big and of too much political import for it to have been left to Holder. And if it was left to Holder, that’s quite stupid of the White House as well. In any case, it’s clear that Eric Holder believes in Obama’s deeply damaging policy to treat terrorists with kid gloves.
But it gets even worse than Mirandizing the panty bomber…
In both cases, the Administration has demonstrated that their interest in “showing the world” how “fair” we are – by which the naifs currently in charge don’t realize they’re just showing weakness and stupidity – and in trying (but failing) to boost their own poll numbers is willingly furthered at the expense of national security.
The Obama Administration was taking a well-deserved beating from Republican politicians about having let panty-bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab “lawyer up” and clam up. However, the bomber’s family appears to have pressured him into speaking again. And while it’s great news that he’s talking again, it’s a national security disaster that we know he’s talking again.
If I were a Yemeni terrorist who had contact with Abdulmutallab and was wondering when the black helicopter was going to arrive and send me to hell (or to 72 virgins), I would take some comfort (unless I were in a big hurry to meet the 72) in knowing that my former associate, Abdulmutallab, was keeping his secrets to himself. I might even decide that the cost and effort to move all my operations might not be worth it and I might be a little less cautious, less circumspect, less certain to avoid possible crosshairs than I would be if I knew he was talking.
But the Obama Administration – over the strong and express objections of FBI Director Robert Muller – decided to tell reporters, who then told the world, that the bomber’s lips were moving again. Human Events’ editor Jed Babbin reports that Muller personally told Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the bomber’s cooperation had to be kept secret.
Senator Bond has written a scathing letter to President Obama, including this strong but obviously accurate charge:
It is deeply disturbing to me that the Intelligence Committee would be advised of sensitive information, and told of the vital imperative to keep such information secret for the sake of national security, only to see this information – less than twenty-four hours later – broadcast to the world from the White House. This distortion of the congressional notification process suggests that other considerations are taking precedence over keeping timely and sensitive information away from our enemies.
It leaves me shaking my head in disgust to know that we have a president who is willing to give such critical information to our nation’s mortal enemies in order to try to improve his own poll numbers. Truly reprehensible, truly a breach of his most fundamental responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, and truly in character with everything we’ve come to expect from The One, whose ego and single-minded determination to remake America trumps all.
Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective
Something Strange
by Aaron | 3:12 am, February 6, 2010 | No Comments
Imagine yourself sitting at home watching TV late at night when suddenly all interesting programming ends, and the always entertaining infomercials begin. You think to yourself, “It’s not my cup of tea, but I’ll endure it for the moment.” The usual marketing ploys begin: a common problem a person encounters, and a product that promises to fix it.
One of the first reactions as the infomercial runs on is that it sounds too good to be true. For some reason we humans are a naturally skeptical bunch. Often times we refuse to take outlandish claims at face value and look beyond the marketing for a scam. I say often times because there is one area that is curiously exempt from this natural distrust for the unknown: politics. Such an exemption may be an evolutionary phenomenon. Nevertheless, it is a curious social mutation.
To illustrate my point let’s try a simple thought experiment. One day we cross paths at a local market. Let’s imagine you have a child with you. For whatever reason we begin a casual conversation and as we become further acquainted I ask if I could watch your child tomorrow while you work. Immediately you become disturbed by such an odd request and alarms go off in your head. The moment is uncomfortable, threatening, and all you can think of is escaping. “I’ll feed him, and give him healthcare, and pay you for the privilege.” No matter what I offer, a sensible parent would scream, possibly taser me and run! This reaction is a healthy, natural response in defense of your offspring.
Enter the political arena. Here, hopeful incumbents make similar requests, only instead of your child they ask for your liberty, your property, and your loved ones future. In exchange for your vote, you will be granted goodies beyond your wildest imagination. Rather than alarms sounding as they did during our little experiment, or the suspicions running through our minds while watching the infomercial, the opposite occurs. We embrace the politician with open arms. We invite them into our homes. We give them free access to our income and other private information. We urge them to decide for us how to use our bodies, who we can marry, what we can eat, and how we can travel. All of these important responsibilities are very personal items that we would never otherwise dream of entrusting a complete stranger with. But for whatever reason, we abandon our natural defensive tendencies when election season arrives.
I wonder how long nature will endure such willful stupidity.
Original Post: Colorado Freedom
Tags: Aaron > Colorado Freedom > ColoradoFreedom.net > election > Evolution > Insane Americans > Mad > parody > Rants and Satire > Season > Syndicated
Price of buying politicians is going up in a down economy!
by John West | 8:31 pm, February 5, 2010 | No Comments
As seen on Twitter:
ProgressNowCO: RT @tweetwtf Big #WTF! Oil & gas companies spent at least $154 million on lobbying in 2009 up 16% from 2008.
So let me get this translated for you. In this recession and with wages being cut all over the business world the politicians are getting a 16% pay raise. Don’t blame the companies that have to pay to protect their interests. Blame the politicians that pull the strings. Then blame yourself for letting them have that kind of power. That goes twice for all of you “progressives” (read “statists”) out there!!
Original Post: GneissGuy
Jon Stewart–”The Blogs Must Be Crazy”
by elpresidente | 3:37 pm, February 5, 2010 | No Comments
Bloggers are known for their hyperbole and bombastic prose. Jon Stewart rips impales skewers lambastes bitch-slaps gently ribs, um, the blogger penchant for over-the-top prose:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Blogs Must Be Crazy | ||||
|
||||
CO Democrats’ Internet tax takes another step forward — toward their own electoral destruction
by Rossputin | 3:32 pm, February 5, 2010 | 1 Comment
One of the Democrats’ “Dirty Dozen” tax hike bills is a measure which would change the definition of doing business in Colorado so that many sales by Internet companies would be taxable. In particular, if a retailer used a Colorado-based “affiliate” who advertises for the company, the state would try to tax any sale by the company in the state. The measure, HB 1193, passed its last state Senate committee today (and passed the state House last week). It will soon go to the full Senate for a vote.
As scary as the concept of trying to force Amazon.com to collect sales tax on many things you buy from them is, just as scary is the bill’s proposal to create a subpoena power by which the state’s Department of Revenue claims to be able to demand documents from out-of-state Internet retailers and even demand that the retailer send a person to Colorado to answer questions. Further, if that if the retailer doesn’t send the subpoenaed person, the Department of Revenue can ask a judge to issue an arrest warrant for him!
Overstock.com is already warning affiliates that the company “will have to sever relationships with Colorado Affiliates before the bill becomes law.”
I wish I were kidding you, but I’m not.
[An interesting discussion of the constitutionality and likely impact of the law can be found HERE. The bottom line is that while the law is almost certainly unconstitutional, many online retailers will likely choose to just end their affiliate programs rather than spend money on lawyers.]
And if all that isn’t enough, the Democrats are arguing that the bill “is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.” The purpose of this “safety clause“, which Democrats are attaching to all of their tax bills, is to (1) prevent the ability of opponents of the measure from sending it to the people to vote on as a referendum, and (2) allow the bill to take effect immediately upon the governor’s signature rather than at least 90 days after the adjournment of the General Assembly (a period during which a referendum petition can be filed.)
I asked Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry “How can Dems be this stupid? They’re passing things which will possibly cost them control of both houses of the General Assembly and the governorship in 9 months…”
Senator Penry responded as follows:
I had exactly that same conversation with a Democratic friend on the floor. They will get no cash, they will cost people jobs, and they’ll put make themselves among the first in the history of humankind to make the Internet a big tax target. It’s not insanity. These people are smart. It’s arrogance.
In my view, it’s also unenforceable and probably unconstitutional. (But who cares, right?)
The Democrats are trying to pass a dozen tax hikes simply because they have no backbone when it comes to spending, particularly when it comes to the most obvious place to look: the cost of operating government. Bill Ritter hired a couple thousand government employees after he instituted a hiring freeze. Government worker salaries are going up while the rest of us are tightening our belts. This has to stop.
The Republicans in the State Senate are a group Coloradoans can generally be proud of (much more proud than Americans overall can be of those serving in our federal Senate).
Yesterday, in what struck me as someone reading my mind, the proposed the Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010, which calls for a 0.24% across the board cut in state employee compensation and then a 4.39% across the board spending cut next year, “giving first priority to eliminating non-essential and vacant government positions, and in pay cuts to state employees primarily making more than $100,000.”
The bill, which would not impact teachers, will “eliminate the need for Democrat proposals to increase taxes by $17.8 million in the current year and $306 million next year.” According to Senator Penry, the Republican proposal would also restore the senior homestead exemption and the “vendor fee.”
This is not brain surgery. Our state government has gotten unbelievably bloated under Governor Ritter, despite a fictitious hiring freeze. It’s time for government to work smarter, smaller, and more efficiently, just like most of us in the private sector must during difficult economic times. They’ve been using this appropriate quote:
“Don’t make me fire my employees so you can hire more.”
Rick Enstrom, Owner, Enstrom’s Candy, Colorado-based business
In a press conference on the measure, the Republican Senators noted that their proposed cuts are smaller than those proposed by the Democratic Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, who recently ordered a 5% across-the-board cut in state agency budgets.
Even soon-to-be-unemployed Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has called for cutting 2,000 jobs in the Bay State.
But all our Colorado Democrats can do is try to tax internet sales, software sales and downloads, energy, soda, and candy. Remember Penry’s words: Not supid, but arrogant. I think it’s a little of both.
As Coloradoans tighten our belts while watching our Democratic government expand the size and cost of government at our expense, I believe Colorado’s Democrats are soon to reap the whirlwind.
Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective
Moving Minutes–Casablanca
by CapitalistBitch | 12:49 pm, February 5, 2010 | No Comments
In the past I have joked about cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Hell, I’m sure I’ll do it in the future.
This is, nonetheless, one of my favorite scenes from a classic movie.
Rasmussen on Colorado U.S. Senate: No Clear Trend, GOP Edge Persists
by Ben | 11:24 am, February 5, 2010 | No Comments
I’m not sure how exactly to headline the new Rasmussen poll on potential Colorado U.S. Senate race matchups. Three weeks ago I highlighted the fact that Jane Norton’s lead over the Appointed One Michael Bennet was widening, and that Bennet was dropping across the board against all potential Republican challengers.
The results this time aren’t altogether so clear. Yes, Jane Norton has an even greater 14-point advantage over Bennet, but her presumed 12-point lead over Bennet’s Democratic primary challenger Andrew Romanoff has slipped to 7 points.
GOP contender Tom Wiens — who just reported a hefty but heavily self-funded fourth quarter — may have leveled off. But he lost a little ground against both Bennet (6-point lead dropped to 4) and Romanoff (5-point lead dropped to 2).
Finally, however, defying the evidence of any potential polling trend, Ken Buck roughly kept the same lead over Bennet but pushed ahead of Romanoff — going from a 1-point to a 6-point advantage.
With this slight but sudden change of fortune, Weld County DA Buck is the only one of the three Republican contenders who performs better against the former Colorado speaker of the house. But for those expecting Michael Bennet’s big money and heavy-hitting endorsements to help him secure his party’s nomination over Andrew Romanoff, Jane Norton has all appearances of being the GOP’s strongest hope — even if the 14 points may be somewhat of a stretch.
Of course, you can challenge (or uphold) the conventional wisdom by letting us know your predictions on matchups for this and other major statewide and Congrssional races on our latest survey of Colorado’s political temperature.
On a related side note, Rossputin relates at length his positive impressions of Jane Norton from their recent in-person meeting.
Original Post: Mount Virtus » PPC
On TV at 8:30 PM Tonight to Discuss Public School Financial Transparency
by Ben | 10:51 am, February 5, 2010 | No Comments
Tonight (Friday) at 8:30 PM on Denver’s KBDI Channel 12, you can watch me make a guest appearance on Independent Thinking with host Jon Caldara. The topic? Jefferson County Public Schools’ new, front-of-the-pack financial transparency website. For more — including my podcast interview with fellow guest, Jeffco CFO Lorie Gillis, and my new paper on the topic of school financial transparency — please visit Ed Is Watching.
The lonely Friday crowd can make your popcorn in plenty of time for tonight’s 8:30 showing. For everyone else, get your TiVos/recorders ready or watch the episode re-air on Monday, 1:30 PM, on KBDI.
Original Post: Mount Virtus » PPC
Can the State Be As Transparent as Jeffco?
by jccaldara | 6:19 am, February 5, 2010 | No Comments
Colorado’s largest school district has become a national leader in transparency by posting detailed spending online for citizens to search. Will the state of Colorado and other government agencies follow the example of Jeffco Public Schools? On this week’s Independent Thinking, Jeffco’s chief financial officer Lorie Gillis and Independence Institute policy analyst Ben DeGrow join me to explore the growing trend of governments opening up their checkbooks. Tune in tonight at 8:30 PM on KBDI Channel 12, re-broadcast the following Monday at 1:30 PM.
Original Post: Jon Caldara
Getting to know Jane Norton: So far, so good.
by Rossputin | 4:24 am, February 5, 2010 | No Comments
While I’m not yet ready to make an endorsement in the Republican primary race to challenge Michael “Who?” Bennet in the US Senate race in November, my first meeting with Jane Norton (on Tuesday morning over coffee for Lt. Governor Norton and hot chocolate for me) was certainly a positive – dare I say surprisingly good? – first meeting and I look forward to one or more future meetings to help me decide whether I will endorse her. Nothing in today’s meeting made me think that outcome is impossible or even improbable, but I was not able to cover enough ground in the 45 minutes we had together to cement an opinion. That said, I was quite happy with Mrs. Norton’s responses on the issues we did cover.
I didn’t take notes so I will not quote Mrs. Norton here in any substantial way, but will rather give the most accurate representation I can of her responses without claiming to be quoting her exactly.
Regarding what motivates her, Norton said that she felt an obligation to try to stop what she perceives as the current government’s assault on our nation’s fundamental principles and the liberty of our citizens. While I wouldn’t expect a politician to say “I’m running because I’m extremely ambitious”, I was intentionally very, even overly, sensitive looking for a self-aggrandizing motive in body language or subtext and I simply didn’t see it. Of course, I don’t want a politician who has no ego and I don’t think there is such a thing, but Mrs. Norton struck me as sincere when she said that private life suited her fine until our government got to a point where she felt an obligation to get involved again.
Regarding Referendum C, as one might imagine this is a tough subject and one which Jane Norton knows she has to deal with. Friends of mine who are very politically involved, including current and former state and federal office holders have made a convincing case to me that even if Mrs. Norton was against Ref C at the time, her position as Lt. Governor made support of the measure essentially mandatory since Governor Owens supported it. The question puts Norton in something only marginally better than a no-win situation on the question – it’s one for which hindsight does not help. If she were to say now that she opposed it at the time, that poses one major set of problems. If she says she supported it, that’s a whole different set of problems.
Between not wanting to force this conversation during the first time I met Mrs. Norton, I therefore did not dwell a lot on the past but rather focused on her current views. On Ref C, she was unequivocal that she would not support it today, that supporters did not spend the extra tax revenue as they promised (I wondered why anyone would have believed they would), and that Ref C has exacerbated Colorado’s current financial woes. Separately, she mentioned more than once that she is a strong supporter of TABOR. My sense, but that’s all it is, is that Norton may have had reservations about Ref C at the time it was being debated. And while some people might want to argue that if she did have those reservations she should have made them public at the time, that’s a much easier to say now, outside of her shoes. I don’t know if I’ll ever learn what really happened, what Mrs. Norton thought, did, or said at the time behind closed doors regarding the issue. But I do take her at her word that she believes it has been a failure, that she would not support it now, and that she supports TABOR.
The Ref C discussion led us to a broader topic of government spending, both in terms of size and legality. Mrs. Norton said that the two budgets she was in charge of when she worked for state government, namely the Health Department budget and the Lt. Governor’s budget, both ended her tenures smaller than when she began them. I find this to be both credible (since it’s easily verified) and important. Words are one thing, but that is a concrete action. Similarly, Norton told me a short story of canceling a program under the Health Department which “seemed like a nice idea” and wasn’t even that expensive but for which she could find no justification under the law. I asked her if she would bring the same approach to a federal job, i.e. judge government spending based on whether it is permissible under the Constitution, and she said “absolutely”. To emphasize that point, she noted that the word “education” is nowhere in the Constitution and that she has proposed eliminating the federal Department of Education. I wholly support that proposal, not just because the Dept. of Education is unconstitutional, but also because it is arguably one of the least effective parts of government on a per-dollar basis.
I asked Jane Norton what she thought of the Tea Party movement. She said that she thought it was perhaps the most exciting political development of her lifetime and that it is exactly what the country needs.
Was she saying what she thought what I wanted to hear?
Allow me to interject at this point, as maybe I should have noted at the beginning, that my views on issues are not exactly a well-kept secret and that a smart campaign staff would certainly have counseled Mrs. Norton on what I (or any other audience) would most likely want to hear. And of course I was well aware of that going in and thus, as I said before, perhaps overly sensitive looking for little clues that Norton might believe something different from what she was saying. But I found no such clues, I am pleased to say. She seemed entirely sincere in her description of what the Tea Party movement means to her. While I am not the human lie detector, Mrs. Norton’s answers throughout the conversation were, in terms of political philosophy and on the narrow range of issues on which we had a chance to deliberate, never ones which I would expect to turn off the average Tea Party activist or even the average rational-but-not-very-political Republican or Independent voter. Quite the opposite. I found her generally pro-liberty, pro-limited government, and consistent.
We touched briefly on gun rights (she’s strongly for them) and free trade (strongly for that as well.)
The couple of places where Mrs. Norton’s answers weren’t quite where I would have preferred – but still not disqualifyingly bad answers – were (1) when she said she supports “free and fair trade” (I hate the use of the word “fair” in that context since it almost always means something bad…but Norton was absolutely clear that she opposes tariffs), and (2) when she left more room than I do for the possibility of important human contribution to climate change (but she is staunchly against cap-and-trade or anything like it.)
Since the policy questions were uniformly getting answers which I thought were anywhere from good to great, and since my time with Mrs. Norton was limited, I moved on to questions of style, in particular – and I asked Mrs. Norton this in a very direct way – whether she’s too nice to kick some ass when kicking some ass is necessary. She assured me that she can and will be a fighter and not just a passive participant in the Senate and will be a consistently strong supporter of “Republican principles”. Not to put too fine a point on it, I said that I don’t want to even consider endorsing someone who might turn out to be “the next Olympia Snowe”. Norton said in no uncertain terms that that will never happen.
Finally (in terms of when I have remembered to mention it, not when we spoke about it), I bought up the issue of John McCain saying, much as I did about Olympia Snowe, that I don’t want to support “the next John McCain” either. Norton’s response was interesting. She said that she supported John McCain because she believed that our national security and the role of Commander-in-Chief was (and is) so critically important during this time of (semi-permanent) war, but that she thinks McCain was dead wrong on his immigration/amnesty position and his support of cap-and-trade. There’s no doubt that there are close connections among Jane Norton’s friends and family with John McCain, but my sense was that Norton will be more reliably conservative than McCain, at least if she acts based on her own principles rather than the influence of others. Still, it is absolutely valid to wonder just who will be Mrs. Norton’s biggest influences if and when she is actually seated in the United States Senate.
I did not get into social issues during this meeting, though I plan to at a later time. I think it’s safe to say that Jane Norton is not a libertarian like I am; she is certainly not pro-choice, likely not for drug legalization, etc. But nobody’s perfect and, to be frank, it’s hard for me to worry a lot about drug legalization while Democrats are destroying capitalism. I am not going to be one of those people who lets the best be the enemy of the good, much less of the excellent.
So, to repeat my early semi-conclusions based on my first meeting with Jane Norton, I think she’s tougher and more philosophically well-grounded than her nice (possibly too-nice) persona might make one think. I think it would serve her well to show that she can be aggressive while still being (mostly) nice and that she is a fighter because, at least from the point of view of this blogger/activist, this is no time for “just getting along”, no time for “bipartisanship” for its own sake, no time for anything but fighting to reclaim America for its citizens under the banner of respecting our Constitution.
Oh, I should mention that I was impressed by Norton’s mention of a few specific things within the context of the particular topic. For example, when we spoke about gun rights, she knew that the Heller case was called the Heller case. Again, it’s very hard to gauge someone from one brief meeting, but I am always glad to see politicians whose knowledge of major issues is not “a mile wide and an inch deep”. At the same time I understand that it’s very difficult for anyone to get a deep understanding of more than a small number of issues when that person is expected to be able to intelligently answer at least some questions about a huge range of issues.
All in all, my first meeting with Jane Norton was one which makes me believe she is a person I can probably come to support. I look forward to the opportunity to visit with her more, to reinforce (or, if it happens that way, reverse) that view. And I hope that Mrs. Norton will, on the campaign trail, raise the level at which she expresses her passion for her principles up to the high level at which it seems clear that she truly believes them. If she truly believes them, this will serve her well and serve the nation well. If she doesn’t believe them but was just saying what I wanted to hear (which I don’t believe to be the case but couldn’t objectively say is impossible), then she won’t be able to convincingly raise her rhetoric to the level required to inspire the awakening “silent majority” of Coloradoans who want truly inspired, principle-based, and goal-oriented leadership.
In short, my verdict on my first opportunity to meet Jane Norton: So far, so good.
Original Post: Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World - Category: Peoples Press Collective
Colorado HB 1193: stop this Internet sales tax
by Brian T. Schwartz | 11:22 pm, February 4, 2010 | No Comments
Contact your Colorado state senator about opposing this bill. From Vincent Carroll in the Denver Post:
HB 1193 requires out-of-state online retailers to collect sales tax from Colorado customers if those businesses have a relationship with a local “affiliate.” …
Democratic lawmakers are sleepwalking toward approval of a bill that could have …
