PPC Homepage

Colorado Top-Level Statewide Elections (Governor, Supreme Court) profiled at CFRW forum in Colorado Springs (Saturday)

by The Peripatetic Pundit | 5:56 pm, October 25, 2009 | 1 Comment

At this weekend’s Colorado Federation of Republican Women annual convention, Colorado’s “Leading Lights” – three candidates for Colorado governor, and one representative of the movement to restore accountability to the Colorado Supreme Court – presented their respective cases for “top of the ballot” statewide votes in the November 2010 elections (for Governor, and Supreme Court retention – or not).

The gubernatorial candidates drew lots to determine order of appearance.  Josh Penry, drawing 1st choice, elected to speak last; Scott McInnis, drawing 2nd, elected to speak first, leaving the middle slot to Evergreen businessman Dan Maes.

Scott McInnis opened his remarks with his signature line that “the three priorities of my campaign are jobs, jobs, jobs.”

He stated the importance of sending the message that “Colorado is open for business” – and criticized the Ritter administration for sending the opposite message, especially for the oil & gas industry that has so long been a cornerstone of the Colorado economy.  McInnis singled out Ritter’s new regulations on the oil and gas industry as “punitive” – not an example of “best practices” or common-sense controls (which he would support), but actively hostile to economic development and employment, particularly on Colorado’s Western Slope, among the hardest-hit areas in the state for unemployment.

McInnis highlighted Ritter’s regulatory excesses as well as an increased – and increasing – reliance on “fees” as an unconstitutional end-around to “balance the budget.”  He specifically criticized Ritter’s Auto Tax (the FASTER license “fee” increase), questioning whether it was “in accord with TABOR” before providing the self-evident answer “No” – referencing his personal experience of being stuck with $100 in “late fees” for an old camper.  McInnis noted that the Colorado Car Tax and other increased “fees” and taxes were “the result of a Democrat-stacked Colorado Supreme Court” – “something I’ll take care of” as governor.

McInnis also stressed the need for “party unity” several times in his speech – stating that “we must unify – early – behind a single candidate in order to defeat an incumbent governor.”  He stressed the difficulty in defeating an incumbent governor, based on the historical record (occurring only twice in living memory – both times, ironically, Republicans).

Another recurring McInnis theme was “experience” – stating that “we need leadership that’s been there, done that” and calling Bill Ritter “an experiment we decided to try in electing a governor without experience” and continuing to state that Ritter was “overqualified” for the job when he was elected – er, “underqualified” (he caught himself shortly after recognizing his misstatement, which garnered a laugh).

McInnis highlighted his “long record” as a Congressman and urged the audience to review his votes – specifically, “against taxes” and “100% pro-life” along with his experience with Congressional re-districting and reapportionment – “I’m the only one who’s gone through that” – as a particularly important issue with the upcoming census: “I know how we can get it done.”

Dan Maes, speaking second, made light of his “political outsider” status – joking that he’s “Dan who?” He introduced himself to the audience – “I’m not a lawyer or a lobbyist; I’m not a career politician – is that OK?” to laughter and applause, before stating that as a successful businessman, “I bring executive skills to the table – and the governor’s office is an executive position, demanding executive skills.”

Maes stressed his business experience (“I’ve turned around failing businesses – I’ll turn around the failed economic policies in Colorado”), negotiating skills (getting credit-reporting giant Equifax to agree to a policy change) and pragmatic approach to “create solutions” as well as his lack of vested constituents (“I’m someone who owes no one – and no one owes me”) along with being a “man of faith – who won’t yield on matters of principle”) as his qualifications for governor.

Maes highlighted Education (“I have kids in public schools”), Energy (“we need the energy industry back on its feet – Colorado should be #1 in natural gas production), and regulatory reform (specifically citing the recent ‘unconstitutional property tax increase’, the similarly ‘unconstitutional vehicle tax increase’ and Ritter’s regulations and policies “destroying the oil and gas industry”) as key policy areas.

He stressed the need for the governor’s office to “represent Colorado from a business standpoint” while noting that “Governors don’t create jobs – but can create a business environment that creates success.”  Maes called the 2010 elections in Colorado “a referendum on Bill Ritter” and his policies – and called for a resounding change for the better.

Josh Penry opened by recognizing “something profound in Colorado – a backlash against big government, a push back to restore limits to government” marking a very different political environment.  He said that despite real challenges, he sees an opportunity “to get Colorado moving in the right direction” with new leadership.

Continuing that theme, Penry stated that both parties – in Colorado and nationwide – have let people down.  He warned that the GOP must not “fall into the trap of being the party of ‘business as usual’ – it must own up to past mistakes, and make a clean break with the past.”

Penry asserted that Ritter “moved Colorado in the wrong direction” – increasing taxes and “fees” by over $1Billion, imposing excessively restrictive oil & gas industry regulations, and (unconstitutionally) repealing spending limits (putting Colorado onto a dangerous fiscal path, akin to California).  Penry also criticized Ritter’s acquiescence to legislative attempts to expand in-state tuition to illegals, and roll back the electoral college – initiatives he stated that he, as governor, would strongly oppose.

Penry consciously took a page from Reagan’s book, asking rhetorically “are we better off with Ritter?” He stated that before Ritter took office, Colorado was well off – with a budget surplus, a strong economy, and low unemployment.  Acknowledging national trends, Penry asserted that Ritter made a bad situation worse – with Colorado unemployment at a 65-year high, energy production in a tailspin, and a litany of new taxes and “fees” burdening all businesses and individuals in the state.

Penry repeated the old joke that “a recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose your job; a recovery is when Bill Ritter loses his job.”

Penry stated that “the tide is turning” – representing a strong opportunity for the GOP, IF it can describe and advocate principles that resonate with an aroused and attentive electorate.  Penry pledged to “restore fiscal accountability” with a “limited, focused, disciplined government.”  He called for government to “work better and smarter” by improving accountability and transparency, improving the budget process (to include a “rainy day” fund), consolidating agencies and the bureaucracy, raising school standards and increasing choice in education, and ending the unionization of public employees (he stated that he would rescind Ritter’s executive order “on the first day”).

Penry stated his vision for the governor’s job: echoing Dan Maes, to “create the environment for job creation and business incentives”; ensure that Colorado is a “low-tax” state; phase out the business personal property tax; invest in infrastructure “as revenue allows”; and promote an “all-of-the-above” energy policy, while “excusing” anti-drilling bureaucrats from power.

Penry closed by stating that “the road to recovery rests on principles; we need to provide a compelling case on how we would govern.”

The candidate presentations were followed by a Question and Answer session.  Questioners were drawn exclusively from the ranks of CFRW convention attendees, as the event (despite a report otherwise in the local media) was NOT intended to be fully open to the public, which caused a bit of a kerfluffle (members of the public who showed up WERE allowed to observe the event, but had no access to seating, a fact which caused several to leave the event in disappointment).

A number of questions raised “social conservative” issues of “gay marriage” and the “homosexual agenda”.  All three candidates confirmed their support for traditional marriage, but all three also emphasized that it was NOT a key issue in the campaign – instead, “it’s the economy.”  Penry stated that he’s “young, but old-fashioned” in defending marriage but “we must not fall into the trap of being the finger-wagging party.”  Maes stated that as a “man of faith” he would block further advances of the agenda, but “we need all hands on deck; I don’t care about gender, race, orientation, etc. – we need to keep the bedroom out of the picture.”  McInnis agreed that marriage is “between a man and woman” – but “our focus better not be on those kinds of issues”, rather should instead be on “getting jobs.”

One questioner – self-identified as a “3rd Vice-President” of CFRW – criticized the use of the terms “lawyer”, “lobbyist”, and “politician” and demanded a pledge to “not criticize rivals” and “deal only with issues” before haranguing Maes, stating “you haven’t any experience.”  Maes countered that his experience as an executive was in fact relevant to the executive office of governor, and stated that his opening remarks referencing the terms were reflecting the statements and perspectives of audiences “who don’t want business – and people – as usual.”  McInnis pledged no criticism of rivals, and stated that “public service is a very honorable profession.”  Penry agreed on the need to avoid name-calling, but emphasized the need for spirited debate – about the type of party, image, and direction the GOP should represent to voters.  He noted that “experience isn’t everything” – “there’s LOTS of experience in D.C. – some Senators with decades of experience – and look where it’s gotten us.”

Other questions addressed the power of unions, and the need to attract foreign investment.  Penry acknowledged an uphill battle for the GOP against an organized union ground game and unfriendly media (“no whining – it’s reality, deal with it”) and stated that just trying the same things, with the same people (mentioning McCain) against this reality is NOT working – that the GOP needs a strong message of conservative reform, advocating weighty topics and principles.  McInnis countered by saying “don’t throw McCain under the bus – he’s still a Senator, and has many accomplishments.” He criticized debates as “tackling the other guy” and destroying opponents, calling again for unity: “let’s come up as a party, and we can win.”  Regarding unions, McInnis stated that he would also immediately rescind the Ritter order unionizing public employees, but called for “keeping the labor peace” in the state that had existed prior to the order – we had a situation that worked.  Maes made it unanimous on rescinding the Ritter order, and stated that the key issue to dealing with unions was creating a good business environment – “they won’t need unions in a business that’s well-run.”  Regarding foreign investment,  McInnis stated that “promotion of Colorado is the key to economic well-being.” Maes stated the need to be proactive and reach out – the governor is “top salesman of the state” – while staying “an attractive place to do business” by protecting TABOR and maintaining low taxes. Penry agreed with Maes that high taxes and spending drives away business (citing California generally, and Frontier Airlines specifically) while adding the need for good infrastructure and a “well-trained workforce.”

 Following the gubernatorial candidates, Matt Arnold of Clear The Bench Colorado addressed the audience on the OTHER top-level statewide vote in 2010: retention elections for the Colorado Supreme Court.  Arnold reminded the audience that there is a 3rd branch of government, the judiciary – of equal importance and stature to the legislative and executive branches.  He noted that Colorado does not elect judges to the bench, and because of that fact, many – including the Mullarkey Majority on Colorado’s Supreme Court – have come to believe that they are unaccountable.  They are NOT, as he reminded the audience – even Supreme Court justices in Colorado must receive approval from the people in retention elections (for the Supreme Court, every 10 years) in order to stay in office.

“DON’T GIVE IT TO THEM“, Arnold exhorted.  The four justices due for a retention vote in 2010 – Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey – “do not deserve to be retained in office” due to repeated and blatant violations of their oath to support and defend the Constitution.  Arnold asserted that the Mullarkey Court’s unconstitutional rulings were too numerous to list in their entirety, but cited four “core” cases as more than sufficient justification for a “NO” vote.

First, the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case, which not only sanctioned a law resulting in an unconstitutional increase in property taxes.  Also buried in the ruling – which was briefed to the Joint Budget Committee on April 1st – was language effectively eliminating previous constitutional protections for a large list of several existing tax credits and exemptions.  It was literally hours after the ruling that a new tax proposal – which eventually became HB1342, the Tobacco Tax increase – was proposed.

Arnold joked that when he heard about the JBC brief the following day, he at first “thought it was an April Fool’s joke” before continuing that “the joke was on Colorado citizens – and the punchline is likely to be replayed, over and over, next session as the legislature attempts to “balance the budget” by eliminating existing tax credits and exemptions – targeting unpopular constituencies one by one to squeeze revenue wherever possible.

The second case Arnold cited was what he called the “November Surprise” – a ruling handed down on November 3rd 2008 (the day before national elections) with “far-reaching implications” because the case effectively eliminated the distinction between taxes and “fees” for the purpose of revenue collection – while maintaining the TABOR loophole allowing “fees” to be imposed without a vote of the people.  He noted that the “veritable explosion” of new fees – such as the Colorado Car Tax, the quadrupling of the marriage fee, proposed new “fees” on gun sales, etc. etc. – ALL derived from this ruling.

Arnold then “broke for a joke” in the middle of his presentation with a classic “good news, bad news” line:  “the good news”, he said, “is that the Colorado legislature will most likely not pass any new taxes next session.  The bad news?  They won’t have to – they’ll just call it a “fee”, a “freeze”, or eliminate an existing tax credit or exemption.  Unfortunately,” he concluded, “your wallet won’t be able to tell the difference.”

The 3rd case Arnold cited was the “Telluride Land Grab” – an example of eminent domain abuse in which the town of Telluride was able to seize property – outside its jurisdiction – and despite statute intended to rein in just such abuses, because the Mullarkey Majority simply stated that the laws “didn’t apply” to Telluride, as a “home rule municipality.  The result: ANY “home rule municipality” anywhere in the state can condemn and seize property anywhere, not bounded by location.  As Arnold said, if you’re a property owner – or even live anywhere in the state – “be afraid, be very afraid.”

The 4th and final case Arnold cited – highlighting its political importance in light of the upcoming census and subsequent redistricting – was the 2003 “Salazar v. Davidson” case in which the Colorado Supreme Court usurped the General Assembly’s constitutional authority to draw congressional districts – a situation that, Arnold asserted, would likely be repeated if the same justices remain in power.

Arnold concluded by stating that “we are witnessing a slow-motion coup d’etat” – a power grab – by the Mullarkey Majority of the Colorado Supreme Court, as it asserts its power to “be the ultimate decider on ALL political questions facing the state” while vastly exceeding its constitutional authority.  (Arnold also noted the decision earlier in the week by the Mullarkey Court to empower judges to decide on school funding levels – instead of elected legislators or school boards).  Arnold exhorted the audience to hold these “unjust justices” accountable by voting “NO” in retention elections in November 2010, and meanwhile to support Clear The Bench Colorado by spreading the word and contributing to the organization (or campaign, or “movement”, as he called it).

All in all, some very illuminating presentations by all of Colorado’s “leading lights” at the CFRW forum this last Saturday.

  • Share/Bookmark
Category: 2010, Colorado, Colorado Politics, Colorado Supreme Court, TABOR
Tags: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Comments

  1.   travis
      October 25th, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

    Wait…Scott McInnis actually showed up? Surely you must be mistaken.

Featured Posts

National Debt Clock

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!