Stimuluspalooza: One Year Later

by elpresidente | 12:44 pm, February 17, 2010

Michelle Malkin took a look back at the very start–before the first Tea Parties–when bloggers in cities like Seattle and Denver helped launch the organized protests that preceded but foreshadowed the Tea Party movement (and refute the ignorant or disingenuous claim that these protests were astroturf campaigns). Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds collected a great roundup of [...]

Ross on TV tonight — 8 PM on Denver’s KBDI Channel 12 (PBS)

by Rossputin | 12:22 pm, February 17, 2010

At 8 PM tonight (Wednesday, 2/17/10) I will be participating in a 4-person panel (including, among others, Amanda Teresi of Liberty on the Rocks) discussing the Tea Party movement on the “Studio 12” program on Denver’s Channel 12 KBDI (a PBS station.)

It’s a live broadcast and I expect the host, Tamara Banks, to take questions from callers. So if you’re so inspired please watch and consider calling.

The studio call-in number is (303) 296-1253

Jane Norton spends her money on great attack ad aimed at Obama

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:59 am, February 17, 2010

Why do you need a lot of money to run for the U.S. Senate or governor?
So you can seize an opportunity to run a terrific TV commercial that attacks President Obama when 

iVoices: Superintendent Mike Miles on Real Teacher Performance Pay in Harrison

by Eddie | 10:31 am, February 17, 2010

When it comes to changing the way teachers are paid, many people have heard of Denver’s ProComp. My Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow wrote an issue paper (PDF) about that performance pay plan and others in Colorado.
But clearly, as far as the extent of innovation goes, Denver has nothing on El Paso County’s Harrison [...]

Video: Karl Rove vs. Howard Dean Debate at CU Boulder

by T.L. James | 8:18 am, February 17, 2010

Here’s a few more pictures and a few minutes of video from Monday evening’s debate event with former Bush Administration political advisor Karl Rove and former Vermont governor and former Democrat Party chairman Howard Dean. As Michael noted in his post, we as press were only allowed to shoot photos and videos for the first [...]

Top 10 Reasons Why Both Parties Are in Tea Party Hot Water – #4

by Lu Busse | 7:30 am, February 17, 2010

This is Day 7 of a 10-part installment. 4.  Politicians think they are entitled to privileged class status.  It has come to the point that the gap between Mainstream Americans and the Political Class is bigger than the gap between Mainstream Republicans and Mainstream Democrats. We the People are going to make our elected and appointed officials, government employees, [...]

Starbucks Appreciation Day – Sunday Feb 21

by wesley | 6:32 am, February 17, 2010

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Self Defense, an organization vocally opposing your right to private firearm ownership, has been losing their battles to disarm law-abiding citizens in federal, state, and local elections. They lose with their ballot initiatives on election days. They lose with their cases in the court system. They lose in the [...]

Getting to know Ken Buck, Part 2

by Rossputin | 5:21 am, February 17, 2010

Following is the second of a two part write-up of my interview of US Senate hopeful Ken Buck. For Part 1, click HERE.

We turned the discussion to what issues Buck thinks are the biggest issues of the day, what he would most want to pursue immediately if elected to the Senate. His answers: Spending, energy, and regulation (including the tax code.)

While every Republican candidate in Colorado and across the nation probably names government spending as our single biggest problem today, Ken Buck had a subtly but importantly different approach. Namely, while he rightly decried the crushing debt burden that government spending is putting on future generations, he emphasized that federal government spending is the tool with which the federal government encroaches on our liberty and on the fundamental “small-r” republican nature of our nation. Whether it’s in education, roads, or any other area in which the federal government sends money to the states, that money allows DC bureaucrats and politicians from other states to effectively dictate policies to Colorado. Buck objects strongly to that (as do I) and it’s a point that far too few people make. Therefore, not just in the name of cost but also in the interest of restoring freedom, Buck supports cutting federal government spending, including eliminating of several federal government departments, especially Education and Commerce.  Buck made a specific point of saying that these departments should be phased out, noting ” do not think it is realistic to flip a switch.”

He also mentioned a couple of specific examples (and said he has dozens more) of his leading efforts in cooperation with a dozen or more agencies to change government procedures in order to save the taxpayers’ money. For example, he described the until-recent protocol for when a traffic ticket was issued by a Sheriff’s deputy in Weld County. Copies had to go to multiple agencies, including the Sheriff’s Department, the courts, the Department of Revenue, and the state DMV. At each place, the data was input, leading not only to expensive duplication of effort but also to multiplying the possibility of error. Buck implemented a system whereby the data is entered once and then shared, allowing the government to reduce its headcount (and thus the burden on taxpayers) substantially. Another project being spearheaded by Buck will allow the government to eliminate an entire night shift of DMV workers who do nothing but collate documents, most of which never get read or used by anyone.

When it came to energy, I found Ken Buck’s position to be partly on target and partly unrealistic. The on target aspect was his recognition that energy is to an extent a national security issue, with some of his emphasis on not wanting to buy oil from people who hate us. While I thought his focus on energy independence was unrealistic (we simply cannot produce enough oil to avoid having to import tremendous amounts even if we were allowed to go after every domestic resource, and we cannot convert enough of our domestic usage from oil to other sources to avoid this), Buck’s overall approach is sound: Let all forms of energy generation compete in the open market, including letting wind, solar, and other “green” energy sources see if they can justify their existence without government subsidies. And we should aggressively explore and develop domestic fossil fuel resources. I enjoyed Buck’s comment that he’d be happy to try to work with environmentalists to the extent possible “but I would prefer that they first apologize to the world for thirty years of blocking nuclear power.” Buck is a strong supporter of building nuclear power plants in the US and in developing “clean coal” technology.

In terms of the science, I was pleased that Mr. Buck does not believe that humans are an important cause of “climate change”. Given that view, I didn’t fully understand why he supports spending money on carbon sequestration (basically grabbing the CO2 from the smokestacks of power plants and pumping it underground for storage). I think he partly believes that other true pollutants will be stored with it, but in fact most of those are scrubbed out of power plant emissions already. And partly he thinks that we might as well reduce CO2 emissions if we can, a proposition I disagree with (with the possible exception of if there were a zero-cost way to do it) since it’s far from clear that CO2 has any impact on the planet other than enhancing plant growth. To be fair, Buck’s view is more mainstream than mine…at least for now…and as long as he doesn’t believe that humans have had a substantial impact on “global warming”, he passes my test in this area. While it probably doesn’t need to be said, Buck is strongly against “cap-and-trade” legislation.

In the area of regulation, Buck rattled off a list of agencies and regulations which he believes kill jobs, raise costs, and could better be handled either by state and local government or simply eliminated. He also made a specific point of including the tax code in his category of “regulation” and railed more than anything against its complexity. I asked if he is a supporter of either a flat tax or the “Fair” tax (a national sales tax). He said that he’s not married to any one solution: “I’ll vote for anything that makes the tax code simpler” as well as emphasizing that he wants the tax code to be changed in a way that makes it more difficult for politicians to politicize, to use to choose winners and losers among our citizens or businesses. Again, an important point which is not frequently enough mentioned.

We drifted back toward the topic of spending and Buck stopped me to make a point which was clearly important to him: that Republicans have a lot to answer for, that Republicans “have overspent as much as Democrats and have been as corrupt as Democrats.” Hallelujah.

Beyond the basic facts of Buck’s statement, it also springs from an interesting political tactic. It’s clear not just from my conversation with Ken Buck but from statements he’s made at public candidate events that he views his competition with Jane Norton as between a political outsider (him) and a political insider (Norton) – and that he wants the rest of us to view it the same way. And while Buck’s career has been almost entirely working for the government, he nevertheless comes from far enough outside the usual circles of power that he plainly believes he can run as someone untainted by Republican bad behavior of the last decade – and that he can implicitly or explicitly tie Mrs. Norton to one of the central focus points of Republican disaffection, John McCain.

I don’t know whether the tactic will work. As I said when I interviewed Jane Norton, she makes a reasonably convincing case that she is more solidly conservative than John McCain, specifically disagreeing with him on his signature issues of McCain-Feingold, amnesty for illegal aliens, and cap-and-trade. But Buck’s strategy is –and probably must be – to ask the GOP base whether they believe Norton enough to be willing to “take a chance” that she is a “solid conservative” while positioning himself as someone who has always “walked the walk” (a clear reference to Mrs. Norton’s public support of Referendum C.) As I said, I don’t know whether it will work – which is not to say that I think it will fail. I simply don’t have a prediction, nor would I want to make one at this time.

Although rumors abound of 527 money ready to enter the race on Ken Buck’s behalf, he is for now at a serious fund-raising disadvantage and knows that Mrs. Norton’s friends and family have huge financial resources. On the plus side for Buck, Massachusetts showed that anything is possible, although the situation was clearly different in terms of the whole nation having only one race to focus on at that time.

At this point, I think Ken Buck realizes that he’s an underdog, but he’s game for the competition and if his recent prosecutorial history is anything to go on, he’s not a man likely to give up on something he believes to be important. At the end of the day, much will depend on which candidate can motivate caucus and assembly participants. And much of that will depend on whether Buck’s tactic of portraying himself as “grassroots” versus Norton’s “grass tops” is credible with the GOP base.

It also remains to be seen whether “electability” comes into play when the party base chooses the nominee. On the one hand, Michael “Who?” Bennet’s poll numbers are so weak that any Republican has a strong chance of beating him. On the other hand, Bennet has at last report about $3.5 million on-hand and fund-raising remains his strength. Jane Norton has raised about $1 million since she entered the race, doubling what Mr. Buck has raised during a longer time as a candidate. So, the question is whether Mr. Buck could, if selected as the party’s candidate, raise enough money to beat Bennet. And Buck’s fund-raising ability going into the various GOP primary events will be the most-considered yardstick. Bennet is so weak that I think a Republican could win raising half as much money as Bennet does, but half as much will still probably be $4 million. Tea Party activists and other GOP caucus participants who currently seem to harbor doubts about Jane Norton will have to keep that in mind. To be clear, I am not suggesting which decision a caucus participant should make. I am just anticipating peoples’ thought processes.

To boil it down, we may see the party base asking whether they want the candidate who they prefer in terms of personality and whom they might trust slightly more as a reliable conservative over the candidate who is more likely to be able to raise enough money to win in the general election and who promises that (s)he is absolutely reliable. Again, I am NOT saying that Ken Buck won’t be able to raise the money. As I said before, Massachusetts showed that anything is possible and that a candidate can raise plenty of money outside the usual Republican insider circles. Finally, I would note that many Republican activists, including myself, seem willing to take a chance on “electability” if we believe that the seemingly more electable candidate is too likely to be the next John McCain (or worse.) At some point (and that point is now), ideas matter. Therefore, Ken Buck and Jane Norton (as well as the other candidates) will work to prove to the voters that they have the right ideas, that they’re not Johnnie (or Janie)-come-lately to conservatism, especially fiscal conservatism, and that they’re unlikely to be swayed toward “moderation” and “bipartisanship” once walking the halls of power.

In short, while Ken Buck and Jane Norton have a fair bit in common, they also have significant differences. While it’s not clear to me at this point who will be the eventual nominee, I think it comes down to this: Can Ken Buck raise enough money to get his message out? If not, he won’t win even if many people think he has the better message. If yes, it’s anybody’s game. And if it’s anybody’s game, it can only be good for the GOP and the cause of liberty to have a vibrant public debate on the issues of the day – particularly if Republican candidates can do it without unnecessarily shredding each other.

I left my meeting with Ken Buck impressed with a man driven by principle, informed by experience (even if he reaches a few different conclusions than I do) and, most importantly, with an obvious focus on liberty and limited government – especially federal government – as an end in itself.  It’s far too rare to hear even a Republican make the clear connection between federal government spending and lost liberty, and I applaud Ken Buck for making it.

DMYR February GENERAL MEETING, featuring Republican Caucus Preparation

by Brett Moore | 4:00 am, February 17, 2010

[ February 23, 2010; 5:30 am to 8:30 am. ] Join DMYR February 23rd for our February General Meeting. This month we are pleased to welcome Douglas County Republican Party activist, blogger, and friend of DMYR,  Crista Huff, to talk about the Republican Party Caucus Process. 

YOUR PRECINCT CAUCUS WILL BE HELD MARCH 16th!!!  Attending your precinct caucus with your friends and neighbors is the best way to get involved in Republican politics, [...]

FDA’s History Reveals Power Plays Produced No Health Benefits

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, February 17, 2010

So says a press release from the Independent Institute:
Oakland, CA, Feb. 10, 2010—The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has requested a $4.03 billion budget for FY2011, a 23 percent increase over last year. Prompted by the FDA’s vast reach and alarming budget, a new report delves into the organization’s history, finding that a series of [...]

Sens. Udall, Bennet Screw Responsible Credit Users

by Ari Armstrong | 12:21 am, February 17, 2010

Nearly a year ago I warned that the credit card controls championed by Senator Mark Udall (and subsequently by Senator Michael Bennet) would “punish the responsible” and “make it harder for responsible cardholders to negotiate good terms.”Well, today m…

Trusted Expert Dick Murphy Endorses J.J. Ament in Colorado Treasurer’s Race

by Ben DeGrow | 6:46 pm, February 16, 2010

Quick update from the state treasurer’s race. Dick Murphy — former Deputy State Treasurer and one of the most respected and expert conservative figures I know in the area of school finance (and public finance generally) — has come out vocally behind candidate J.J. Ament (official campaign release touting endorsement below the fold):

Centennial – Former [...]

Liberal State Rep. Speaks His Mind About Evil, Colorado-hating Businesses

by RMR | 6:22 pm, February 16, 2010

 Liberal State Rep. Jack Pommer (D), fresh on the heels of a meltdown last week in a house committee, has now gone "off message" once again. In a rare moment of honesty, Pommer says what he really thinks about businesses – they are all out to swindle hard-working Coloradans and flee the state.

When the proletariat rise up against the capitalist pigs you can bet that Jack Pommer will be right there, AK-47 and bowie knife in hand, leading the glorious charge.

Sen. Michael Bennet calls on Harry Reid to save the public option in health bill

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 5:56 pm, February 16, 2010

Colorado’s appointed senator, Democrat Michael Bennet, announced that despite huge public opposition to a government-run health insurance plan, he and three hard left other senators have sent a letter demanding that the so-called public option be included in any health deform bill put before the U.S. Senate. The other signers of the letter are Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sherrod Brown (D-OH and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Only four hard lefties signed the letter. The rest of the Democrats’ 59 senators have better sense and are less tone deaf than these four. Apparently, the letter was time so Bennet could boast about it at his debate tonight with Andrew Romanoff who is sure to approve. Bennet must be so sure that he’ll lose in November that he’s willing to bet his seat on this desperate, irrational move.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses Colorado Supreme Court role in enabling “Dirty Dozen” tax increase bills on Backbone Radio

by CTBC Director | 4:44 pm, February 16, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on Backbone Radio (710AM KNUS) Sunday evening at 6:30 to discuss the role of the Colorado Supreme Court in enabling the “Dirty Dozen” tax increase bills pending final approval in the Colorado Legislature.
ALL of these bills are seeking to exploit an apparent loophole ripped into the Colorado [...]

Fear and Loathing in Washington

by Eileen McGuire-Mahony | 1:30 pm, February 16, 2010

**Updated and promoted–ed. As some of you know, and as some of you do not, CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Committee) is happening this year (as it does every year) in Washington, D.C. (as it does every year). Your Washington Bureau Chief along with PPC’s roving special reporter (code name: J-Dubs), will be covering it [...]

Democrats In Colorado Vote No On Transparency

by Mr. Bob | 12:42 pm, February 16, 2010

#redco #tcot #unions #publicschools #teaparty

From Colorado Senate News.

Senate Democrats killed a bill that would have required school districts to put their check books online, bringing accountability and transparency to the public education sector.
The measure, Senate Bill 91, would have required public schools to maintain a readily accessible online database that would have outlined district spending. The bill also called for monthly updates and notification of budget changes.

SB 91 sponsor Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, said the measure would be most useful in helping balance the state’s budget. “Through transparency we can better identify waste and potential cost savings,” Harvey said. “As we prepare to cut K-12 in order to fill the state’s budget hole, I think a database like this would be extremely useful.”

SB 91 was killed on a party line vote in the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee today.

“What are Democrats afraid of? What are they trying to hide?” Harvey asked. “Can’t we agree that transparency is a good thing for taxpayer money, especially scarce resources meant to be educating our children?”

Harvey introduced an identical bill last session. It was approved by the upper chamber, but ultimately killed by union Democrats on the House Education Committee.

Union Teachers Fired in Rhode Island

by Mr. Bob | 12:31 pm, February 16, 2010

#union #socialism #ppc #redco #tcot #teaparty
It is time for the teacher’s unions to pay their dues.

Unionized Rhode Island Teachers Refuse To Work 25 Minutes More Per Day, So Town Fires All Of Them
Henry Blodget Feb. 15, 2010
Tags: Economy, U.S. Government, Jobs

A school superintendent in Rhode Island is trying to fix an abysmally bad school system.
Her plan calls for teachers at a local high school to work 25 minutes longer per day, each lunch with students once in a while, and help with tutoring. The teachers’ union has refused to accept these apparently onerous demands. Read the rest

If You Missed Randy DeHoff on 21st Century Learning, We Have Video for You

by Ben DeGrow | 12:08 pm, February 16, 2010

Last Thursday my Education Policy Center friends hosted an event on 21st Century Learning with Randy DeHoff from the Colorado State Board of Education. He discussed whether the idea of 21st Century Learning (and skills) is a valid one and how it will affect Colorado’s new standards and (coming soon) assessments. The informative presentation [...]

Karl Rove v. Howard Dean: PPC at the debate in Boulder Wrapup

by Julian Dunraven | 11:57 am, February 16, 2010

**Updated by elpresidente. Last night in Boulder, the University of Colorado hosted a debate between Karl Rove and Howard Dean. The People’s Press Collective attended as credentialed media–and was subject to the same “first 5 minutes only” rule for all the media stipulated by the speakers’ contract. The mood was fairly temperate given the subject [...]

Obama and left are sicking NYT, mainstream media on Tea Party, 9.12 activists

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:28 am, February 16, 2010

Tea Party and 9.12 groups are attracting people who fear what President Obama and his moveon.org extremists are trying to do to America. They are so energized that the left is reacting by sicking the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media on the Tea Party activists in an effort to demonize them as potentially violent and racist supporters of the militia nuts who scared them in the 1990s. The Times, the news weeklies and the broadcast networks have a problem, however. Their obvious and open bias against Republicans and conservatives and their support of the Obama administration have destroyed their credibility among thinking Americans. Thus, while the investigative report in the Times today tries to look balanced, everyone knows that it is part of the left’s efforts to discredit conservatives and tea parties and similar groups. Since the establishment reads the Times and the rest of the mainstream media will parrot it’s line, conservatives need to read the story so they understand what the left is trying to do. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity most likely will lead the counter attack on the Times’ efforts to demonize them. 

Ken Buck talks illegal immigration, hate crime laws, government spending

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 10:48 am, February 16, 2010

Ken Buck, Weld County’s district attorney and a candidate for the U.S. Senate, said in an interview with blogger Rossputin that he believes our borders should be secured against illegal immigrants and that it should be easier for legal, temporary workers to come into the country. He disagrees with former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo who wants to shut down all immigration. Buck also explains why he used hate crime laws to convict the murderer of a transgender male. I interviewed Buck on October 10, 2009. He’s a good interview, and I agree with most of his views.

Top 10 Reasons Why Both Parties Are in Tea Party Hot Water – #5

by Lu Busse | 7:30 am, February 16, 2010

This is Day 6 of a 10-part installment. 5.  Both Parties Have Strayed from American Economic Principles Whatever else you can say about the Tea Party, it is a uniquely American movement.  WE ARE AMERICANS!  Tea Partiers do want to be labelled Democrats, Republicans, North Americans, Progressives, Europeans, Socialists, South Americans, Communists, Asians, Africans or hyphenated anything – [...]

Getting to know Ken Buck, Part 1

by Rossputin | 5:16 am, February 16, 2010

Following is the first of a two part write-up of my interview of US Senate hopeful Ken Buck. For Part 2, click HERE.

Last Thursday (2/11/10), I had the opportunity to sit down with Ken Buck. Mr. Buck is the Weld County District Attorney and a candidate for the Republican nomination to replace Senatoflorr Michael “Who?” Bennet.

Ken Buck’s hardscrabble style is noticeably different from that of the first candidate I interviewed, Jane Norton. Whereas Mrs. Norton comes across as refined, Buck is more earthy. Norton more polished, Buck more directly confronting. On the surface, and probably below the surface as well, one can understand the occasional characterization of Ken Buck (not least by his supporters) as more “grass roots” versus Jane Norton’s “grass tops.”

Mr. Buck was understandably feeling good after an endorsement by Erick Erickson of the influential conservative web site RedState.com. (RedState is affiliated with Human Events, a magazine which I write for from time to time, but Mr. Erickson’s endorsement will not bias my eventual endorsement, if I make one.)

Like my interview with Jane Norton, I began by asking Ken Buck what motivates him. He answered that it is a combination of current political and personal events. Politically, he seems truly angered by the direction our government has gone in recent years (under both parties), in terms of spending as well as infringements upon liberty. Buck also noted that the politics of 2010 are likely to be far friendlier to a Republican than recent years have been and than future years might be. Combining that with the fact that he and his wife are now “empty-nesters”, Mr. Buck thinks it’s the right time for him to run for federal office. He noted that he had been asked to run for federal or state-wide office before and that he turned down those invitations in order to be around while his children grew up.

Before getting into broader policy topics, I asked Mr. Buck about two issues that people frequently associate with him because of high-profile cases he has prosecuted. Those issues are immigration and (less important to most people but interesting to me) “hate crimes” laws.

I asked Buck how he would respond to those who consider his immigration views to be…Buck helpfully interjected “Tom Tancredo lite?” to which I said “yes, exactly.” Buck had a two-part answer, much of which (like many of his answers) emanate directly from his experience as a prosecutor. He made the point that while he might agree with certain policy suggestions of Tancredo’s on immigration, he also disagrees with many, and his motivation is different. Whereas Buck sees Tancredo’s focus being on culture, Buck sees the real damage from illegal aliens coming in two main areas: Identity theft and the degradation of public (or at least publicly-available) services such as hospitals and schools.

A little background may be in order. Buck worked with Weld County Sheriff John Cooke in 2008 to implement Operation Number Games in which a “tax and translation” service in Greeley, Colorado was raided and many of its records seized on suspicion of conspiring with illegal aliens to commit identity theft. The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling (yet another reason to Clear the Bench in 2010), ruled the record seizures illegal and thus invalidated more than 100 arrests and more than 1,000 likely future cases based on a privacy right even though illegal aliens specifically are excluded from federal privacy rights laws.

Buck told another story of a woman from Texas who lost her home and had to move to a homeless shelter with her children when she was denied welfare benefits – because an illegal alien in Weld County had stolen her identity and used it to claim welfare benefits in Colorado.

Given the presence of the Swift meat packing plant in Greeley and the agricultural character of the area, Mr. Buck has more experience with identity theft than most of us will ever have – or ever want to have – and he says he’s seen firsthand the damage it does.

He also made the insightful point – which I’ve never heard anyone make before, but then I don’t spend a lot of time on this issue – that an unintended consequence of employers implementing E-Verify is an increase in identity theft. In the old days, an illegal could simply make up a name, date of birth, and Social Security number and it was unlikely that the data would ever be checked for consistency. Now, with employers able to verify online that a particular name goes with a particular DOB and SSN, illegals have to steal verifiable data, causing much more damage than made-up combinations of data ever would.

As far as the cultural issues, Buck believes that he sees Hispanic children slowly but surely assimilating and noted pithily that “Mexicans assimilate much better in the US and come here for far better reasons than do the Muslims who’ve moved to France.” But he nevertheless sees the tremendous pressures that illegal aliens put on hospitals and schools, noting the difference just from the more middle-class west side of Greeley to the more working-class and Hispanic east side. On the west side, the schools are better (or people send their kids to private schools) and when people need a hospital they often go to Loveland (where average incomes are higher and there are far fewer illegals.) Further east, in central Greeley, the hospital emergency room is a nightmare with, for example, a parent recently having to wait hours for a baby with a 106-degree temperature to be seen. (106 is extremely dangerous and I would have harmed someone if I had been forced to wait several hours with my child having that temperature.) And the schools (despite any assimilation) are overburdened, ineffective, and sometimes dangerous.

We didn’t get into very specific policy questions as to how to deal with the problem, but it’s safe to say that Mr. Buck is strongly for enforcing existing laws against illegal aliens getting into America and is particularly focused on identity theft.

On the other hand, Buck does not share Tom Tancredo’s desire to massively curb legal immigration. He believes that the demand for these workers is a natural function of any economy and that many or even most workers would consider themselves migrant rather immigrant, an important difference which I’ve written about but which I rarely hear Republicans have the courage to say. Buck therefore supports a robust migrant worker program which will let seasonal workers come work here legally (and without access to welfare or other government benefits) and then leave. I completely agree and I commend him for his view. I mentioned that I also support increasing the number of H-1B visas available for highly skilled foreign workers. Buck agreed, arguing “Wouldn’t we rather have IBM open a facility here to employ both American and foreign workers than let our visa policy force them to open the facility in Poland or India instead?” He noted that the H-1B issue is more of an economic issue than an immigration issue and that when people talk about immigration these days they generally mean illegal migration of low-skilled workers.

We moved on the subject of hate crimes laws, an area where I knew that we would disagree but one which I find interesting. Again, by way of background, Ken Buck’s office prosecuted gang member Allen Andrade for the murder of Angie Zapata, a transgender woman (whom many would have considered to still be a man). (Buck made charging decisions and supervised prosecution while the case was handled in court by his staff.) Andrade received sexual favors from Zapata for a couple of days and then murdered her (him?), saying in a recorded phone call from jail that he “hates gay things.” Buck convicted Andrade of a hate crime despite many people counseling him that a hate crime conviction would never happen in Weld County. Buck’s answer as to why he used the hate crime statute versus just trying the case as a murder was complex. (Again, even though this is probably a minor issue politically, I find it very interesting. If you wouldn’t take up page space with it, get your own blog.)

First, Buck pointed out that when the state legislature was debating whether to add sexual orientation to the list of protected groups in the hate crimes law, he lobbied against it. However, with the law as it stood when the Zapata murder happened, Buck found multiple reasons to prosecute the case as a hate crime, of which I will just mention two: First, he believed that if he tried the case as a “normal” murder, the defense would have argued a sudden “rage” defense; the hate crime law made that far more difficult. Second, and this gets into the bigger picture, he believes the crime was essentially a violent extension of an act against a group, much as “burning a cross on the lawn of the one black family in an otherwise all-white neighborhood would be.” Buck argued that while he would aggressively defend free speech, an act which he views as an extension of an assault (or worse) against members of a group because they are members of that group should properly be tried under hate crimes laws.

I disagree: while it may be unpopular to say, I think that messages, even hateful ones like the burning cross, are too close to free speech to be tossed out of that category and prosecuted beyond the damage that one act does to its one victim, i.e. vandalism, assault, or even murder. I also believe “hate crimes” laws plays into the left’s strategy of “victim group” politics and cements divisions within society. It strikes me as an obvious assault on 14^th Amendment guarantees of “equal protection of the laws.” Nevertheless, while Mr. Buck and I agreed to disagree on the issue, his view is clearly the product of years of reflection and not one to be discarded lightly.

In tomorrow’s second part of this write-up, we will cover my discussion with Mr. Buck of what he considers to be the most important issues of the day as well as some nuts-and-bolts political analysis.

Virginia & Tennessee move to block mandatory insurance

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, February 16, 2010

See the following posts at StateHouseCall.org: Health Care Freedom in Virginia by James Lansberry and Freedom of Health Care Act Advances in Tennessee by John LaPlante.  In Virginia both the House and Senate have passed the bill. In Tennessee the [...]

Happy Birthday President Lincoln!

by right witch | 12:22 am, February 16, 2010

In celebration of President Lincoln’s birthday, esteemed author, Dr. Thomas Krannawitter visited Colorado University to engage and delight both students and community leaders with a discussion on his most recent book, Vindicating Lincoln. CU Regent, Tom Lucero introduced Dr. Krannawitter and discussed the importance of the Center for Western Civilization at the University of Colorado.  [...]

RTD’s “FasTracks” on the wrong track

by Brian T. Schwartz | 8:22 pm, February 15, 2010

The Daily Camera (Boulder) asked its Editorial Advisory Board members their views of different sales tax schemes for funding RTD’s “FasTracks.” My reply was published on Saturday, February 13:

Adaptable commuter transit routes, reducing traffic congestion with demand-sensitive road pricing, and minimizing both free-riders and forced funding. These goals should guide …

RTD’s “FasTracks” on the wrong track

by Brian T. Schwartz | 8:10 pm, February 15, 2010

The Daily Camera (Boulder) asked its Editorial Advisory Board members their views of different sales tax schemes for funding RTD’s “FasTracks.” My reply was published on Saturday, February 13:
Adaptable commuter transit routes, reducing traffic congestion with demand-sensitive road pricing, and minimizing both free-riders and forced funding. These goals should guide transportation policy. Taxing everyone to [...]

Colorado Supreme Court justices face a tough vote in upcoming statewide retention elections this November

by CTBC Director | 4:11 pm, February 15, 2010

It’s taken a while, but the Denver Post has started to take notice of those other statewide elections (the four MOST important votes Colorado citizens can cast in this very important election year).  Appearing above-the-fold on the front page (print edition) and top news story (online edition), the article (”Four Colorado Supreme Court justices face [...]

Online poll finds conservatives think Jane Norton is stronger candidate 41.5% to 35%; they like Buck

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 2:22 pm, February 15, 2010

The 400 mostly conservative respondents to Ben DeGrow’s February survey think the strongest GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate is Jane Norton, 41.5% to 35.3% for Ken Buck. But they prefer Buck 41.7% to 27.4%. Online surveys like this one, can’t tell you much because some of the candidates recruit supporters to vote in the poll and distort it. Yet, it’s interesting to see that the political junkies who like Buck think Norton’s the stronger candidate. Last month’s poll showed similar results with voters liking one candidate and thinking another would be stronger. More below the jump:

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers