Massachusetts Choosing Federal Money Over Student Performance?

by PerlStalker | 4:50 pm, July 18, 2010

The choice whether or not to adopt the Federal government’s “Common Core” education standards has become a choice between money and student performance for the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Massachusetts has applied for a…

The Obama bumper sticker removal kit

by Kelly Maher | 3:03 pm, July 18, 2010

There are brave folks willing to face the uncomfortable truth that they made a mistake voting for Barack Obama as president in 2008. If you are among the enlightened and need to take immediate action, this video from American Tees is for you. And, please, remember in November.

Durango Herald won’t endorse Scott McInnis or Dan Maes

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 12:24 pm, July 18, 2010

In an editorial today, The Durango Herald said it won’t endorse Scott McInnis or Dan Maes. It advises voters to hold their mail ballots as long as possible to give McInnis a chance to explain himself. You can’t defend bad character or 

BS Removal Kit

by Rossputin | 11:29 am, July 18, 2010

The ad for the BS Removal kit is making its way around the (conservative) blogosphere quite quickly, but just in case you haven’t seen it…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=201pgTaEseQ

Denver Post endorses Jane Norton, Michael Bennet

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:08 am, July 18, 2010

Since the demise of the Rocky Mountain News, the editorial pages of the liberal Denver Post have become more centrist and less hard core progressive and liberal. Therefore, 

Do not let Scott McInnis ‘bounce back’

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:47 am, July 18, 2010

The political experts who think Scott McInnis can recover from his integrity and plagiarism scandal and beat Obama Democrat John Hicklenlooper are ignoring the polls, the anger of Colorado voters and the power of the press and conservative bloggers. McInnis is done, and I and many others will work to make sure that he stays done. He is a terrible candidate, and he is unfit to serve Colorado.
This morning’s 

Brian Riedl debunks the myths surrounding the Bush tax cuts

by Rossputin | 5:19 am, July 18, 2010

Over at the Wall Street Journal, research fellow Brian Riedl has written a very important article, valuable intellectual ammunition for conservatives, explaining why Democrat complaints about the Bush tax cuts having caused our nation’s fiscal problems are all wrong.  It’s a must-read for those interested in these sorts of issues.

See “The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth“, Brian Riedl, WSJ.com, 7/13/10

Full text below…

President Obama and congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this “tax cuts caused the deficits” narrative. Consider the three most persistent myths:

• The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade’s budget surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the tax cuts for having “taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see.” That $5.6 trillion surplus never existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked) would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.

The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing? I’ve analyzed CBO’s 28 subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001. These updates reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and that is according to a “static” analysis, excluding any revenues recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).

The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%), other new spending (32%), net interest on the debt (12%), the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.

• The next decade’s deficits are the result of the previous administration’s profligacy. Mr. Obama asserted in his January State of the Union Address that by the time he took office, “we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

In short, it’s all President Bush’s fault. But Mr. Obama’s assertion fails on three grounds.

First, the wars, tax cuts and the prescription drug program were implemented in the early 2000s, yet by 2007 the deficit stood at only $161 billion. How could these stable policies have suddenly caused trillion-dollar deficits beginning in 2009? (Obviously what happened was collapsing revenues from the recession along with stimulus spending.)

Second, the president’s $8 trillion figure minimizes the problem. Recent CBO data indicate a 10-year baseline deficit closer to $13 trillion if Washington maintains today’s tax-and-spend policies—whereby discretionary spending grows with the economy, war spending winds down, ObamaCare is implemented, and Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, and the Medicare “doc fix” (i.e., no reimbursement cuts).

Under this realistic baseline, the 10-year cost of extending the Bush tax cuts ($3.2 trillion), the Medicare drug entitlement ($1 trillion), and Iraq and Afghanistan spending ($515 billion) add up to $4.7 trillion. That’s approximately one-third of the $13 trillion in baseline deficits—far from the majority the president claims.

Third and most importantly, the White House methodology is arbitrary. With Washington set to tax $33 trillion and spend $46 trillion over the next decade, how does one determine which policies “caused” the $13 trillion deficit? Mr. Obama could have just as easily singled out Social Security ($9.2 trillion over 10 years), antipoverty programs ($7 trillion), other Medicare spending ($5.4 trillion), net interest on the debt ($6.1 trillion), or nondefense discretionary spending ($7.5 trillion).

There’s no legitimate reason to single out the $4.7 trillion in tax cuts, war funding and the Medicare drug entitlement. A better methodology would focus on which programs are expanding and pushing the next decade’s deficit up.

• Declining revenues are driving future deficits. The fact is that rapidly increasing spending will cause 100% of rising long-term deficits. Over the past 50 years, tax revenues have deviated little from their 18% of gross domestic product (GDP) average. Despite a temporary recession-induced dip, CBO projects that even if all Bush tax cuts are extended and the AMT is patched, tax revenues will rebound to 18.2% of GDP by 2020—slightly above the historical average. They will continue growing afterwards.

Spending—which has averaged 20.3% of GDP over the past 50 years—won’t remain as stable. Using the budget baseline deficit of $13 trillion for the next decade as described above, CBO figures show spending surging to a peacetime record 26.5% of GDP by 2020 and also rising steeply thereafter.

Putting this together, the budget deficit, historically 2.3% of GDP, is projected to leap to 8.3% of GDP by 2020 under current policies. This will result from Washington taxing at 0.2% of GDP above the historical average but spending 6.2% above its historical average.

Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.

7th Congressional District Primary Enters Final Stretch

by elpresidente | 12:45 am, July 18, 2010

**Update from Sias campaign spokesman Sean Walsh:”We’re hard-charging into the homestretch–Lang is energetic and upbeat . . . the momentum shift that started two months ago continues – Lang handily won the only straw poll held May 17; he came with…

23 of Dan Maes’ contributors demand he open his books,  release tax returns or give their money back

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:35 pm, July 17, 2010

A small group of 23 contributors to Republican gubernatorial candidate, Dan Maes, has hand delivered a letter to him that demands that he open his campaign books and travel logs and release his tax returns, according to an exclusive report in Complete Colorado. If he doesn’t comply with 

End Boulder’s unnatural monopoly in electricity & natural gas service

by Brian T. Schwartz | 9:59 pm, July 17, 2010

Governments should not grant monopolies, but the Boulder City Council would by renewing Xcel’s franchise. Xcel would remain “the community’s sole provider for electrical and natural gas service,” says the City’s website. Xcel should do business without government protection from competition.  Competitors should be free to contract with land owners to run wire and gas [...]

CompleteColorado.com on KBDI

by completecolorado | 6:02 pm, July 17, 2010

Yours truly on the latest edition of “Studio 12,” KBDI.

Watch the full episode. See more Studio 12.
Please keep in mind this was live-to-air on Wednesday night, and so it was about an hour BEFORE Ch. 7 broke their interview with Rollie Fischer.
I’d also like to say what a great panel this was.  Tamara Banks, obviously [...]

Buck Responds to Norton Ad: "She Has Questioned My Manhood"

by elpresidente | 5:00 pm, July 17, 2010

“You’d think Ken would be man enough to do it himself”–Jane Norton, from her new TV ad”Why should you vote for me? Because I do not wear high heels. She has questioned my manhood, I think it’s fair to respond”–Ken Buck, referencing the Norton adJane …

Dan Maes for Governor!

by Al Maurer | 1:46 pm, July 17, 2010

I am pleased to have Don Rodger’s permission to post a slightly edited version of what he wrote in support of Dan Maes as the GOP gubernatorial candidate. I’ll have something to say on this topic as well, but Don says it very well indeed: Rasmussen has Hickenlooper and Maes within 2%, hardly “tanking”  in [...]

Scott McInnis Syndrome is like the Barack Obama Syndrome and Richard Nixon Syndrome

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 1:02 pm, July 17, 2010

Scott McInnis is getting a lot of support on his FaceBook threads from his friends.
I replied on the thread: 

Bruce Benson for governor with Bob Schaffer or Josh Penry for heir apparent

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:16 am, July 17, 2010

After I wrote that the GOP should pick Bruce Benson to run against John Hickenlooper for governor, I received negative feedback that he would be unacceptable to the social conservatives who control the Colorado GOP. Also, he backed the Ref. C tax increase ballot initiative in 2005, they complain. Also, he wasn’t great on the stump when he ran for governor in 1994.
To me, Benson is 

Josh Penry, Bob Schaffer and Mike May comment on Scott McInnis, Dan Maes

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 10:38 am, July 17, 2010

The Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby reports on what Josh Penry, Bob Schaffer and Mike May are thinking about GOP gubernatorial candidates Scott McInnis and Dan Maes and their imploding campaigns.
Impact graphs from Penry, who dropped out of the gubernatorial race last fall, supports McInnis and may be a candidate again if the winner of the Aug. 10 GOP primary drops out:
“Scott has been a friend, a boss and a competitor,” Penry wrote in an e-mail to The Daily Sentinel. “He’s done a lot for the state, but he’s committed a very serious error that’s significantly weakened his candidacy. And let’s call an ace an ace: Dan Maes’ misuse of his campaign funds was probably an even worse offense.”
Penry, who is managing Jane Norton’s bid for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate against Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, said conservatives need to win the governor’s mansion.
Penry, who once worked for McInnis and even briefly ran against him for governor before dropping out last fall, has been named as a possible replacement in the governor’s race should McInnis or Maes drop out after the Aug. 10 primary.
“When people ask me what Scott should do, what Dan’s going to do, or what I’m going to do, here’s my answer: Conservatives need to win the governor’s race,” he wrote. “How we accomplish that objective at this point is more than a little unclear. The best thing to do now is to let the dust settle.”
Penry is the former minority leader in the Colorado state senate. Schaffer is a former member of the U.S. House and candidate for the U.S. Senate. May is the minority leader in the Colorado House of Representatives.
LINK: 
‘Let dust settle,’ says Penry of McInnis error. By Charles Ashby.

Why would anyone agree to run for lieutenant governor with Scott McInnis, Dan Maes?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:58 am, July 17, 2010

Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, the candidates for the GOP’s nomination for governor, must be feeling lonely and abandoned.
They probably will feel more ostracized every day they stay in the race for governor.
Yesterday’s three lousy flash polls show they’e quickly losing support. 
That means few will contribute to their campaigns or volunteer to work on them. Already, three staffers have quit the McInnis campaign.
It will get worse if McInnis and Maes resist calls to drop out of the governor’s race.
For example, who in their right minds would want to run for lieutenant governor with either McInnis or Maes? To do so would condone McInnis’ behavior and endorse their imploding campaigns. It would instantly make anyone who ran with one of them guilty by association. And that would not only end their political careers. It also would make them suspect in the eyes of current and prospective employers, business partners and clients.

Will 3 ex Scott McInnis staffers go back to Tom Tancredo, Josh Penry?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:09 am, July 17, 2010

Three Scott McInnis staffers who quit his campaign Friday formerly worked for U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, and two also worked for former gubernatorial candidate Josh Penry when he was the minority leader in the state senate.
Tancredo already is talking about replacing McInnis as the GOP’s candidate for governor, if he has to. And many Republicans who cheered when Penry stepped asside in favor of his old boss, McInnis, now wish he was still in the race and want him to replace McInnis. For this to happen, McInnis would have to beat Dan Maes in the Aug. 10 primary and then step down.
McInnis’ brand has been destroyed by his plagiarism scandal, his misstatements during the campaign and his handling of his political problems. He is under pressure to exit the governor’s race because no one thinks he can beat Obama Democrat John Hickenlooper.
The question, then is, will the three ex-McInnis staffers join a Tancredo or Penry campaign if either man decides to run? While Tancredo is hinting that he’s ready to go, Penry is Jane Norton’s campaign manager and appears to be trying to show respect for McInnis until he quits, if he does.
Meanwhile, the departure of the three staffers doesn’t look good for McInnis. As Eric Sonderman told the Denver Post, it probably means that they’ve lost confidence in McInnis and his ability to stay in the race and win. There are no indications that the campaign fired them or laid them off.
My question is what were they doing on the campaign? From all appearances, they had little input into the campaign because McInnis seemed to be running things, making his own policy decisions and plotting his own political strategy. He never seemed to be much of a student of poiicy or political strategy. He’s just a street smart guy who follows his intuition. I could be wrong, but that’s the way it looks to me.
Karren E. Crummy, the reporter who broke the plagiarism scandal story on Tuesday, July 13, and has been writing many of the powerful followup stories published this week in the Post, writes in today’s paper:
The departing staffers — policy director Mac Zimmerman, political director Dustin Zvonek and regional director T.Q. Houlton — were all staffers of former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, who garnered the most support for governor among registered Republican voters in a Denver Post poll released Friday. Zimmerman was also the chief of staff for former state Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, and Zvonek worked for Penry as a policy analyst.
“It was a difficult decision,” Zimmerman said of leaving McInnis. “I’ve known Scott for 12 years. He gave me my first job in the business.”
Don’t be surprised if more McInnis staffers quit the campaign before McInnis does. Some will hang on because they believe in McInnis, and they need “jobs, jobs and jobs.”
LINKs:
3 quit McInnis campaign staff. By Karen E. Crummy.
McInnis’ articles for foundation lift ideas, words from 20-year-old essay. By Karen E. Crummy.
3 key staffers for McInnis campaign quit. By Lori Obert.

Backbone Radio, July 18, 2010: So much for a post-racial presidency; What’s wrong with the Colorado GOP?

by Rossputin | 5:28 am, July 17, 2010

So much for a post-racial presidency; What’s wrong with the Colorado GOP?

From Ross Kaminsky: Race is re-emerging as an issue in America with a disturbingly Orwellian twist. The Obama Administration dropped a slam-dunk case against members of the New Black Panther Party who were standing in front of a Philadelphia polling station in 2008 brandishing nightsticks.

During the 5 PM hour of Backbone Radio this Sunday, we’ll discuss this case and other racist behavior within the Obama Justice Department with whistleblower and former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams who said of the case “it’s the easiest case I ever had at the Justice Department…if this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will… We were ordered to dismiss the case.”

According to Mr. Adams, this was not a one-time thing. It was part of a pattern, a policy, of refusal to enforce any law when such enforcement may reduce the number of minority voters. More specifically, Adams says that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes told DOJ staff to avoid voter intimidation cases: “What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”

We’ll also talk about the Kinston, NC case, which is one which bothers me at least as much as the Black Panthers case. In that case, the DOJ essentially said that black people are too stupid to know who to vote for if the candidates aren’t labeled with their political party affiliation. It was one of the most paternalistic, racist rulings I’ve seen from the US government during my lifetime.

It’s also interesting to note that just in the past week, Jessie Jackson sad that Cleveland Cavaliers owner, Dan Gilbert , views LeBron James as a “runaway slave”. And the NAACP passed a resolution condemning the Tea Party movement as racist – based on a claim that a black congressman was spat upon and insulted during the Democrat’s passage of Obamacare, a claim that nobody has ever been able to substantiate despite there being hundreds of people with cell phones and cameras surrounding the purported event. And the NAACP went ahead despite an ABC poll in which even that liberal organization says that data show that “Ultimately, a statistical analysis indicates that the strongest predictors of supporting the Tea Party are views of Obama, ideology, partisanship and anger at the way the government is operating. Views on the extent of racism as a problem, and views on Obama’s efforts on behalf of African-Americans, are not significant predictors of support for the Tea Party movement.”

Oh, and Barack Obama is parroting statements by would-be al Qaeda terrorists and excoriating al Qaeda for being a racist organization.  No, I’m not kidding.

It should be a fascinating conversation and we’d enjoy your questions or comments.

During the second half of the show, I’ll be joined by controversial former Congressman Tom Tancredo who stirred up a little hornet’s nest last week at a fund-raiser for Ken Buck by saying that Barack Obama represents the greatest threat to America.

Buck backed away from Tancredo’s words, saying (at first) that there are many threats to America and that he respects Barack Obama as president. Jane Norton jumped in on Tancredo’s side, saying there was some truth to Tancredo’s statement, a position which Buck then also took a couple of days later while saying that the larger progressive movement was really the greatest threat.

Do you think Tom Tancredo is right? Is Barack Obama the greatest threat to America today? And what do you think of Ken Buck’s response? Is he right? Is he just playing to the middle, already anticipating a primary election victory?

We’ll discuss much more state and national politics with Congressman Tancredo, including his take on the extremely messy situation in the Colorado Republican primary race to challenge John Hickenlooper for the governorship. Are the issues swirling around Scott McInnis’ “Musings on water” a fatal blow to his candidacy, or is McInnis right that voters really just care about jobs right now? What should Republicans do? What should the GOP establishment do?

And speaking of the GOP establishment, how angry should the rank and file be about the puppet masters who seem to have shoved aside Josh Penry and saddled us with a candidate as uninspiring (to put it politely) as Scott McInnis?

I don’t know about you, but I wonder if Tom Tancredo sees or wants a path for him to become a candidate for governor…perhaps we’ll ask him.

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

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

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

 

Hasan family speaks out

by Rossputin | 7:56 pm, July 16, 2010

In an interview on KHOW’s Caplis & Silverman show, Dr. Aliya Hasan, brother of Ali Hasan and Board member of the Hasan Family Foundation, offered tremendous insight into the Foundation’s agreement with Scott McInnis.

Dr. Hasan was as pleasant and forthright as a person could have been in her position, making clear repeatedly that neither she nor her family felt ill will toward McInnis.

Nevertheless, the simple facts of what she said make McInnis look even worse than he did before, something I didn’t think was possible.

In particular, as readers of these pages know, I was wondering just what the Hasan family thought they were buying for $300,000 (over two years), because papers about water, even if not plagiarized couldn’t be worth that much money.

To the extent that I had suspicions about politically motivated overpayment for a small service, i.e. to pay for some prior or future “favor”, those concerns were put to rest by Dr. Hasan.

She said that the reason McInnis was paid so much was essentially that they thought they were hiring him for a full-time job and had to offer a salary that could compete with his other options at the time that he left Congress.

In particular, Seeme Hassan, mother of Aliya and Ali, believed (and presumably still believes) that understanding water issues, not least interstate water issues, are extremely important to the long-term success of Colorado and are very poorly understood.

Therefore she, through the Foundation, signed up McInnis for a “fellowship” for $150,000 a year which was supposed to include not just writing papers, but also getting the issue into the media, giving talks, and generally doing whatever he could to educate Coloradoans on the issue of water, water rights, water law, etc.

Shortly after taking the fellowship, McInnis then signed up for a full-time job  as a partner with law firm Hogan and Hartson (now Hogan Lovells).  McInnis told the Hasans that the quality of his work would not suffer from having this new commitment, but clearly it did, as can be seen not only from the plagiarized papers but also from the fact that, according to Dr. Hasan, he did none of the other things he was being paid to do.

The Foundation basically just shrugged their shoulders and didn’t renew his fellowship after the second year, much nicer to McInnis than I would have been in the same situation.  It seems clear from listening to Aliya Hasan that the Hasan family’s motivation here is in no way sinister, underhanded, or politically motivated and to the extent that I wondered aloud if it might have been, I apologize to the Hasan family.  (I have met most of the family and found them interesting, intelligent, and genial…and committed to fundamental American principles.)

Dr. Hasan noted that her family only learned about the plagiarism from the same media reports from which everyone else (except the people who discovered the plagiarism) learned about it.

The Foundation has demanded its money back, so they can put it to better charitable and/or educational use elsewhere.  McInnis has said he would repay the money. Dr. Hasan said, while not trying to sound confrontational, that if McInnis did not make good on his promise to repay the money the Foundation would pursue legal remedies against him, i.e. sue him.  She also said that they were more than willing to “work with” McInnis on a repayment schedule.

All in all, Aliya Hasan explained her family’s position and the history of the relationship in a way that fills in many pieces of the puzzle, and did it in much better cheer than I probably would have in the same situation. I applaud her for the excellent interview, especially given that she was, by her own admission, a little nervous being on the radio talking about something so controversial and so outside her normal daily interests.  By coming on the air, she did Coloradoans a service. We know more than we did before.

Unfortunately for Scott McInnis, the more we know, the less tolerable it is for him to remain a candidate.

Really, imagine a guy being elected governor who has to make debt payments every month to reimburse a Foundation he essentially defrauded.  No way, no how.

In short, McInnis took the Foundation’s money for a full-time job and then took another job and kept taking the money.

Scott, please get out now.  You can’t win. And I’m not just saying that because of the new Rasmussen poll which now shows you two points behind John Hickenlooper, a 7-point drop in a month.

I note in the poll that Maes is also behind Hickenlooper…something which leads to further discussion about what the GOP should do now, if it has any real options at all.  But that’s a topic for another day.

Catch Jane Norton on Devil’s Advocate Tonight

by Mike Krause | 2:41 pm, July 16, 2010

The lineup for tonight’s (Friday, July 16) Devil’s Advocate w/Jon Caldara has changed. Instead of Reason Magazine Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie as previously posted, tune in for a one-on-one conversation between Independence Institute president Jon Caldara and U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton. That’s tonight at 8:30 PM, right after Colorado Inside Out, on Colorado [...]

Three polls show Scott McInnis is losing up to 64% of his previous supporters

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 2:13 pm, July 16, 2010

Three polls released today show that in only three or four days Scott McInnis has lost 20% to 64% of his previous supporters depending on how the questions were asked because of his plagiarism and ethics scandal. The Denver Post broke McInnis’ plagiarism scandal Tuesday.
These poll results probably will freeze McInnis’ fundraising, and if nothing else does, that could force him to drop out of the governor’s race.
The Denver Post found that 64% of registered Republicans—not necessarily likely voters—who supported McInnis prior to learning about the plagiarism scandal no longer support him when he is matched against other candidates. This is a tremendous blow against McInnis even though in response to a more general question that didn’t name alternative candidates, 20% of his backers said they no longer support him and 39% said they still back him, the Post announced on its web site. Of registered Republicans, nearly half said McInnis should stay in the race and 37% said he should drop out, the Post said.
In addition to the Post’s poll, Rasmussen Reports announced poll results that show Obama Democrat John Hickenlooper is leading McInnis for the first time 45% to 43%. Rasmussen’s poll of likely voters found that 35% of them think McInnis should quit the governor’s race and 36% don’t.
And fellow Rocky Mountain Alliance blogger Ben DeGrow announced that a poll he has conducted on his blog shows that 59% of the mostly conservative participants in his poll think McInnis should quit the governor’s race. DeGrow also announced that he can’t support McInnis or his opponent, Dan Maes, in the Aug. 10 GOP primary.
When the Post asked registered Republican voters who would be the party’s strongest candidate against John Hickenlooper, the responses were:
Tom Tancredo 29%
Scott McInnis 19%
Dan Maes 13%
Jane Norton 11%
Josh Penry 7%
Bruce Benson 3%.
Not sure 17%.
The Post, Fort Collins Coloradoan and Grand Junction Sentinel have joined talk show host Dan Caplis and several conservative bloggers, including me, in calling for McInnis to drop out of the race.
McInnis says he won’t drop out of the governor’s race, but the results of the three polls taken since Tuesday and published today may force him to change his mind.

Republicans lose support; John Hickenlooper 45% v. Scott McInnis 43%

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 1:42 pm, July 16, 2010

While likely voters in Colorado are divided 35% yes to 36% no over whether Scott McInnis should drop out of the governor’s race, only a third of likely voters have been following McInnis plagiarism scandal closely, according to a new poll by Rasmussen Reports. The Denver Post broke the scandal Tuesday, only a few days before the survey was conducted.
This shows that Colorado’s voters still are evaluating McInnis’ plagiarism and integrity and the growing concerns about whether Dan Maes is fit to be governor. As more voters tune into the story, McInnis and Maes are likely to lose even more support. The Denver Post, Grand Junction Sentinel, Fort Collins Coloradan, Dan Caplis and several bloggers are calling on McInnis to drop out of the race. Several also want Maes to drop out, Including the Post, which says he’s unfit to be governor.
Already, McInnis and Maes are down in the new Rasmussen Reports poll from a month ago. And their very unfavorable ratings are up from a month ago, signalling that the trends in polling aren’t the friends of McInnis nor Maes.
Rasmussen found in a survey this week of 750 likely voters that John Hickenlooper leads McInnis 45% to 43% and Maes 46% to 43%.
Other key findings by the highly regarded Rasmussen Reports:
Another potentially troubling sign for McInnis is that just nine percent (9%) of voters now have a Very Favorable opinion of him. That figure is down seven points from a month ago. At the same time, his negative ratings are rising. His Very Unfavorables are now at 24%, an increase of 10 points over the past month.
Hickenlooper, the Democratic candidate, is viewed Very Favorably by 28% of the state’s voters and Very Unfavorably by 22%.
At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Voters are evenly divided at this point over whether McInnis should quit the gubernatorial race: 35% say yes, and 36% say no. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not sure. But only one-in-three voters say they are following the plagiarism story Very Closely so far.
Among voters who are closely following the story, 54% say McInnis should quit the race.
The relatively small number of people following the story at this time suggests that the impact could grow unless McInnis is able to address it positively in some manner.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats think McInnis should drop out of the race, but 52% of Republicans disagree. Unaffiliated voters are evenly divided.
Businessman Dan Maes, the other Republican already in the race, now trails Hickenlooper 46% to 43%. Last month, the two men were tied at 41% apiece.
Nine percent (9%) also have a Very favorable opinion of Maes, while 12% view him Very Unfavorably.
 

Breaking: McInnis responds to Hasan Foundation

by Rossputin | 12:31 pm, July 16, 2010

In response to a press release from the Hasan Family Foundation earlier today, Scott McInnis has put out his own press release, taking responsibility for the water paper issues and promising to repay the money he was paid for the papers:

 

Scott McInnis, Republican candidate for Governor, today issued the following statement in response to a news release issued by The Hasan Family Foundation:

“I have said since this matter was brought to my attention that the articles provided as part of the Hasan Family Foundation fellowship were faulty. I explained how this problem arose, and I accepted responsibility.

“I apologized to the Hasans for this mistake, and I expressed my determination to make it right with my dear friends. I will be in contact with the Hasan family to make full payment arrangements. I agree with the Foundation that this brings this matter to a close, and I look forward to continuing to speak on the campaign trail about the critical issues facing all of Colorado, including jobs and economic recovery.”

It’s not surprising that McInnis trying to put this behind him, as far and fast as possible.  It’s unclear whether that will be possible.

More interesting is the question of why the Hasans have said they will have no further comment on the issue.  It sort of begs the question of whether the Hasans also have something they’re not entirely comfortable talking about, such as just what they thought they were getting for $300,000.  It strains credibility to accept that they thought some “Musings on Water” were worth that kinds of money…so just what were they buying?

 

Threat of McInnis Plagiarism Scandal Extends Beyond Gubernatorial Race

by elpresidente | 12:27 pm, July 16, 2010

“I’m not getting out of this. They are bullying the wrong guy. I love the fight”–Scott McInnis to The Denver Post’s Lynn BartelsThe political ramifications of the plagiarism charges against GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis that came to lig…

Tea Party Patriots Advice

by Al Maurer | 11:55 am, July 16, 2010

I received this press release from Tea Party Patriots on Wednesday and think it is worth printing in full: Washington – Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest Tea Party organization with more than 2,000 affiliates, today offered the President and the Democratic Party advice on how they can halt their well-documented free-fall in national public [...]

Right Online: Great Vegas Opportunity for Conservatives in New Media

by Ben DeGrow | 11:39 am, July 16, 2010

Next weekend is the annual Right Online conference, sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Specifically, it will be held Friday and Saturday, July 23-24, in Las Vegas. This is a great opportunity for conservatives who want to learn how they can help neutralize the advantage the Left has accrued in new media and online [...]

Democrat shenanigans in Iowa

by Rossputin | 11:13 am, July 16, 2010

How low can Democrats sink in their 2010 electoral desperation?  OK, it’s not a serious question because there is no level to which the left in general will not sink to keep control of governments, citizens, and our money.

But this is, as the WSJ’s John Fund put it, “unusually cynical”…

In the primary race for Iowa’s Republican gubernatorial nomination, the Democrats apparently decided that they’d rather run against someone other than former Iowa governor Terry Branstad.

So they created a group called “Iowans for Responsible Government” which was, according to the Des Moines Register, “financed entirely by contributions totaling $782,500 by the Democratic Governors Association.”

And that group, pretending to be a conservative organization, ran ads against Branstad calling him a “liberal” and trying to tie him to Presidents Clinton and Obama, and to Nancy Pelosi:

This sort of gambit by Democrats carries serious risk: elections are won and lost among independent voters, and independent voters are likely to be extremely displeased with implicitly being lied to.

Past and future Governor Branstad’s campaign cleverly bought IowansForRepsonsibleGovernment.com and put up a web page debunking the group and its message.

According to Rasmussen, Branstad already holds a 26-point lead over his Democrat challenger. One might think that could go even wider – not that it matters – after this news.

The good news is that the Democrats recognize that, at least in some places in America, “liberal” is an insult.

Survey: 59 Percent Say Scott McInnis Should Quit Governors’ Race

by Ben DeGrow | 9:58 am, July 16, 2010

As promised, the survey on what Scott McInnis should do closed at 9:00 this morning. In all, there were 177 participants — including 173 registered voters, 93 percent of whom identify as Republicans and 7 percent of whom identify either as unaffiliated or third party (no Democrats participated). A brief summary of the survey results: [...]

What are the odds of Republicans taking back the Senate?

by Rossputin | 9:47 am, July 16, 2010

Over at InTrade.com, the chances of the GOP taking back the Senate, i.e. picking up 10 seats or more, are trading around 18%, with a tie Senate, i.e. GOP picking up 9 seats, trading around 12%.

In order for either of these to happen, but particularly the former, the GOP needs not only to run the table on the races which either have a GOP incumbent running for re-election or in which the GOP candidate seems to be the front-runner already (such as Rand Paul in Kentucky), but they also need to win one or two much more difficult races, such as Washington State or California.

One other such race shows some good news for Republicans today with Rasmussen reporting for the first time that their poll shows Republican Ron Johnson ahead of far-left incument Democrat Russ Feingold in Wisconsin’s Senate race, even if only by 1%.  Wisconsin is quite a liberal state, at least in their voting history.  For someone like Feingold to be essentially tied shows just how horrible a year this is shaping up to be for Democrats.

Odds of a Republican House are now over 55%, and I think that’s still low…

« 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