New Michael Fallon for Congress Ad: Say, Who’s Your Boss, Diana DeGette?

by Ben DeGrow | 5:51 am, October 20, 2010

With the depths of election season upon us, most of the political advertising on TV and radio has us gasping for fresh air and a hot shower. Not so Michael Fallon, whose new attack ad on liberal incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette makes a sharp point effectively without being obnoxious or offensive: The ad follows a [...]

Back for Buck

by Rossputin | 5:44 am, October 20, 2010

I wrote an aggressively critical note the other day following Ken Buck’s weak performance on Meet the Press. But in this emotional election season, I want to take a deep breath and remind myself and readers of these pages what’s important here.

What’s important is that Colorado does not send the spineless and principle-free Michael “Who?” Bennet back to the US Senate. He’s not a Senator from Colorado; he’s the consummate Senator from Obama.

He votes for every huge expansion of government, then comes back here and claims to be against the growth of government, as if we can’t see and don’t know what he does. Perhaps he thinks it’s the 19th century and we’d have to wait a month or two for the Pony Express to deliver his voting record to us.

Buck may not be a polished politician. But in fairness, his lack of political refinement was a noticeable part of the reason many of his supporters preferred him to the “smooth” Jane Norton.

Buck should have given a very different answer on Sunday, or rather not answered that question at all. But not being a great politician in the sense of politicians’ tendency to twist words, well that’s hardly the worst sin one can imagine.

(Mark Hillman has a good analysis of this very discussion HERE.)

Ken Buck’s recent ad, while not quite a “Scott Brown – it’s the peoples’ seat” moment, adequately captures why Buck deserves our strong support:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF_cftQJvmM

Yes, I wish Buck would stick with some of his more interesting positions, like not backing away from at least having a discussion of the impact of the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators), at the end of the day I am highly confident that Buck will be a consistent supporter of a smaller government, lower spending, and lower taxes.

At a time when the federal government is bankrupting my children, that is almost the only thing I care about from a U.S. Senator.

So even while hoping that Buck gets a little smarter about not being baited by a left-leaning television talking head, I want to encourage all of you who care about our nation’s economic future, our health care system, and the level of government involvement in our daily lives, to strongly support Ken Buck as we head into the home stretch of this roller-coaster election season.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Amendment 63 vs. the Unlicensed Vampire Alarmists

by Brian Schwartz | 5:30 am, October 20, 2010

Does the Colorado Constitution guarantee the rights of violent criminals to be armed in prison or when released on parole? You might think so if you believe criticisms of Amendment 63. Amendment 63 would prohibit the state from forcing you to buy a politician-approved health plan and protect your right to pay for medical care [...]

Evidence Indicates Any Deal-Seeking Came from Dan Maes’ Direction

by Ben DeGrow | 5:34 pm, October 19, 2010

Why exactly is minor party-Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes and his dwindling cadre of political backers trying to foist on Colorado a story that he bravely resisted efforts to buy him out of the race? It sure looks like the victim card is being played, unfortunately without the truth to back it up. The bottom [...]

Bush First Provoked Tea Party Backlash

by Ari Armstrong | 1:57 pm, October 19, 2010

Many on the left pretend that the Tea Parties are just about supporting Republicans and attacking Democrats. This probably has something to do with the fact that the left views everything through the lens of interest groups tribalism. Of course many Re…

Correcting Joe Harrington’s claims about the Dan Maes non-deal

by Rossputin | 11:31 am, October 19, 2010

Let me begin this note by saying I am not enjoying this. I consider Joe Harrington a friend, having known Joe for several years due to a common business interest. We only started talking politics in a serious way in the past several months. It pains me to write this, but I feel I have no choice.

[Update: The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels has picked up my story.]

[Update 2: Colorado blogger Ben DeGrow adds to the evidence that it was the Maes camp, not Tom Tancredo, seeking a deal for Maes.]

Joe Harrington posted a note on his Facebook page (which Dan Maes parroted from his own Facebook page) in which he implies that representatives of Tom Tancredo reached out to him for his help in offering Dan Maes some sort of deal to get out of the race.

Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post picked up the story, changing Joe’s description of one of the people he had spoken to from “a well-known blogger” to “a conservative blogger”.

I hereby “out” myself as that blogger, something that probably doesn’t surprise readers of these “inside baseball” political conversations since Joe and I have had frequent and sometimes heated online debates about the governor’s race. Also, when I essentially requested that he make a public correction to his note, Joe said “I haven’t publicly named you yet. I don’t intend to but if pushed I will.” So, let’s just dispense with that threat right now. I name myself publicly.

Joe’s story, however, is at best misleading and I cannot stand by – even without being overtly named – and let claims go unchallenged.

While the news headlines have been along the lines of “Maes declines deal”, the real story is “Maes supporter tries to trap Tancredo campaign by suggesting deal.”

The implication of Joe’s story is that I and others contacted him trying to solicit a deal for Dan Maes. This is turning the true story on its head…and I can and will prove it here.

Here is what actually happened:

On October 4, 2010, I sent an e-mail to Joe asking “what would have to happen for you to vote for Tancredo?” My question was not intended as any sort of machination, but just a continuation of an ongoing discussion Joe and I have had about the merits of the candidate he’s supporting versus the merits of trying to beat John Hickenlooper with the most electable conservative candidate.

Joe responded (the next morning) with a short list of things (which would never happen), such as that Tom would have to name Maes as Lt. Gov and give Maes two cabinet picks.

Later in the day, after complaining about how Tom Tancredo got into the race, Joe said “Putting Maes and two other maes appointees in a tt [Tancredo] admin is no different than other deals made in many other jurisdictions to form a government. If that is the price of control then tt should suck it up and make a deal.”

He added an e-mail p.s. a few minutes later asking ” do you think a deal could be made? Or are they both idealistic purists who will die on the field of battle?”

My response: “The latter… Tom is idealistic and Maes is narcissistic.”

But Joe was persistent in his apparent desire to try to find a deal for Maes: “Ill bring Maes along and you bring tt along and let’s try…it has to happen before ballots drop on the 12th…”

You can see the entire conversation in the e-mail chain below (or HERE) which is unedited except for removing Joe’s e-mail address.

In a parallel e-mail discussion, in response to Joe’s complaint about Tom Tancredo’s entry into the race following his earlier decision not to get in, and Josh Penry’s exit from the race, the latter two parts of which Joe called a “dirty deal”, I wrote the following to Joe:

…The “deal” with McInnis was not “dirty”. It was very public and was simply about getting McInnis to agree to govern by certain conservative principles. A “dirty” deal would have been one in which Tancredo was offered something for staying out of the race, which he wasn’t.

Putting Maes into any position of responsibility to get him out of the race would indeed be a “dirty” deal.

People who stick with Maes now are either people who just vote the straight Republican ticket or who aren’t paying attention or who have so much of their own egos tied up in Maes’ candidacy that they’ll sacrifice the state on the altar of their own stubbornness.

Joe responded:

(Sentence deleted by Ross to protect those uninvolved in this discussion.)

…It was a dirty deal. They should have let the process pick the best person not try to rig the process.

Given it was rigged… Why not try to make a deal? Ask Maes what it would take?

Ask Tancredo what he is willing to do. It doesn’t have to be wrong just because it results in conservatives winning. I guarantee you that the dems make deals every time…

After this discussion, I spoke with a friend of Tom Tancredo’s – but not with Tom himself – saying that “one of Maes’ strongest supporters” wants to know if any “deal” could be made.

This person said that he was not authorized to speak for Tom but that he had heard an idea being bounced around of a non-state-funded job, sort of like a Colorado version of the Grace Commission, which could be funded by private citizens, and which could be a good fit for Maes. This person and I asked each other if a discussion of something like this were legal, and neither of us knew the answer.

I called Joe the next morning and told him of my conversation with that person, adding specifically that I am not an expert on election law and would have no part of anything illegal. I told Joe that if any conversation of this type were to go any further than being purely hypothetical, I would consult with an election law attorney before taking part in any more conversations. I told Joe that I was not negotiating on behalf of anyone and that Tom Tancredo had no part of, influence over, or, as far as I knew, knowledge of what I was saying to Joe. And I told Joe again that I was not offering and could not offer anything, but that this commission idea was simply something I heard from a guy who had heard others talk about the idea. I never heard the word “foundation” or “501©4″ or any of the other details which Joe describes hearing from others, nor did I ever hear a name of a potential funder or funders for this commission.

It was all, I thought, little more than a flight of fancy to see if there were some way that conservatives could win the governor’s race rather than having the vote split and handing the race to Hickenlooper. I made clear from the beginning that (1) I thought no deal would be possible, and (2) I would not have any part of anything illegal.

But I must re-emphasize the key part of all of this: The talk of a “deal” was instigated and aggressively pushed by Joe Harrington, not by me. I asked Joe about whether he might vote for Tancredo and he responded with the suggestion of a deal and multiple rationalizations for trying to get one done.

As it happens, there was no further conversation because, as Dan Maes told the press and unbeknown to me, Tancredo and Maes were meeting that very morning (at what Tom expected would be a private meeting but Maes decided to make it public). Each asked the other to drop out. Each said no. And that was the end of it.

I never had another conversation with Joe or anyone else about the idea of a “commission” or anything else that Dan Maes might do after he loses this election.

I have no idea whether Joe ever spoke with Dan Maes about his conversations and I have no idea, if he did speak with Maes, whether Joe characterized the conversations as a move by Tancredo to try to offer Dan a deal. But Tancredo has always said he’d never be involved in a deal and I told Joe at the beginning of our e-mail conversation (as you can see above) that I thought neither man would make a deal (though for very different reasons.)

I doubt that Dan Maes actually put Joe up to this attempt at entrapment. My guess is that it was just another scheme hatched by Joe, like his ill-fated lawsuit challenging Tancredo’s candidacy, in his desperation to salvage the candidacy of the man whom Joe has put so much of his own political capital (and some financial capital) into supporting. In other words, I don’t think this was a Maes-Harrington conspiracy, though I do think that once Maes heard about it he liked the idea of trying to use the Joe’s scheme to make Tancredo look bad.

While Joe’s Facebook post (and thus the Denver Post story) imply that Joe was proactively contacted by me or “metro-Denver area GOP county chairs”, the truth seems to be that Joe was the one making all the moves.

Indeed, in a very short interview on Tuesday’s Peter Boyles radio show, Joe made a remark that would probably go unnoticed by most but which is critical. He said “I reached out to several people and said ‘Is there a way to merge the campaigns somehow?’…” (listen at 34:30 of THIS podcast) In other words, when Joe says in his Facebook note that he had “approached or been approached by many people regarding making a deal with the Tancredo campaign”, the statement is only true in the sense that he approached many people. Saying “approached or approached by” is technically true even though it appears the number of people he was approached by was zero based on his own words.

It’s like saying “I always drive a car or bike to work.” Technically true since I always drive my car to work and never ride a bike , but wildly and intentionally misleading to have an “or” choice, the actual quantity of which is zero.

Furthermore, Joe admitted on the air to recording a conversation with a GOP Party official without that person’s knowledge (which is legal in Colorado.) One can only wonder if Joe’s inspiration for this whole scheme was the news – which came out just one day before my first e-mail to Joe – regarding Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle being caught on tape trashing the GOP establishment. Some were thinking that the tape might hurt Angle. Maybe Joe thought “hey, that might work against Tancredo.” Though the timing of Joe’s recording is remarkably coincidental, this is pure speculation on my part and I have not asked Joe what motivated him to behave that way at that particular time.

I also believe Joe is using clever wording to make a near-libelous accusation against Tom Tancredo himself. In particular, Joe said “I spoke to a well-known blogger, two Metro-Denver area GOP county chairs, two senior operatives for Tom Tancredo, a former senior officer of the state GOP, and directly with Tom Tancredo. In three of the discussion threads, deals were offered that were at their core illegal…” In other words, Joe implies that he talked to Tom Tancredo about a deal and leaves open the possibility that Tancredo made an illegal offer. It was not until he was asked by the Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels that Harrington made clear that Tancredo made no such offer. Indeed, I’m told that Harrington’s conversation with Tancredo was about an entirely different topic.

Joe Harrington is turning from a too-clever-by-half twister of words into a would-be destroyer of reputations. I cannot and will not let his schemes and smears go unchallenged.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Ben DeGrow Covers Indiana, Rhode Island Charters for School Reform News

by Eddie | 10:12 am, October 19, 2010

In his role as writer and contributing editor for School Reform News, my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow recently came out with two articles on charter school developments in other states. First up is a research-based boost for nontraditional public school excellence in one of the Heartland’s cities:

Researchers at Vanderbilt University’s National Center on [...]

Colorado Supreme Court takes aim at gun rights, agrees to take CU Gun Ban case

by CTBC Director | 9:12 am, October 19, 2010

“No man’s life, liberty, property, or constitutional rights are safe while the Colorado Supreme Court is in session.” (With apologies to Mark Twain)
Clear The Bench Colorado has tracked the threat posed by the Colorado Supreme Court to our constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Colorado for some time (including attempts to levy what amounts [...]

Dan Maes’ new low

by Rossputin | 6:47 am, October 19, 2010

As I was watching Dan Maes’ most recent video, posted yesterday on YouTube, I actually felt a little sorry for the guy, at least for 4 1/2 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPkcNYNiNrc

I mean, it was a little pathetic for him to have to take 4.5 minutes of a 7 minute video explaining how misunderstood he was, how he really did work with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and really didn’t misappropriate any money from his campaign.

And believe it or not, I think he’s telling the truth, at least to a Maes-like degree which is to say that at least those claims aren’t completely false.

But my brief soft spot for Maes disappeared when he said, after explaining his own bankruptcy filing earlier in his life, that “at least I didn’t lose one million dollars of my retirement in a Ponzi scheme trying to make money fast.”

That’s it, Maes, I’m done with you for good.

Let’s make this absolutely crystal clear, you slimy little man so desperate to be somebody:

Tom Tancredo, along with many other Coloradoans, invested in a “fund of funds” through the former Agile Group, which was marketed to them as the “Safety Funds” according to a friend of mine who, unfortunately, was also an investor in this disaster. It was sold to these investors as extremely low risk, in part because it was supposed to be diversified over a fairly large number of different conservative hedge fund investments. (I believe it was supposed to be in about 30 different funds.)

Tancredo and others invested in this program not to “make money fast” but because it seemed solid and safe, even boring; in other words, it seemed an absolutely appropriate place for retirement savings. It also served a secondary purpose of being “black box”, meaning that Tancredo didn’t know precisely what stocks he might be invested in, which is the situation he required while serving in Congress.

The manager of the Agile Group, Neal Greenberg, put too much of these funds’ investments into two hedge funds and added leverage to the mix. The two hedge funds were the well-known Bernie Madoff fraud and the less-well-known Petters Group, which also turned out to be a Ponzi Scheme and which, I’m told, actually cost Agile investors even more than Madoff did. Greenberg is being sued by the SEC for misleading investors. And obviously Madoff and Petters were misleading investors, to put it kindly.

Victims of these evil men included many colleges and charities, many rich and many not-so-rich, the famous and the unknown. In this unfortunate diverse group was Tom Tancredo.

Victims of Agile, Madoff, and Petters were most certainly not aiming for a quick buck. Yes, one might criticize them for putting too much of their money in one place. But, one needs to remember at least two things: First, Tancredo was not a financial professional. He was a teacher turned Congressman. Second, many victims of these frauds, particularly of Madoff, were extremely sophisticated investors. It would not have been unreasonable for someone to say “If these many dozens of major institutions and billionaires are investing here, it’s probably a decent place for my money.”

Maes’ characterization of Tancredo’s losses – in which he did indeed lose the majority of his life’s savings – as somehow deserved because Tancredo was “trying to make money fast” is a reprehensible and unforgiveable slander, accusing the victim who has had decades of his labor stolen.

I know I’m just one guy and I don’t expect dozens of my readers to join in the intensity of my feelings on this issue, but Dan Maes has earned a new level of my scorn and I will do everything I can to keep him from winning a race for dog catcher in the future unless I hear him apologize to Tom Tancredo and the other innocent victims of these frauds. How ironic that Colorado itself is about to become the victim of a fraud, if Dan “the accidental candidate” Maes’ candidacy gives us four years of Governor Hickenlooper.

Remember this Dan Maes: what goes around comes around. As a man who seems to believe that the universe rewards people for good behavior, I presume you believe the flip side of that coin. Seems to me you just took on a lot of risk by your reprehensible lie and I look forward to seeing how the universe rewards you.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Maes Bankruptcy Helps Tancredo

by PerlStalker | 6:44 am, October 19, 2010

From the Pueblo Chieftain.

Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said Dan Maes failed to disclose his 1989 bankruptcy during a conversation they had 18 months ago about any past problems that could surface to haunt Maes’ campaig…

Amendment 63 protects your individual rights

by Brian Schwartz | 5:30 am, October 19, 2010

A and virtually fact-free editorial in the Aurora Sentinel says Amendment 63 “has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with legislative wrongs.” Wrong. It has everything to with rights and preventing legislative wrongs.

Liberty On the Rocks: Teresi Talks with Free Colorado News

by Ari Armstrong | 11:55 pm, October 18, 2010

Finally I’m posting my interview with Amanda Teresi, founder of Liberty On the Rocks.Note that Teresi and I together run Liberty In the Books, a project for which I’ve earned some funds from private donors. See “Ari Armtrong’s Disclosures Unjustly Comp…

Summit Daily Says Yes On Amendment 63

by Mike Krause | 8:19 pm, October 18, 2010

The Summit Daily News, which covers Frisco, Dillon, Breckenridge and Silverthorne in Summit County today endorsed a yes vote on Amendment 63, the “Right to Health Care Choice” citizens’ amendment.
The News writes that Amendment 63 sen…

The 23 Percent Lie

by PerlStalker | 7:56 pm, October 18, 2010

Over the last several days (and probably longer) Democrats have attacked Ken Buck, Scott Tipton and others in Colorado for supporting what Democrats claim is a 23 percent tax hike. It should come as no surprise that those Democrats are lying.

It’s tr…

Ft Hood Terrorist trial

by Mr. Bob | 3:13 pm, October 18, 2010

The Fort Hood Muslim terrorist is now on trial and the testimony has begun. I have a hard time reading it, I get really angry. This guy is a complete coward. He shot people who were running away, and he killed a pregnant woman. Now he faces his accuser…

Would Perlmutter Also Lambast Soviet Bread Line Critics?

by Ari Armstrong | 2:15 pm, October 18, 2010

According to the logic of Congressman Ed Perlmutter, somebody standing in a Soviet bread line has no right to criticize Soviet bread lines, because he is after all waiting his turn for the bread.Veteran political reporter Lynn Bartels seems to buy into…

10/14 Pt 1 – Interviews w/ Robert Ramirez (HD29) and Mark Barrington (HD26), GOP candidates for State House

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 1:00 pm, October 18, 2010

In Part One of the 10/14 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger interviews Robert Ramirez, Republican candidate for House District 29, and Mark Barrington, Republican candidate for House District 26 about some of the most pressing issues of th…

Douglas County School Board Making Strong Statement for Parental Choice

by Eddie | 10:58 am, October 18, 2010

How often do you see a local school board proactively promoting school choice — including choices inside and outside the district, for the sake of satisfying the local education customers? Let’s be honest: It’s pretty rare. So maybe it’s time to introduce you to the Board of Education for the Douglas County School District, the [...]

Ken Buck said what?

by Rossputin | 10:02 am, October 18, 2010

Colorado Republican candidate for US Senate Ken Buck had a bad day yesterday on Meet the Press. “Shaky” is the kindest characterization, starting with Buck’s repeated erroneous statements that we pay for tax cuts and get other benefits by “grow(ing) government”. He meant to say “growing the economy”, but his repeated misstatement left the door open for his Democrat opponent Michael Bennet, the consummate Senator from Obama, to say “Well I’m definitely not interested in growing government.” It was a “Through the Looking-Glass” moment, to be sure.

A couple of minutes later, Buck made perhaps his biggest verbal gaffe of the campaign, comparing being gay to being alcoholic.

To be fair, what Buck actually said, as you can see and hear in the video clip below, is that both homosexuality and alcoholism may have genetic factors contributing to that trait in a person. (My non-expert view is that there is very likely genetic factors regarding predisposition to those and other traits. Indeed, how could there not be?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyyCkBaCfis

But the Democrat TV ads won’t address that subtlety. And, as much as I want Ken Buck to beat Michael Bennet, Buck deserves what he gets from his idiotic statement.

Buck’s statement is boneheaded both in its substance and its politics.

Let’s start with the substance.

Buck says that homosexuality is primarily a choice because “you can choose who your partner is”. Yes, that’s true in a theoretical sense. In real life, I, as a heterosexual male, “could” but never would choose to fool around with another guy. Indeed, I can’t imagine such a choice for myself, even for 30 seconds, even after a few glasses of Lagavulin.

I imagine that most homosexuals feel conversely, namely that while a choice of an other-sex partner is theoretically available, it is not one that he or she would ever actually make.

I’ve always been rather annoyed by people who argue that homosexuality is, first and foremost, a choice. Or, to put it another way, that sexual preference is almost entirely about nurture rather than nature.

It’s simply non-sensical to believe, especially in decades past, that someone would choose to participate in a lifestyle which has been so unaccepted by society, a lifestyle which has kept people “in the closet”, forcing them to keep secrets from friends and family, etc. Who would choose that?

I’m certain that there are some people who are homosexual by choice, meaning they’re bisexual and could more-or-less comfortably choose a person of either gender as a sexual partner. But I would bet that those people are a minority – likely a very small minority – of the gay population.

Most gays aren’t gay by choice. They’re gay because they’re gay, just as I’m straight because I’m straight.

So, on the substance of his statement, Ken Buck was spouting nonsense.

But it’s not just the substance of his remark which was so bone-headed. It was also the politics.

I understand that gays are a small single-digit percentage of the population and that, while statistics are very hard to find, the majority of them, perhaps an overwhelming majority, tend to vote Democrat – not least because the GOP can be portrayed or perceived as being filled with people who think like Ken Buck.

But in a election which gets closer every week, an election which Rasmussen now has as only a 2% edge for Buck, alienating gay Republicans and, more importantly, gay unaffiliated voters, while motivating gay Democrats against him is a substantial political mistake by Buck.

Beyond that, it plays precisely into the theme Michael “Who?” Bennet is using to define Buck: “too extreme for Colorado.” If Buck keeps saying stuff like he said on Sunday, even I might start wondering if it’s true.

Some might argue that Buck was just surprised by the question. Indeed, Buck has said he was. But that’s no excuse for someone trying to get into the big leagues of politics. Either you’re ready for prime time or you’re not, and now Buck has me wondering.

I still very much want Ken Buck to beat Michael Bennet, the latter being a spineless amoeba of a politician who asks Chuck Schumer how he should vote whenever the answer isn’t obvious – or even when it is obvious.

But I can’t help remembering the heated online discussions I had with the Buck faithful when I supported Jane Norton, my argument being essentially that “these two are almost identical on policy, but Norton will be much harder for the Democrats to demonize in the general election than Buck will be and therefore, I’ll back the person I think more likely to win the general election.” Those words still ring true, even prescient, to me.

Really, Ken, even if you believe something as silly as that being gay is a choice, did you have to say it? As the old saying goes, it’s “better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Ken Buck needs to stop putting his foot in his mouth and stop saying ridiculous things which turn him into a caricature of the narrow-minded bible-bound old white guy which Democrats use with great success against the GOP. Sadly, when Republicans say things like Ken Buck said on Meet the Press, it’s hard to argue that that caricature is far off the mark.

My advice to Ken Buck: Stop talking about social issues – even when asked. On other issues, stop triangulating, stop backing away from positions just because you get a little Dem pushback on something. Stop saying “that’s out of context” even if it is. Remember, if you’re explaining, you’re losing. And you’re spending all your time explaining, and far too much of that is explaining your own errors and changes. If you believe something, then stand up for it. If you don’t believe something, then don’t say (or hint) that you do. It’s pretty simple, and it’s time for you to stop screwing it up and show that you actually stand for something and that you’ll actually still stand for it next week.

Link to Original post at Rossputin.com.

Wikipedia climate propagandist slapped down

by Rossputin | 8:38 am, October 18, 2010

H/T Greg Staff
It’s well-known that Wikipedia, despite its theoretical setup as user-edited, often shows a left-leaning bias in the edits that are allowed and disallowed, and that liberals and liberal groups (including Colorado’s own Senato…

The Case Against 3 Colorado Supreme Court Justices

by CTBC Director | 7:20 am, October 18, 2010

Why judicial incumbents Bender, Martinez, and Rice deserve a “NO” vote at the polls
The following commentary was published over the last weekend (in slightly modified form, according to the editorial whims of the various publications) in most of the major newspapers in Colorado:

Denver Post (published Thursday as “You can reject judges“)
Grand Junction Sentinel (published Thursday [...]

Election Update: Free Colorado News

by Ari Armstrong | 12:07 am, October 18, 2010

In this edition of Free Colorado News, I discuss some reasons why Ken Buck is having trouble maintaining his lead. For one thing, he is continually attacked for his terrible views on abortion, which he opposes even in cases of rape and incest. I also r…

10/14 Pt 2 – Conversation w/ Danny Stroud (HD1) and Joshua Sharf (HD6), GOP candidates for State House

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 7:00 pm, October 17, 2010

In Part Two of the 10/14 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger is joined in-studio by both Danny Stroud (HD 1) and Joshua Sharf (HD 6), two excellent Republican candidates for the Colorado House. The three have a wide-ranging conversati…

10/14 Pt 3 – Monologue on Obamacare lawsuit, Jimmy’s Peter Boyles Appearance

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 6:00 pm, October 17, 2010

In Part Three of the 10/14 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger gives his take on the legal victory in the multi-state Obamacare lawsuit and briefly explains why the law is, indeed, unconstitutional.

Jimmy then plays his brief appearance on…

“They Spend. You Pay!” On “Meet the Press”

by Kelly Maher | 12:10 pm, October 17, 2010

The U.S. Senate race in Colorado is getting more national attention every day. Republican challenger Ken Buck and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., debated on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” One of our 100 “They Spend. You Pay!” billboards in Colorado was featured in the intro! You can see the billboard image in the video clip at left, as the voiceover described, “Growing anger over government spending and the debt.”

Backbone Radio, Oct 17, 2010: John Suthers and Meeting the Libertarians

by Rossputin | 7:46 am, October 17, 2010

Audio archives for this show:

Segment 1 – Intro, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers
Segment 2 – John Suthers
Segment 3 – Libertarian Party candidate for governor, Jaimes Brown
Segment 4 – Jaimes Brown
Segment 5 – Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate, Maclyn Stringer
Segment 6 – Maclyn Stringer

Please join me on this week’s edition of Backbone Radio when I’ll be joined by guest-host Krista Kafer as we focus on some of the less-discussed parts of Colorado politics.

In our first hour, we’ll be joined by Colorado’s Attorney General, John Suthers, who is running for re-election in this 2010 campaign. While Suthers would seem to be one of the most secure incumbents in high-level state-wide executive offices (not least because the rest are Democrats), it’s nevertheless important for an educated citizenry to understand why a person deserves to hold elected office.

With that in mind, we’re going to cover a range of topics related to the AG’s job, not least being Mr. Suthers’ fight, along with other states’ AGs, against Obamacare. We’ll talk about other major cases Suthers is working on, as well as his take on illegal immigration enforcement within the state.

If you have questions for AG Suthers, please don’t be shy about calling in, or sending me an e-mail or instant message.

In our second and third hours, we’ll be joined by two Libertarian Party candidates for office.

At 6 PM, we’ll talk with Jaimes Brown, Libertarian candidate for Governor of Colorado. We’ll talk about a wide range of policy issues, including Brown’s take on ballot issues 60, 61, and 101, which I expect he supports.

And at 7 PM, we’ll visit with Maclyn Stringer, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate.

As always – and as a “small-l” libertarian and former Libertarian Party member – I’m most interested in the potential intersection of libertarian beliefs with conservative beliefs, and in the potential appeal of the Libertarian Party to both Republicans and Democrats as well as the potential appeal of libertarian-leaning Republicans to the broader electorate.

My view is that a plurality, and perhaps a majority, of Americans are libertarians even if they don’t know it. They (we) basically want government to leave us alone.

Another topic which I expect to discuss with Brown and Stringer is alternative voting systems, such as Approval Voting. You can (and should) read a bit more about approval voting at some of the following links. It’s an interesting system, with fairly strong pluses and minuses. Generally, the pluses seem to outweigh the minuses for smaller political parties (like the Libertarians), but perhaps not for the current major parties.

For more info:
http://www.approvalvoting.com/ (a site in support of Approval Voting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting (Wikipedia entry on Approval Voting, includes some discussion of praise and criticism of it)
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1920 (Web page of a group which supports a different alternative voting method)

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 rossputin(at)rossputin.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com or through AOL Instant messenger to screen name Rossputin.

Original post at http://backboneradio.net, online home of Backbone Radio with Ross Kaminsky.

Shrill Hysterics Distract from Debate over Spending Cuts

by Ari Armstrong | 12:28 am, October 17, 2010

The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published October 15 by Grand Junction Free Press.”Armageddon.” “Pure anarchy.” Really? We think restrictions of political spending deserve serious debate, not hyperventilating hysterics. Y…

Report from the Restoring America Rally in Alamosa

by PerlStalker | 11:20 pm, October 16, 2010

The Restoring America rally was held in Alamosa, Colorado this afternoon. By my rough count, there were about 200 people there. I lived tweeted the event. You can read the tweets here.

According to organizer Gary Hostetter, they sent a questionnaire …

Denver Post State Leglislative Endorsements Get Picture Partly Right

by Ben DeGrow | 10:27 pm, October 16, 2010

Over the past couple days the editors of the Denver Post have issued their endorsements for 10 key state house and 5 key state senate races. If we presumed these were the only races to change hands and that all went the way favored by the Post, we’d end up with a deadlocked state house [...]

Kopel: Denver Post erred in covering reckless charges against U.S. Chamber

by David Kopel | 12:03 pm, October 16, 2010

The Denver Post made a serious error in news judgment by devoting a sizable story on the cover of its Oct. 9 “Denver & The West” section to an unsubstantiated smear of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its role in the 2010 elections. [See commentary at left by Brit Hume of Fox News on the Democrats' targeting of the Chamber.]

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

Follow PPC

Search

WayIn

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Advertise Here!

Categories

Archives

Meta

Blogroll

Contributors