Mount Virtus

Independence Day is almost upon us, but it appears about half of Americans couldn’t care less about the real reason for the celebration. The results of a new survey from Zogby are disappointing - albeit not terribly surprising - and a bit enlightening as well.

The pollster asked 1,884 American adults what the #1 reason for celebrating the coming holiday is (a holiday that just happens to be named Independence Day):

Just 48% of those surveyed say that they specifically mark the Fourth of July as a time to celebrate America’s independence. Another 33% say they see the holiday as an opportunity to spend time with family and friends, while much smaller percentages look at the Fourth as just a day off from work (6%), or as a break from the routine to allow some summer travel (2%).

Can’t figure out what the other 11% were thinking, but “the chance to relive childhood pyromaniac tendencies” didn’t appear anywhere in the story. The breakdown was the most interesting feature, and perhaps the latest exhibit in the Red State-Blue State phenomenon:

When it comes to celebrating America’s independence, there is a huge division down party lines, the poll shows. Sixty-five percent of Republicans say they use the Fourth for that purpose, while just 30% of Democrats say the same. Almost half (48%) of independents agree.

Among men, 55% said they celebrate the nation’s independence on the Fourth, compared to 42% of women. Patriotism appears to generally increase with age. While 55% of those age 65 and older specifically celebrate national independence, just 40% of 18-29 year-olds agreed. There was some small differences depending on geography – those living in the West (53%), South (50%), and Central/Great Lakes (50%) areas celebrate independence more than those in the East (40%), while those in rural areas (56%) and small cities (51%) do so more than large city residents (47%) and suburbanites (43%).

And yet, true to our great heritage, Americans remain stubborn defenders of tradition, even if many of them don’t seem to care much about the tradition itself:

Although they may not be celebrating the true meaning of Independence Day, Americans are adamant about keeping the holiday on the Fourth of July, regardless of what day of the week it may fall. Seventy-seven percent say they would not favor moving the holiday to the first Monday of the month to simplify time off from work, mirroring the treatment of several other holidays. And 80% say that celebrating the Fourth of July on a different day would diminish its meaning.

Here’s a fun story totally ignored by Colorado’s favorite purveyors of the political grapevine (aka, The Dead Guvs), from the Rocky Mountain News: “Ritter Aide Backed Beauprez in 2004.”

[Bill Ritter's campaign manager Greg] Kolomitz and his wife, Carla Lucero, both joined a group named Democrats for Beauprez. The congressman was facing Democrat Dave Thomas as Beauprez sought a second term in Congress.

“He’s a good guy and so we decided to support him,” said Kolomitz.

At the time, Kolomitz was president of CRL Associates, a Denver lobbying firm known for its clout at city hall.

He says Maria Garcia Berry, the CEO of the firm and a prominent Republican, asked him to join the group supporting Beauprez.

“Politics is all about relationships and Maria was a big Beauprez supporter,” said Kolomitz. “She asked me if I would support him and I said yes.”

Kolomitz said he made a contribution to Beauprez’s campaign and made a few phone calls on his behalf, but that was the extent of his involvement.

And:

Kolomitz says he didn’t realize how conservative Beauprez’s record was when he endorsed him.

“If I had known what his record was then, I probably wouldn’t have done it,” he said.

A Democrat lobbyist active in politics who decided to lend his name to support Beauprez without any idea what his voting record or philosophy is? Hmmm. Color me skeptical. Is it a case of carelessness? Politically mercenary tendencies? Naivete?

The Dead Guvs’ silence on this chuckle-worthy little political gotcha story is noteworthy. No catchy response? Too bad. If the story were about a high-ranking Republican campaign manager who had recently supported the Democrat opponent, you can just about guarantee that their clever wits would have thoroughly played it up by now.

Oh, well, it won’t ruin our fun here. There will be plenty of time to make hay with this story over the coming months.

(HT: Beauprez for Governor blog)

Your results:
You are Superman

Superman 65% Spider-Man 50% The Flash 50% Hulk 50% Green Lantern 45% Robin 35% Supergirl 33% Catwoman 25% Wonder Woman 23% Batman 20% Iron Man 20%

You are mild-mannered, good, strong and you love to help others.

Click here to take the “Which Superhero are you?” quiz…

Well, you’ve never seen me and Superman in the same place at the same time, have you? Well… have you? Have you ever thought the whole Clark Kent connection could just be a ruse? Nah, neither have I.

HT: Joshua

Here’s a fair and balanced idea for a “news” article for today’s Denver Post -

1) Have Karen Crummy interview a Democrat state legislator from Georgia (the state on which the recent Colorado Democrat “compromise” on immigration was based), Sam Zamarripa;

2) Use Zamarripa’s quotes to express the futility and questionable motives of a Republican governors’ efforts to address illegal immigration (congratulations to the Post for not using the term “undocumented workers”) because:

Zamarripa said he believes immigration should be handled by the federal government.

3) Fail to identify Zamarripa as a recent board member of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a group that recently applauded the original Senate version of the immigration reform bill but was wary of it because it “erects significant obstacles for many immigrants”; and

4) “Counterbalanced” Zamarripa’s assessment with a long quote from Colorado Democrat Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff:

Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, said Zamarripa had “very good advice” that he hopes lawmakers will follow.

“If we’re going to be serious policymakers, we need to understand the consequences and costs of each proposal,” Romanoff said. “We’ve been asking the administration what benefits the state is providing to (illegal immigrants), but they said they need to do some additional research.”

Because of the lack of information, Romanoff characterized the governor’s timetable for a three- to five-day special session as “challenging.”

How much of an effort did the reporter make to get even a single quote from a serious, pro-enforcement Republican player in this issue? (Insert sound of crickets chirping…)

Mike Rosen often criticizes the Post for producing “editorials masquerading as news stories.” He also regularly reminds listeners of the importance of knowing where someone sits (e.g., the board of MALDEF) before knowing where they stand (e.g., on immigration reform). Today’s Crummy story is a perfect example of the MSM falling flat on both counts.

Say what? That’s the typical response to a story highlighted at GOPUSA today:

The Washington Education Association recently denied a Christian teacher’s request to have her dues diverted to a charity that opposes sex trafficking. The teacher objected to funding the WEA’s support for abortion and same-sex “marriage” with her dues.

The controversial group that the union didn’t want the teacher’s money diverted to? Shared Hope International. As you can see here, Shared Hope’s War Against Trafficking Alliance is hardly some sort of a narrow, right-wing project.

In states where public school teachers are required to pay union dues in order to work, federal law allows legitimate religious objectors to divert their dues money to a lawful charity. Quite often, as the GOPUSA article indicates, unions fight with teachers to keep them from diverting their money or at least squabbles indefinitely about which charity can be “mutually agreed upon.” That’s where the National Right to Work Foundation comes in, defending the individual interests of teachers whose consciences often are violated by the union’s stonewalling.

My friend Mike Reitz at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation has great commentary on the issue - a worthwhile read on the union’s obstruction of “the fight against sex trafficking of children.”

Thankfully, teachers in Colorado are not obligated to join the union as a condition of employment. Those that do join, however, should be aware of the refundable $36-a-year Every Member Option that funds political activities, and that they do have alternatives for professional membership organizations.

It hasn’t been a good time lately for the National Education Association (of which WEA is a part) - recently, a pro-family grassroots campaign compelled the union to remove initiative language from its Annual Convention in support of homosexual marriage. The liberal elites at the top of the NEA sure send a lot of mixed messages to the rank-and-file regarding what the organization stands for.

On a Colorado day when the insider political buzz revolves around Governor Owen’s impending call of a special session to address illegal immigration and a last-minute brokered deal between Democrats once on the opposite side of the question, there is another story to keep your eye on.

The appeal of a well-documented but inexplicably dismissed complaint against the teachers union is scheduled to be heard in the Colorado Court of Appeals this afternoon.

At this point, I haven’t a clue about what will transpire. But there is a small potential for a decision that would have a significant impact on the conduct of Colorado’s elections. Stay tuned. I will be following whatever developments there may be.

To Colorado Democrat legislative leaders Joan Fitz-Gerald and Andrew Romanoff, “Nice try.” The “Wish away the immigration issue, Supreme Court decision, and Special Session” card just wasn’t available, so they made the next best possible political move: threatening to call their own special legislative session. Unfortunately for them, the analysts quoted in the Rocky Mountain News are right on:

“It’s completely an idle bluff,” said Eric Sondermann, a political consultant. “In this particular poker game, the governor holds all the high cards.

“The Democrats are trying to exert any leverage they have in how the call for the special session is crafted so that the governor doesn’t craft it too narrowly,” Sondermann said. “At the end of the day, the special session will be called on his timetable and his agenda.”

And:

Republicans have made illegal immigration their cornerstone issue this election year, and Democrats cannot appear weak on the issue, said Floyd Ciruli, a political pollster.

“This is just a gesture,” he said of the Democrats’ effort to try to call a session. “The Republicans are going to stay united with the governor and make the argument that the problem has to do with the justices not allowing the public to vote.”

He said that illegal immigration is a difficult issue for Democrats, who may not believe that the ballot issue is the right solution, but need to consider the mood of the voters, too.

Neither Sondermann nor Ciruli is notoriously partisan or ideological. Their assessments are keen observations about the high importance of immigration in Colorado’s 2006 campaign.

While this issue might just be the chink in the Democrats’ armor, Republicans have to be careful to play it straight: strong on enforcement, a clear distinction between legal & illegal immigration, without veering off onto the nativist reservation.

Marc Holtzman deserves a round applause for choosing the high road today. He has poured a lot of his life and energy and resources into this race, and things certainly did not proceed as he had hoped. No doubt, when he really started pushing his candidacy a couple years ago, this is not how he foresaw it all coming to an end.

To do what he did today was difficult, but honorable:

“Let’s have no tears,” he said at his campaign headquarters, “only memories of great experiences together.”

Holtzman said he called Congressman Bob Beauprez, his GOP rival, this morning after learning of the supreme court’s decision. Holtzman said he is endorsing Beauprez.

Give Marc some time to get away, get some R & R, get married, etc. Then let’s hope he can join Republican leaders and activists across Colorado in working for Bob Beauprez and our party’s legislative candidates for the big races leading into November.

Once in awhile I read Rocky Mountain News editor Vince Carroll’s “On Point” column and just have to say “Ditto.” Today is such a day:

No one who runs for governor is unambitious, and everyone who runs is a risk-taker willing to throw the dice. But in Holtzman’s case, ambition and risk-taking seem to have been on steroids the past few months. They’ve propelled him into scorched-earth tactics that now conclude with a clever legal argument for why the high court should ignore the plain language of the law.

Ronald Reagan, Holtzman’s hero, believed “it was the role of the judge to interpret the law, not to pre-empt the rights of the people and their legislatures by making the law” (October 1987). Holtzman no doubt believed this, too - until ambition turned his head.

Ditto. Go ahead, and read it all.

From an April 2006 online forum to publicize his new book Painting the Map Red:

Cleveland, Ohio: Who has a better chance of winning in 2006, the Republicans or the Cleveland Indians?

Hugh Hewitt: I am not even sure why we are playing the 2006 season given the Tribe’s overwhelming talent. Perhaps it is just for the joy of embarrassing the Yankees and Red Sox.

Mr. Hewitt’s baseball braggadocio certainly has abated in the past two months, both on air and on the blog. While I have no love lost for the AL East powerhouses, perhaps it’s time to compare how the Indians are faring thus far with their division rivals, the Detroit Tigers. Tiger fans like myself have long awaited a season such as the way this one has unfolded so far, coming into tonight:

Record

DETROIT: 47-24 (.662), 1st place, - GB
CLEVELAND: 31-38 (.449), 4th place, 15.0 GB

Head-to-Head

DETROIT: 5 WINS
CLEVELAND: 2 WINS

Hitting Team Stats

DETROIT: .272 AVG, 97 HR, 360 RUNS, 1121 TOTAL BASES
CLEVELAND: .283 AVG, 88 HR, 385 RUNS, 1114 TOTAL BASES

Pitching Team Stats

DETROIT: 3.56 ERA, 9 SHUTOUTS, 27 SAVES, 438 K, 576 HITS ALLOWED
CLEVELAND: 4.98 ERA, 6 SHUTOUTS, 9 SAVES, 409 K, 657 HITS ALLOWED

Fielding Team Stats

DETROIT: .986 PCT., 71 DBL PLAYS, 16 SBs ALLOWED in 30 ATTEMPTS
CLEVELAND: .980 PCT., 59 DBL PLAYS, 59 SBs ALLOWED in 68 ATTEMPTS

Further proof of the value of good pitching and good defense. And clear evidence why Mr. Hewitt has conveniently steered away from discussing the Boys of Summer.

The Indians? Hey, at least they’ve got the Royals, Devil Rays, Pirates, and Cubs licked. (Except the Cubs beat them last night.)

Next time Mr. Hewitt is faced with the question as presented above, a much better and much safer answer would be: “The Republicans.”

An important strategic decision and the decisive foreign policy issue before our leaders today: Do we listen to John Kerry and John Murtha, who follow the political winds, set an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from Iraq? Or do we listen to the new, freely-elected Iraqi government, which in conjunction with coalition forces on the ground, has set a series of achievable benchmarks to determine the timing for foreign troop withdrawal and greater internal control?

Read the essay in today’s Washington Post by Iraq’s national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie (HT: Austin Bay).

Question for the Party of Retreat and Defeat … why now?

Have you stopped and thought about this irony?

The survival of the Republican primary campaign of gubernatorial candidate Marc Holtzman - steeped in the claim that he is the only credible candidate in strong opposition to illegal immigration - now appears to hinge on the same hopes that have removed the anti-illegal immigration initiative from the ballot: attorney Marc Grueskin and a new interpretation of the law from the activist Colorado Supreme Court.

Read that again. Let it sink in. You’d have to think it was a comic parody, but it’s sadly all too real.

This was the only bright spot for the underdog:

While that decision was a blow to Holtzman, Hyatt also rejected a challenge to the qualifications of many of the paid petition circulators who gathered signatures on behalf of Holtzman. That was part of an effort by attorneys representing Beauprez and his supporters to get many of Holtzman’s signatures tossed out.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Dead Governors are right to question the credibility of anonymous bloggers claiming to be College Republicans who have jumped ship to support Ritter.

There isn’t time to deconstruct the alleged confession line-by-line. Either this is a very clever liberal ploy or a CR member who is very gullible and wishy-washy. Regardless, anonymity on the ‘Net undermines credibility. Until there is clarity and context and elaboration, such an announcement should be taken with the molecule of salt it deserves. And even then…

Marc Holtzman writes in an electronic letter that I received:

The Republican Party is about issues, ideas, agendas, and — just as importantly — ballot access.

What about the rule of law?, asks Rocky Mountain News editor Vincent Carroll:

“You’re allowed to vote anywhere in the state for a statewide candidate,” observes Mark Grueskin, the attorney trying to get GOP candidate Marc Holtzman on the August primary ballot. “Why can’t you get signatures from anywhere in the state.”

Um, maybe because that seems to be against the law?

Holtzman chirps endlessly about the rule of law being flouted by illegal immigrants. Now he has a chance to do his bit to shore up respect for the legal system: Tell his attorney to drop his attempt to have a court rewrite the accepted petition process.

Of course, that would require retaining an attorney who isn’t fond of persuading courts to stretch all credibility in allegedly “interpreting” the law.

John Andrews certainly has a point - I have tried to make the same ultimate argument (see here and here and most recently here). “Your statements on immigration are not credible as long as [Mark Grueskin] is your attorney,” the conservative Colorado statesman wrote. Marc Holtzman would be wise to listen.

What a telling week this may turn out to be in the race for Colorado’s governor and state legislature. In the wake of an overreaching decision from the state Supreme Court:

1. Marc Holtzman’s campaign slips further into irrelevancy by clinging to judicial activism in order to stay alive. His lawyers - one of whom argued before the Supreme Court to have Defend Colorado Now’s initiative removed from the ballot - are calling on a judge to loosely interpret the law to allow him on the ballot in the first place.

2. Bill Ritter’s campaign may want to reconsider its very loud and leadership-lacking “no comment” on this very important and momentous issue.

3. Bob Beauprez, the Republican choice for governor, has been out in front on the immigration measure. He quickly and decisively condemned the decision and called on Governor Owens to call a special session.

One final note. Observe the different political analyses with which the two major dailies ended their respective stories, and decide for yourself which is more accurate. First, the Denver Post:

It’s unclear what party has more to win or lose in a special session because immigration issues cross party lines.

And compare with the Rocky Mountain News:

[Political consultant Katy] Atkinson said the issue has united the Republican Party, torn apart by an ugly gubernatorial primary and other issues.

“There are a lot of people who are genuinely ticked off by the ruling,” she said. “I don’t see how this helps Democrats at all.”

If handled right, the issue works best for the Republican Party and for the state of Colorado, and Bob Beauprez has taken charge.

For a more astute explanation, read Peter Blake’s column today. Spot on.

It is contorted decisions like the one the Colorado Supreme Court made yesterday regarding the anti-illegal immigration initiative that undermine citizens’ respect for the judiciary. As has been proven again and again, naked partisanship no longer ends at the courtroom door.

And inevitably, when the exalted robes stretch common sense and logic to play partisan politics, it settles nothing. Instead, it ratchets up the pressure of frustrated citizens and elected representatives. Thus today we read in the Denver Post that Republican House Minority Leader Mike May is calling for a special legislative session to address the issue. As the article points out, it is indeed a longshot that such a session would win the needed two-thirds approval.

Since the illegal immigration issue is not going away, we can only hope there is some way Defend Colorado Now can regroup and successfully press its case.

The larger point is not the substance of the immigration issue itself, but the blatant judicial usurpation that threatens Constitutional rights, as the editors of the Rocky Mountain News so eloquently argued today.

With even keener wit and insight, Joshua also quite ably deconstructed “Exhibit A” in the case for the “postmodern judiciary,” and the frightening tyranny that looms behind yesterday’s decision. With the single-subject rule construed so broadly, the high court can almost at whim accept or reject initiatives in the place of a popular vote, and according to its own timing.

Perhaps ironically, the state Supreme Court signed off on John Andrews’ other initiative - the one for judicial term limits. The case for judicial term limits has been made even stronger today by the hollowness of some opponents’ arguments, like Democrat Secretary of State candidate Ken Gordon:

Ken Gordon, a lawyer and majority leader of the Colorado Senate, called the idea of term-limiting judges “crazy” and said judges must be protected from political whims.

“This is anti-judicial sentiment that is stirred up by certain political elements, and I think it is unjustified,” Gordon, D-Denver, said. “A judge’s job is frequently to protect somebody’s rights. And rights are frequently unpopular.”

Gordon may want to rethink his position that the status quo keeps judges “protected from political whims.” I am not prepared to say whether the judicial term limits initiative is the answer, but the current state of affairs bodes too much harm to do nothing indefinitely.

While the Marc Holtzman for governor campaign touts a Denver Post article that says a judge has placed their candidate’s name on the ballot, they probably won’t bring too much attention to the rest of the story: one-half of Holtzman’s legal team confesses the narrow chances of finding enough signatures to qualify his candidacy. Here’s the long and the short of it:

…[B]ecause the ballot-certification deadline was Friday, a judge ordered that Holtzman be placed on the ballot in case his appeal is successful. If it’s not, the judge said, his votes simply won’t be counted.

Despite all its bluster, does it sound like the Holtzman campaign is really confident about its chances? Or do you sense more of an air of desperation?:

[John] Head, one of the Denver attorneys representing Holtzman in the lawsuit, said the campaign believes it has 1,541 valid signatures in the 1st Congressional District and 1,513 valid signatures in the 7th Congressional District - about 500 fewer than Head believed Holtzman had Friday.

Head also was concerned when The Denver Post pointed out that some of the names in a court document filed Friday do not match rejected signatures provided by the secretary of state.

For example, Carla Johnston and James Johnston both appear in Exhibit E of the filing but are not in a list of rejected signatures. James Williams appears 18 times at five different addresses in the Holtzman exhibit, but there is no James Williams on the secretary of state’s list.

“You raised questions about it,” he said. “I need to verify if we operated under some faulty logic, and it doesn’t hold up.” [Emphasis added]

And this little factoid:

The Denver Post could not systematically verify the Holtzman campaign’s filing because the campaign declined to provide an electronic version of the exhibits. [Emphasis added]

And last but not least, the piece de resistance:

Head said the campaign has hired private investigators and is using databases to further narrow the signatures to confirm they are registered voters living in the two districts. [Emphasis added]

Mismatched signatures? Keeping their exhibits from the public eye? Hiring private investigators? I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again: this campaign is hanging on by the narrowest of fraying threads, exhibiting greater and greater desperation, and is well against the odds of finding enough valid signatures to get on the ballot. Even if the near-miraculous feat of validating Holtzman’s candidacy is achieved, it has to be apparent to any open-eyed observer that he cannot win the Republican primary. At this point, he can only serve to divide the party and squander its resources going into an important election this fall.

But the Holtzman team has resisted any chance to take the gracious and reasonable approach. How many more legal challenges do they plan to make? If the judge finds an insufficient number of signatures to qualify his candidacy, will they do the right thing then? I fear rejection as high as the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t be enough for them.

Sigh… enough already.