Mount Virtus

The liberal wing of Colorado’s Democratic party is grasping at straws to fling mud at the Republican gubernatorial candidate, but the Denver Post - whether as it was originally written or as it was edited for publication - props up the credibility of the charges by omitting relevant information.

Under the guise of a benign-sounding group called Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government (CCEG), activist Democrat attorney Chantell Taylor is taking media potshots at the integrity of Bob Beauprez’s campaign without the fortitude to follow the legal channels and actually file a formal complaint. In the article, Taylor is only identified as “CCEG director.”

Instead of initiating a formal complaint, Taylor finds a media audience to murmur that the current Secretary of State - Republican Gigi Dennis - is playing partisan politics by not initiating the complaint herself. Maybe she should consult some other lawyers on her own side before she starts making silly allegations, as Post writer Chris Frates uncovered:

Election lawyer Mark Grueskin, who often represents Democrats, said he thinks Dennis is correct because the system is set up to be enforced by citizen complaints.

“She’s not really supposed to be investigating all these fact- specific complaints,” he said. “Frankly, if this group wants to get it addressed, they need to put pen to paper and let the process take its course.”

If there were anything approaching serious evidence that Beauprez had broken any campaign finance law, liberal Democrats would be filing real complaints rather than staging press conferences. It’s just sad (and predictable) to see the Post acting as an enabler of frivolous charges, without disclosing key facts about the source of the complaint.

A two-minute Google search would have identified Taylor’s affiliation with the ACLU of Colorado and her active role as a district captain for the Denver Democratic Party. And less than five minutes searching the contribution records on the Colorado Secretary of State Web site would have shown that Taylor is a contributor to Ken Gordon, the Democrats’ candidate for Secretary of State.

Pertinent facts to consider, don’t you think? I know it may have been a slow news day, but if you’re going to cover the story, at least include a few important details to give some context.

Wow, cha-ching! You can almost hear Nevada’s education unions and bureaucrats salivating at the idea:

A consultant recommended Thursday that Nevadans spend nearly $1.3 billion more per year on public education so that the state’s students meet achievement standards, a figure that stunned lawmakers and education activists.

The figure suggested by Denver-based Augenblick, Palaich and Associates represents nearly $3,600 more per student each year for Nevada’s 415,000 public school students. Under Nevada’s current funding formula, school districts get about $4,500 per student each year from the Legislature.

Well, let’s clarify that a little bit:

The consultant’s recommendation does not include school construction costs or spending on transportation and buses.

All right, then. Perhaps you are reacting the same way as the audience did at the State Capitol in Carson City - just a little aghast:

The consultant’s recommendation was met with a brief silence by the committee and audience in the hearing room in the Legislative Building.

“We operated under the theory you wanted that number,” consultant John Augenblick said, adding that the state could achieve the 2013-14 goal by increasing current education spending by 5 percent, or $468 million, a year for the next seven years.

Are you ready for the punchline?:
Read the rest of this entry »

…And really want to hear me talk with Jon Caldara on yesterday’s Mike Rosen Show about the Secretary of State’s new rules, the podcast version is up on the 850 KOA site. Go to the Rosen Replay page and look for the following description:

Misleading ads try to prevent union members from having ability to refuse to have their dues go for political causes.

I share this announcement not because I think readers will be enthralled with the dulcet tones of my radio voice but that you will latch onto this important information and pass it on.

I will be on the air with guest host Jon Caldara at 11 AM today to talk about the Colorado Secretary of State’s new rules that recognize individual rights to determine whether their dues money should be spent on political campaigns. The information is highlighted on the Independence Institute’s new educational Web site - TheyMustAsk.com. You can listen live to the radio show by going to the 850 KOA Web site.

For the most recent developments related top this story, please read Peter Blake’s column in Saturday’s Rocky Mountain News. Then ask yourself: what can you learn about a group whose leaders would protest having to ask your permission before spending your money on the political campaigns they choose? You decide.

Overlooked due to the timing of Bob Beauprez’s announcement of a lieutenant governor running mate this week, the Congressman from the 7th District also has sponsored an important piece of education legislation, as highlighted by Dan Lips of the Heritage Foundation:

It’s been said that everything old becomes new again. This is proving true in the federal education reform debate. A conservative congressman has introduced new legislation based on an old idea: local control over education.

In July, Representative Bob Beauprez (R-CO) introduced the Partnership for Academic Success in the States Act, or PASS Act, to restore greater state and local control in education. With bipartisan frustration with No Child Left Behind growing, the PASS Act could garner support across the political spectrum.

The PASS Act would give up to ten states greater freedom and flexibility to control federal education spending without being tied down by the typical web of federal regulations. In exchange, the states would have to demonstrate improved academic achievement. And if a state reduces the achievement gap, it would receive a performance bonus from the federal government.

As Lips goes on to write, this looks to be both good policy and good politics. Although this won’t be the sledgehammer issue he ultimately needs, it will help Beauprez neutralize any apparent advantage the Ritter-O’Brien ticket has on education. Kudos.

I am alive, but life has been busy on many fronts recently. Serious blogging will have to wait. Please check out the other Rocky Mountain Alliance and Friends of the Alliance sites, as well as anything else that strikes your fancy on the blogroll. Be back soon, I hope!

A mixed bag of results, mostly good, from my point of view. Everyone has heard by now that Joe Lieberman lost to Ned Lamont and the left-wing nutroots of the Democratic Party. John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics explains why this is a disastrous path for the Democrats to follow.

Over in Michigan (a nice place to be from, let me tell you), the Club for Growth and fiscal conservatives scored a significant victory as Tim Walberg unseated one-term incumbent Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz in the 7th District primary. Two years ago Schwarz won 29% in a crowded field with five conservative opponents. Last night, he went one-on-one against a conservative and lost. Even the endorsement of President Bush and John McCain couldn’t get him more than 46% of the ballot. A kudos to my college buddy Joe Wicks, who has successfully managed the Walberg campaign to one victory and now faces a looming (but very winnable) battle against liberal Democrat Sharon Renier.

Back in Colorado, Republicans in my 7th District have to be happy to see Ed Perlmutter surviving the bitter Democratic primary to face our Rick O’Donnell. It will be an uphill battle for the Republican in this open seat race, but Perlmutter is more beatable than his primary challenger Peggy Lamm. O’Donnell already has challenged the Democrat to a debate a week going into the general election. I’m glad to see Rick running this race with confidence. Note to the national pundits: don’t hand this one to the Dems quite yet.

In the 5th District, conservative Doug Lamborn prevailed with a surprise win after the absentee ballots were counted to put him over a stunned Jeff Crank. I’m a bit disappointed, too, having endorsed Crank. The bitter campaign tactics of Lamborn’s surrogates were the story in this race. I had hoped that Lamborn would condemn the slanderous attacks on Crank and Rivera, but now the challenge is to bring unity and healing here in a race that Democrat challenger Jay Fawcett has virtually no chance of winning.

Quickly running down the state and local races of interest - the good, the not-so-good, and the undecided:

GOOD - strong conservatives win contested GOP primaries
Senate 13 - Scott Renfroe
Senate 7 - Josh Penry
Senate 16 - Marty Neilson
Senate 30 - Ted Harvey
House 14 - Kent Lambert
House 19 - Marsha Looper
House 38 - Matt Dunn

NOT-SO-GOOD - less fiscally conservative or anti-school choice candidates win contested GOP primaries
House 23 - Ramey Johnson
House 52 - Don Marostica
Jefferson County Treasurer - Faye Griffin

UNDECIDED - too close to call
Senate 22 - Conservative Mike Kopp holds a 79-vote lead over Kiki Traylor with some provisional and absentee ballots apparently still to be counted
House 37 - Spencer Swalm appears to have the final edge over Betty Ann Habig, but no result has been called yet
Arapahoe County Treasurer - Out of more than 24,000 votes cast, conservative Dan Kopelman trails Sue Sandstrom by 56 votes

For more, check out the ongoing coverage at To the Right.

One sentence from this Rocky Mountain News story jumped off the page:

[Governor Bill] Owens has endorsed [Kiki] Traylor in the Tuesday primary.

What is a sitting Republican governor doing endorsing a candidate in a competitive primary? Or more specifically, what is he doing endorsing the least conservative (by far) of the candidates in a three-way race for a safe Republican seat? The anticipated answer is that only the conservative wing of the GOP can be divisive - and frankly, I’m sick of hearing that fabrication. So let’s dispel that argument right here and now.

None of the three candidates (Traylor, Mike Kopp, and Justin Everett) has ever won an election, though Traylor was appointed by a hand-selected insider committee of so-called “moderates” to fill the seat from Senate District 22 when the decidedly unconservative Norma Anderson stepped down in January. When it came to the gathering of the party faithful at the county assembly, Traylor couldn’t even win enough votes from delegates to get on the ballot! She was forced to petition on, but it must be nice to have the governor intervene on your behalf against fellow Republicans.

After once being named “the best governor in America” by the eminently conservative National Review, Owens has taken one of the longest backslides in political memory. I don’t need to spell out each step, suffice it to say he can hardly be considered the conservatives’ best friend anymore.

Nor can he be said to be looking out for the best interests of his political party, any more, after the debacle that Owens made of the special session. I usually try to abstain from using the term “RINO,” but the governor is making it awfully difficult. (For the take of someone with no such self-restraint, read To the Right.)

When searching for an explanation of Owens’ active campaigning for the Referendum C tax increase or for his signing of the recent special session legislation - both which made Democrats look like they had “solved” the problem, the word legacy is one that comes to mind. But the endorsement of Traylor doesn’t fit into that box. Someone has to ask whether he is cozying up for a job after his administration ends in less than 5 months. Or does someone out there have a better explanation?

This blogger remembers sitting down in the Governor’s office on one occasion and hearing Owens explain how his role as leader of the party requires him to unify the conservative and moderate factions. Of course, he shouldn’t be an ideologue, and he should work toward building his party as the majority. But what excuse is there to endorse Traylor in a heated primary in a safe Republican district? Or to endorse the less conservative Dale Hall in his race against Scott Renfroe? I could go on, but I think my point has been made clearly.

Rather than the understandable and well-respected position of neutrality in a Republican primary, Owens has by all appearances told the party’s faithful foot soldiers - its conservative wing - to take a hike. And if the GOP fails to regain the majority in either or both Colorado houses this autumn, you just know the blame will be tossed at the “divisive” conservatives. If that transpires, I will be here struggling between laughing and saying “I told you so,” and shaking my head in disgust.

Believing in conspiracies can be as all-American as baseball, barbecues, and apple pie - usually when it’s cute to believe some myths like Elvis is alive or Sasquatch (aka Bigfoot) is roaming the Pacific Northwest. But then you wake up one day and see the results of a Scripps-Howard poll (HT: Rocky Mountain News), which says 36% of your fellow countrymen believe it is likely that “federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.”

Wow, that’s demoralizing, you say. I wonder how many people surveyed in 1943-1944 believed that FDR staged the Pearl Harbor bombing to take us to war - I’m guessing less than 36 percent.

But then if you dig a little deeper, you see the same sample of 1,010 American adults was asked whether “the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from others planets“: 38% of Americans believe this is likely.

Or that “officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy“: 40% of Americans believe this is likely.

Unfortunately, the data behind the survey were inaccessible, so I wasn’t able to determine the demographics behind the different conspiracy beliefs. But it sure would be interesting to know. Anyone who wants to start a new random conspiracy theory in my comment section, please go ahead and try to make me and my other readers laugh. We could all use a dose of that medicine.

The poll cites a growing general dissatisfaction and anger with the federal government. But it is a little disturbing at a time of serious war against a serious Islamofascist threat that so many people in this country show such signs of moral confusion. Many of these are the same people that don’t believe we really are at war, I’m sure. How sad.

Less sad but more annoying, I’ve probably just sent an unofficial invitation to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists to flood this post with comments. If that’s you and you feel compelled to respond, I have something you ought to know: (ssshhh… not so loud - click the “More” button for your message) -
Read the rest of this entry »

Jim has already posted about the Sunday RMA picnic here and posted a couple pictures here. Richie D also posted on the event here.

It was a good time had by all, but in my humble and honest opinion, this is the best picture of all from Sunday’s picnic.

Let two things be known here and now:
1) That her fair appearance is overwhelmingly a product of her mother’s genes; and
2) That being a daddy is the best job I’ve ever had.

Neal McCluskey at the Cato Institute Blog has a must-read post on how universal vouchers or tax credits could be used to end the high-stakes political creation-evolution debates. This is an argument I’ve made before, and I’m glad to see it “up in lights,” so to speak:

Of course, the creationism conflict in Kansas – and, indeed, across America – isn’t a prize fight. It’s a battle between the deeply held values of regular people, and unlike Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield, Kansas children, parents, and other citizens aren’t being richly compensated for the punishment they’re taking. They’re fighting because they have to. They all have to support one system of public education, and they all, rightfully, want their beliefs and morals respected.

And so the fight goes on, into rounds we lost count of long ago.

Thankfully, there is a way to end this death match, but it will require that both combatants do something that so far they’ve seemed unwilling to consider. Rather than exchanging blows in perpetuity, they could agree to let each other have what they want. They could cease forcing all people to support a single system of government-created and government-run schools, and implement school choice, giving parents control over their children’s education by letting them pick schools that share their values.

It just makes so much sense to me. It’s a short post (I clipped a little more than half of it) - go ahead and read it all.

The case of U.S. Rep. John Dingell’s advanced foot-in-mouth disease has been amply covered over at Powerline, so I won’t rehash the Michigan Democrat’s ludicrous remarks - except to re-emphasize the blatant moral equivalence characterized in them.

On a personal level, Dingell is the poster child for career politicians, having held his Congressional seat for nearly 52 years. A friend of many union officials and party leaders, Dingell’s seat is considered one of the safest. His father and namesake held it the 22 years before he did. The last time the U.S. Congress didn’t feature a representative from Michigan named John Dingell, Herbert Hoover was in the White House and the big issue was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. But I digress.

Dingell’s district also includes significant parts of Dearborn and some of the heaviest concentrations of Arab-American population in the country. How this might have affected his remarks one can only guess.

More importantly, of course, is how the sort of thinking expressed in Dingell’s remarks characterizes the minority party on the Hill and the fact that Dingell would be Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee if the Democrats took the majority. Yes, someone who publicly stated that he is not against Hizballah.

Today, the Detroit Free Press reports on the damage control Dingell and his staff have undertaken in the wake of the fallout from his remarks. Among his visible efforts are attempted meetings with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other representatives of the Jewish community. Here is how Dingell tried on Tuesday to straighten out his earlier statement:

On Tuesday, Dingell said, “If you expect me to defend Hizballah, you’re out of your mind.”

But, he said, the conflict is an ancient and complicated one that is “in our interest to resolve before there are more killings and before it gets over here.”

It’s apparently just too hard for the senior Democrat to stray too far from the moral equivalence that hamstrings the thinking of so many in his party. A clear and unequivocal apology and retraction would be too much. Instead we get this:

Dingell’s office issued a statement Tuesday noting his cosponsorship of a resolution urging the European Union to place Hizballah on a list of terrorist groups.

So we know the Democratic Congressman isn’t just stupid or naive. He wants the Europeans to recognize that Hizballah is a terrorist group but isn’t quite sure whether we should be for or against these terrorists.

The Republicans these days have several strikes against them, but at least you can count on them to take a stand for what is right in foreign policy and to have a clear and determined vision of what it takes to protect this country. Just imagining the phrase “Chairman Dingell” sends frightening chills up my spine.

Let’s have some sanity, folks.

Not often do I write about my Detroit Tigers‘ ongoing special season, one that has far more than revived the franchise from a decade-plus of the doldrums. But last night’s 10-4 victory over Tampa Bay hit so many milestones that it’s impossible to ignore:

Go get ‘em, Tigers!

For what it’s worth, one week before a heated primary election in Colorado’s 5th Congressional District, I’m supporting - and urging all my readers to support - common sense conservative Jeff Crank. At first, I paid little attention to this race, in part because it’s outside my district and keeping up with a six-way Republican primary seemed like too much. I thought that two of the three frontrunner candidates looked like good solid conservatives, and I have more knowledgeable friends on both sides, so I let it go.

But reading about recent developments has convinced me that Doug Lamborn’s campaign tactics are a sign that he is less fit for office, and that Jeff Crank would be a much preferable choice for Republicans in Colorado Springs.

The fact that Hugh Hewitt of all people is bringing national attention to the primary with his support of Crank could be enough to tip the scales in his favor. But he can’t adequately respond to the unfair attacks without sufficient campaign funds. Please read Hugh’s latest post on the dishonest CD-5 primary mudslinging, and support the Crank campaign if you are able.

Also check out Jeff’s blog.