Mount Virtus

The latest from the jockeying to replace Tom Tancredo in the 6th Congressional District … An insider source tells me that high-ranking party officials met with Secretary of State Mike Coffman yesterday in an attempt to dissuade him from entering the primary.

Should Coffman resign, Gov. Ritter gets to appoint his replacement – figured to be Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, whom Coffman defeated in the statewide election last November. The fox then would be guarding the electoral henhouse. Coffman’s great initiative to ensure all Colorado voters have valid identification? If he leaves office to run, you can be sure it won’t be a top priority for Gordon.

But Coffman sees things differently, I’m told. Scorned by the GOP leadership last year in his bid for governor, he’s determined to take his distinguished record of public service and military service and translate it into an immediate run for Congress. In other words, my source says he has rebuffed the pleas of party leadership. And little time is left for the big decision: the caucus is scheduled for February 5, only 97 days away by my reckoning.

I certainly have a lot of respect for Coffman, having met him on several occasions. (Anyone who’s ever been to a Republican event in Colorado would have a hard time missing him.) No doubt Coffman would make a great Congressman, but so would some of the other contenders. State Senator Ted Harvey would be giving up a safe seat that could be filled by another conservative Republican (I’ve been told that State Senator Tom Wiens likely won’t run), and Wil Armstrong currently holds down no seat. These are the political realities of the moment.

Having declined the persuasive attempts of state GOP leadership, Coffman may listen to the party’s grassroots – especially residents of the 6th Congressional District. Is having a Congressman Coffman, as opposed to a Congressman Harvey or Congressman Armstrong or some other Republican, worth handing over the Secretary of State’s office to the Democrats? Coffman needs to hear your answer, and soon.

The Rocky Mountain News reports today what was first news to me a couple weeks ago: former Congressional candidate and rising GOP star Rick O’Donnell is moving to Texas to take on a new career challenge.

I first met Rick shortly after I moved to Colorado, while he was working in Governor Owens’ office. Though it’s highly doubtful he remembers our meeting, some of his advice and suggestions were very helpful to me to help get my roots established and to make important contacts. I later had opportunity to interact with him in several education policy-related venues, and volunteered on his unsuccessful 2006 campaign for the 7th Congressional District.

The timing of Rick’s run for Congress was unfortunate, as he got swept up in a nationwide anti-GOP backlash. I hope if someday he considers another run for office (and hopefully after he has moved back to Colorado) it won’t be forgotten what was cited in the story today:

But voters and political pundits in both parties praised O’Donnell’s campaign, particularly the TV ads he designed in which he poked fun at himself.

“I’m sad to see Rick leave,” said Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. “I think he’s one of the best and the brightest.”

“I wish Rick good luck, much success, and I hope he finds Texas to his liking!” Perlmutter said in a statement.

Wadhams said O’Donnell played a “critical role” in Owens’ first term, including pushing for tax cuts, improved transportation and education reform.

Best of success to Rick O’Donnell in his new venture. But don’t stay in Texas too long!

With Rep. Tom Tancredo announcing he will not seek re-election in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District, the scuttlebutt begins about which candidate will rise to the top to secure this safe Republican seat. According to the Rocky Mountain News, former Lt. Governor Jane Norton and former State Senate President John Andrews will stick to the sidelines, as well as radio talk show host Dan Caplis (who, ironically, like Tancredo, appears to be eyeing a 2010 run against U.S. Senator Ken Salazar).

On the other hand, two state legislators – Sen. Ted Harvey (who like Tancredo once worked for my employer, the Independence Institute) and Sen. Tom Wiens (who may sidestep a chance at a career on the big screen) – look to be entering the fray, along with Wil Armstrong (son of the highly reputable former U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong) and current Secretary of State Mike Coffman (whose candidacy is causing the Dead Governors to lick their lips at the prospect of a Democrat Secretary of State).

Meanwhile, Abes Guy at Rocky Mountain Politics begins to dissect the roles and leanings of heavy-hitting conservative players like the Club for Growth and Christian Coalition in the upcoming internecine contest. Unlike several other political races in recent Colorado history, there’s virtually no chance a vicious, hard-fought primary would surrender the seat to the Democrats. But the last thing Republicans in this state should be looking for is a repeat of last year’s Lamborn-Crank showdown in the 5th Congressional.

Stay tuned to Mount Virtus and other outlets of the center-right Colorado blogosphere to see who is getting an inside track in this race for the 2008 primary. Let the competition begin!

Having taken this interesting and intuitive quiz, I have discovered that it is indeed Fred Thompson with whom I align most closely on the major issues of the day:

My runners up were Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul. Interestingly, the quiz results said I disagreed with both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani on abortion. Quite a feat, I suppose. I’d be interested to see what the results are for some of my other friends – both blogging and non-blogging.

A quick Friday morning question for Colorado farmers, ranchers, and small business owners: What does Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall, Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate, think about Charlie Rangel’s massive tax increase proposal? What does junior U.S. Senator Ken Salazar think? What about Democrat presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton? The Wall Street Journal makes a cogent point:

No one thinks his plan has a chance of becoming law this year, but its beauty is as a signal of Democratic intentions for 2009. In proposing what would be the largest tax increase in history, Mr. Rangel is showing the world what he wants the tax code to look like if Democrats run the entire government. None of the Presidential candidates will admit this before November 2008, but give Mr. Rangel credit for having the courage of Hillary Clinton’s convictions.

Indeed. So – ahem – will we get Rep. Udall on the record?

Ouch. That hurt. Last night’s 2-1 loss to the Boston Red Sox in Game 2 of the World Series was painful, but not fatal. (Regrettably, I missed most of the game, fulfilling a commitment at a Republican event that featured keynote speaker Bob Schaffer.)

Nevertheless, I’m here to tell Rockies fans not to panic. The naivete many had coming into the Series is gone, but the most loyal fans know it’s a one-game-at-a-time approach now. Let’s be realistic: even getting the series back to Boston is an uphill goal at this point, but here’s hoping that Baseball with Altitude is a lot friendlier to the home team than to the visitors.

And how about a little bulletin board material (albeit from cynical sportswriters) to get the Rox fired up? See you all at Game 3!

Short on time today, a quick link will have to do rather than a full-length post. Looking for the best in conservative blogs from different states in the U.S.? Head on over to Righty Blogs, a new project of Red State.

A classic proof of “correlation does not equal causation”: our Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter injects partisan politics into America’s game with an off-the-wall comment about how seven of the eight 2007 Major League Baseball playoff teams hail from states with Democrat governors. Did Ritter stumble while trying to make a point with this assessment, or was it just an attempt at a joke that has fallen flat?

Who obsesses over partisan politics so much that they not only have to figure out which party is in power in states where professional baseball playoff teams hail from, but also have to proclaim it to the media? To the governor and his staffers: just sit back and enjoy the games. Not everything is about partisan politics.

Meanwhile, shining a light on the absurdity of Ritter’s remarks, a shrewd Cubs fan went ahead and applied the partisan template to the past year’s championships in major pro and college sports, and found our governor struck out swinging in his off-the-wall observation.

Please, Mr. Governor, let baseball be baseball. Don’t pour water on our state’s shared Rocktober celebration.

In the Sunday Denver Post point-counterpoint, a piece co-authored by SEIU union boss Mitch Ackerman asserts that Colorado state government needs a new sort of vaguely-defined union “partnership.” It’s an attempt to give political cover to Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter, yes. Nevertheless, you still clearly have a solution in search of a problem:

A few state agencies account for their performance with measurable outcomes. We’d like to see more of that, possibly incorporated into an annual performance review. If this sounds like a strange idea coming from an employee group, it isn’t. All working people like the recognition and pride that comes from doing a good job.

As frontline workers and taxpayers, state employees are in a unique position to advocate on behalf of the people they serve. We can reform Colorado government for the 21st century. Let’s set aside political rhetoric and involve frontline workers in win-win solutions to improve the essential services we deliver.

Mm … why does the Governor, the CEO of state government, need a private group (SEIU) to set policy for state employees? (more…)

The Colorado Rockies secured the National League pennant tonight … when did you ever think you’d hear these words? And after winning 21 of 22 games? Uncharted territory in Major League Baseball. W… O… W! Matt Holliday is chosen Series MVP, but it could just as well have been one of many others wearing the purple uniform. And how could you be anything but genuinely happy for Todd Helton?
Simply un-be-lie-va-ble. I’m in baseball heaven now.

October 14, 2006: My Detroit Tigers won 7 straight to claim the American League pennant, the franchise’s first in 22 years.

October 15, 2007: My Colorado Rockies won 7 straight to claim the National League pennant, the franchise’s first in its 15-season history.

Like last year’s Tigers, this year’s Rox face a long layoff headed into the World Series. Whether the opponent ends up being the Tribe or the BoSox, here’s hoping that the same hangover effect doesn’t apply.

ESPN and the like have had a hard time figuring out who these Colorado Rockies are, this true TEAM of champions. Well, pretty soon, they’ll all find out.

GO ROCKIES!!! (Also check out Michael’s live-blogging 9th inning celebration.)

A little original reporting from one small corner of Colorado’s right-of-center blogosphere: according to a well-placed source, the Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate campaign is prepared to report 3rd quarter fundraising totals of $802,570. Combined with the $717,047 he raised during the 2nd quarter, Schaffer has compiled $1,519,617 since he began in earnest in May.

The most recent numbers are solid, certainly not stellar – they reflect a slowing of the torrid pace he achieved during the first six weeks of active fundraising. Meanwhile, Schaffer’s Democrat rival – Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall – has indicated that his campaign raised more than $1.1 million in the recent quarter.
It seems like a fair assessment to make that the Schaffer campaign is being held back far more by a general Republican donor fatigue than the candidate himself or the mechanics of the campaign. Considering the political climate, Schaffer’s revenue totals are pretty good. The more evidence showing the competitiveness of this race and the consistency of the Republican candidate’s message, we have every reason to believe that fundraising will pick up the pace again. Schaffer is an excellent candidate worth backing.
Cross posted at Schaffer v Udall

My friend and colleague Jessica Peck Corry hits the nail on the head today with some important questions for our governor, listing the growing number of cases where Colorado voters are scratching their heads and asking “Back Room Ritter” what the secrecy is all about:

Earlier this year, Ritter remained silent after a Denver District Judge scolded officials from Ritter’s Department of Public Health and the Attorney General’s office for violating constitutional mandates regarding open meetings. The judge ruled that this government coalition had violated the Constitution by meeting in secret to set arbitrary limits on sick and dying patients seeking relief under the Colorado’s voter-implemented medical marijuana program.

And now Ritter is again back in court. Recent open records requests reveal that his administration has met with union officials to develop a secret joint-strategy to force compulsory unionization on public employees. While Ritter handed over some information related to the meetings, he is seeking court relief after refusing to release at least one key document still in his possession.

While frustrating to government watchers, Ritter’s actions should be expected in the aftermath of the 2006 election, where he pulled the bait-and-switch of the century. Campaigning with the financial backing of union contributors and committees, he convinced industry leaders that he’d be a pro-business executive

Read the whole thing.

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter looks to be more serious about his payback to Big Labor leaders than even earlier anticipated. As Face the State reports today – having uncovered key communications – the Governor is seriously considering an executive order to institute collective bargaining for state employees.

The problem with the governor’s proposed policy change is identified well by Republican state senators Kester and McElhany in a recent commentary for the Pueblo Chieftain:

Why the secrecy? Maybe it is because they know collective bargaining is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Just look at the cost incurred by other states that have gone down that path. Washington’s state government, which began its experiment with collective bargaining in 2004, will spend an additional $1.6 billion in salary and benefits on its 110,000 employees over the next two years under that state’s labor contract. Members of Washington’s legislature have little leeway under the contract and cannot change it.

In Colorado, collective bargaining is even harder to justify. As the Rocky Mountain News reported, Colorado state employees earn about 25 percent more than their counterparts in neighboring states! Their average salary of $51,753 already ranks ninth in the nation, or 9 percent higher than the national average for state employees.

It is not only the taxpayers who would feel the pinch. Some of the very same state employees whom collective bargaining is supposed to help would wind up with the short end of the stick. That is because they would be forced either to join the union or pay “agency fees” in lieu of dues. In Washington, state employees who refused either option actually lost their jobs.

These observations only scratch the surface. Perhaps understanding this helps to explain why the governor may push his policy through a stroke of the pen. First, such a dramatic policy change without any mention of the problem supposedly being solved. And now, without even a debate among the people’s elected representatives?

Maybe the majority Democrats, realizing just how unpopular mandated collective bargaining would be, want to leave it to their popular governor to absorb the entire political hit. That would help spare Democrat legislators in vulnerable districts from having to choose between re-election and spurning the union bosses on one hand, and drinking the party Kool-Aid and going down to electoral defeat on the other.

On the surface, it looks shrewd. But if Ritter goes down the executive order road on this issue, he may forfeit more popularity and coalition support than he can afford. What’s left of the political honeymoon would then come to a screeching halt.

Colorado Democrats, are you worried about the high unfavorable ratings Hillary Clinton has in our state? Perhaps you need a good dose of Tryphorgetin from DNC Pharmaceuticals, brought to us by our new friends over at Rocky Mountain Politics.

More than a year out, Colorado’s U.S. Senate race is polling right at expectations: Republican Bob Schaffer is in a dead heat with Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall, with a hefty share of voters undecided or unsatisfied. Despite recent history and all the clamor about divisions within the state’s GOP, including this:

Ciruli said Schaffer is attracting a lower percentage of voters from Republicans, Democrats and the unaffiliated, but there are 130,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats, keeping Schaffer competitive.

“It’s still very early in the campaign, but Schaffer’s challenge will be to unify his party and attract more unaffiliated voters as the public begins to make up its mind,” Ciruli said.

Ciruli’s observations seem to reflect conventional wisdom more than the actual numbers reported from his survey:

The poll showed Udall with 72 percent support from his own party, 6 percent from Republicans and 34 percent from the unaffiliated, while Schaffer got 68 percent support from his own party, 3 percent from Democrats and 19 percent unaffiliated.

With a poll reported to have a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percent, Udall’s report among Democrats is only 4 points higher than Schaffer’s report among Republicans? Judgment on these results should be withheld, of course, until we have more context and a broader range of polling data to digest. But the early indication gives Colorado Republicans optimism that perhaps Schaffer can move beyond the party unification and start courting independents earlier than anticipated.

Meanwhile, a watcher debunks the wishful thinking of the Democrat candidate’s spokesperson at Schaffer v Udall.

In the end, the name of the game is fundraising. As the Associated Press reports:

Schaffer’s campaign said it raised $717,000 during the second quarter after getting a late start and has not filed a report for the third quarter. Udall, who began raising money in the first quarter, has raised $3.8 million, including $1.5 million transferred over from his congressional campaign fund.

We await Schaffer’s third quarter fundraising report.