Mount Virtus

From the Examiner:

Saving energy may not be so easy after all. A television commercial featuring Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter was meant to show viewers how easy it is to save energy, but it showed Ritter using more, not less.

The original, which aired for weeks, showed Ritter turning a thermostat down from 72 degrees to 68. But during the summer, that means the air conditioner would work harder – and use more energy.

I would need to see this commercial to believe it. Apparently, some remedial education is needed as part of Gov. Ritter’s “Climate Action Plan”.

Bill Ritter would have known he couldn’t turn his thermostat down to 68 if Barack Obama had been on his shoulder:

Face The State reports that Big Labor interests are about ready to turn in their signatures on four ballot initiatives that would bust Colorado’s economy. You know, it’s union leaders’ way of protesting Amendment 47, aka Right-to-Work, which would prevent the forced collection of union fees from non-members.

Setting aside the Presidential race and even the U.S. Senate showdown between Bob Schaffer and Boulder liberal Mark Udall, this may be a very interesting election season in Colorado yet.

Admittedly I haven’t followed the Republican primary in Colorado’s 5th Congressional District too closely. But I have paid enough attention to know that Jeff Crank is the candidate most worthy of support.

A friend e-mailed me to say that, given the positive effect of my endorsement on Wil Armstrong’s candidacy, I also ought to come forward and publicly endorse Jeff Crank, too. Some of the reasons are the same – the need for fresh, outside business experience and leadership in the halls of Congress. But Crank also has a clear and principled stand against earmarks and pork (of the costly government variety), and would stand up for taxpayers not only with his words and his votes, but also with his actions.

I am proud to officially endorse Jeff Crank, Republican for the 5th Congressional District. And don’t forget to vote in the upcoming August 12 primary.

News came yesterday that Alaska Senator Ted Stevens is indicted. If Republicans should have learned anything from the 2006 election, it’s to purge the pork and corruption from their ranks.

This story reminds us that neither major party has anything approaching a monopoly on sleazy politicians, but also gives the GOP an opportunity to distinguish itself by valuing integrity over seniority. Speaking of seniority, no Republican has served longer. It’s time for that tenure to come to an end.

At The Next Right, Patrick Ruffini wisely calls for Ted Stevens to step down, but points out he can’t do so until after Alaska’s August 26 primary.

Of course, actual guilt or innocence has yet to be determined in the Stevens case. But politically speaking, he’s damaged goods. Someone in the GOP needs to discreetly ask Ted Stevens to step aside and allow a fresh face to step forward. I’m still waiting to see who that might be.

From the Tennessee Republican Party, this is a great idea:

Could the Colorado GOP follow suit?

I’ve written very little about the 6th Congressional District primary since my endorsement of Wil Armstrong nearly four months ago. Since then, many prominent Republicans have followed suit with their public endorsements, including Senator Wayne Allard, former Governor Bill Owens, Attorney General John Suthers, former state senate leader Mark Hillman, former Secretary of State Gigi Dennis, and even former Massachusetts governor and possible vice-presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

For the longest time, Secretary of State Mike Coffman has been viewed as the prohibitive frontrunner in this four-way race, which also features state senators Ted Harvey and Steve Ward. But then today comes interesting news from the campaign – also reported at Rocky Mountain Right and The Colorado Index: A poll freshly released from the Wil Armstrong campaign shows a dead heat between Armstrong and Coffman.

Both Wil Armstrong and Mike Coffman have been highly visible with paid media ads. Coffman started off with a significant edge in name recognition, but something has closed the gap of earlier surveys (in February, Coffman reported a 44-10 advantage over his next nearest opponent. Of course, the only one that really matters is the tally of voters on primary election day, August 12.)

Those endorsements must be playing some role in turning the 6th Congressional District GOP primary into a tight two-man race. Certainly not my endorsement, but those other ones.

A significant and very exciting change came to the Virtus household yesterday. Needless to say, blogging will be sporadic, at best, for awhile. More important things are going on!

The times sure have changed for Gov. Bill Ritter. Back in September 2007, two separate polls placed the governor’s approval ratings — in one case, those who believed he was doing an “excellent” or “good” job — around 70 percent:

Ritter’s spokesman said the governor has earned his high approval ratings by taking on renewable energy, transportation, health care and education. “I think the kind of partisan attacks that have come from a few state house Republicans don’t resonate, because the issues that people care about are the issues that Gov. Ritter is addressing,” Evan Dreyer said.

This week, it’s Bill Ritter’s sinking poll numbers that are in the headlines. From today’s Denver Post (including a chance to express your own view in an online poll):

A new poll shows 41 percent of Coloradans say Gov. Bill Ritter is doing a “good” or “excellent” job, a 13-point slip from May that comes after Ritter was getting high marks since his election in 2006….

Evan Dreyer, spokesman for Ritter, discounted the Rasmussen poll.

“The governor does not care about polls,” Dreyer said. “He’s not trying to win a beauty contest. He’s governing and leading to make a positive difference in people’s lives.”…

Dreyer noted that 28 percent of respondents to the July Rasmussen poll said Ritter was doing a “fair” job.

“Excellent, good and fair are positive rankings, and if you add those categories up, they add up to 69 percent,” he said.

Mmm, okay. Which is it, Evan? The Governor doesn’t pay attention to polls, except if you count “fair” as “not too bad,” in which case, hey, look — nearly 70 percent don’t think Bill Ritter is doing a terrible job. Can you imagine this remark from a youngster bringing home his grades from school?: “As, Bs, Cs, and Ds are all positive grades. If you add those categories up, they make up most of the report card….”

Forget the nearly 30-point plummet in approval ratings. Maybe here’s the headline that should have been printed: “Majority of Coloradans Don’t Think Gov. Ritter is Doing a Terrible Job.” Phew. For a minute there, I thought the public might be losing faith in Ritter’s leadership and agenda for a whole host of reasons.

In today’s Rocky Mountain News, Colorado Democrat pollster Floyd Ciruli takes a cold, analytical look at Gov. Bill Ritter’s approval ratings — boiled down, the picture isn’t pretty for the potential one-term governor:

Surprisingly, new Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter may be in trouble. When compared with his Montana counterpart, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, in recent Rasmussen polls, Ritter’s job rating lags behind Schweitzer by 19 points. Only 45 percent of Colorado voters gave Ritter an excellent or good job rating, whereas 64 percent of Montanans rated Schweitzer as doing an excellent or good job.

Floyd Ciruli cites a litany of reasons for Bill Ritter’s sagging popularity, reasons that have been regular themes of this and other local new media sites:

• An unconstitutional property tax increase
• Do-nothing blue-ribbon panels
• New regulations on oil and gas drilling
• Pushing an unpopular severance tax initiative
• Legal troubles over misspent campaign funds
• Giving union leaders a gold-plated invitation to state government

Ciruli might also have mentioned starring in preachy, taxpayer-funded “green” commercials and signing the now infamous Senate Bill 200, aka the “bathroom bill.” (I’m sure I’ve missed a few.)

As the second half of Bill Ritter’s term approaches, the question remains whether Republicans can field a strong and viable challenger to unseat the increasingly vulnerable incumbent in 2010.

A few days ago I had a conversation with some non-political family members about the pains of hosting a national political convention. One of them lives in the Twin Cities. The rest of us live in and around Denver. Doubtless this means some inconveniences and annoyances for denizens, regardless of whether it’s the Republicans or Democrats coming to your town.

But the Denver Post today reports a small outrage I hadn’t even considered before (H/T Slapstick Politics):

Several Denver City Council members are questioning why the Democratic National Convention Committee has a contract with the city to fill up their fleet of vehicles with tax-free fuel.

The $466,000 contract, only $9,700 of which has been paid so far by the DNCC officials, allows them to use the city’s car wash and gas stations for their vehicles. The city’s fuel pumps should be used by government employees only because they don’t charge $.40 cents per gallon of state and federal taxes.

I’m not a lawyer, but this sure sounds like an unethical use of government tax-exempt status. Local media ought to give it further examination. And what about Denver mayor John Hickenlooper? The article cites Hick making a false claim that a similar deal was in place between Minneapolis and the Republican National Convention. What will the city do about the contract?

In the meantime, the rest of us private citizens pay $4 a gallon for gasoline, Democratic party officials get a standard 10 percent discount that takes resources away from funding our highways and other transportation needs. The DNC hasn’t even arrived in Denver yet, and you can already start to feel the public resentment and seething begin to rise.

After his recent Arctic show cruise with numerous liberal elites, Gov. Bill Ritter said he “improved his knowledge of climate change and reinforced his belief that his environmental policies at home are the right ones.”

Our governor picked some miserably bad timing that only makes him look sillier. As Joshua Sharf points out, the widely reputed American Physics Society has shined a growing light of credibility on dissent from the climate hysteria of man-made global warming. Joshua also points to a piece highlighting how Australia is starting to come to terms with the largely bogus nature of the alleged threat.

Meanwhile, Bill Ritter is awed by the visual evidence of Arctic ice caps melting in July – with both Ritter and the Denver Post failing to note the vast extent to which sea-ice levels have grown back in the past year.

Pointing to the report that came from Bill Ritter’s Arctic vacation, Civil Sense notes that its proposals – similar to the governor’s own special agenda for Colorado – “are all top-down, command and control ideas”. Unfortunately, the results for us of Ritter’s misguided policies are costly and intrusive.

Perhaps Bill Ritter should listen to an honest scientific debate rather than hobnob with Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright.

Another landmark yesterday in the fallout between Denver Public Schools and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, reports the Post‘s Jeremy Meyer:

Representatives of Denver’s teachers union and school administrators — embroiled in a contract dispute — met with a professional arbiter Wednesday to discuss next month’s mediation.

The two sides are at odds over compensation and time issues, particularly in regard to proposed changes to ProComp — the voter-approved performance pay system for teachers.

The story continues:

With mediation the week before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, there is concern of picketing during the event to bring national attention to the contract dispute.

The DCTA newsletter has declared teachers should be ready to strike. [DCTA president Kim] Ursetta downplayed that talk Thursday, saying teachers will be in classrooms teaching their students during the convention.

Actions, of course, speak louder than words. As I said before, this could make the DNC much more interesting for me.

It’s still early in the campaign cycle, but the political group known as Protect Colorado’s Future has already hung the banner of “Liar” around its neck. It’s hard to see how much more credibility the group will have as the election season heats up. Protect Colorado’s Future is overwhelmingly funded by a coalition of labor unions. The commercial it aired is designed to attack Right to Work (Amendment 47) and two initiatives that have yet to be certified on the ballot.

In the interest of full disclosure, one initiative (#53), aka Ethical Standards – designed to “prevent public payroll systems from collecting and bundling money to special interest groups that hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions” – has been supported by research from the Independence Institute, where I work.

9News did a “Truth Test” on Protect Colorado Future’s television ad (video link). A sample of the 9News analysis:

• “The sentiment conveyed here is opinion, but the fashion in which it’s conveyed is false.”
• “inaccurate”
• “Part of this statement is true and part is false.”

Then there’s my favorite about their claim that efforts to collect signatures for Right to Work, Ethical Standards, and Government Contracting Reform “have been described as fraudulent and deceptive”: (more…)

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the biggest boys on the Big Labor block (they spent nearly $1 million in 2006 just on Colorado’s elections), has taken a one-two punch today. It doesn’t look good for them.

First, the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF) is urging the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate SEIU’s pension funding scheme. AWF’s Brian Johnson writes at National Review about SEIU’s pension hypocrisy:

Unions often champion themselves as protecting rank-and-file workers from corporate greed and malfeasance. Yet DB pension plans, managed by union officers, are often plagued by insolvency, threatening to leave members with little in retirement.

For example, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund — which covers the majority of the union’s rank-and-file workers — has assets of about $2.8 billion, or $19,000 per participant. For the record, this amount will cover only 56 percent of more than $5 billion in current liabilities. In short, the plan is underfunded. Conversely, the pension plan for SEIU officers has a current funded liability of 108 percent, with assets of nearly $81,000 per participant. The great disparity between these plans exists despite the fact that both are invested in one combined master trust.

How can this be? For one, between 1996 and 2006, the SEIU paid investment advisors roughly $35 million to steer pension money towards projects requiring union-only contracts. The trust’s return on investment during this time was more than 200 basis points below that of the S&P 500, for a loss of more that [sic] $8,500 per worker.

SEIU leaders not only are looking out for themselves a lot better than they’re looking out for the members they’re supposed to represent, but also plan to inflict the same damage on an even wider scale by “taking back the economy”.

Yikes. (more…)

Here’s a little insight for the day … Recently, I posted at the Schaffer v Udall blog a response to the latest trumped-up faux controversy heaped against the Republican U.S. Senate candidate. Rossputin followed it up at Politics West with an even abler and more thorough refutation of the charges – using relevant facts and evidence.

I got a chuckle today when my friend pointed out to me the first comment added to Rossputin’s post:

when are you going to stop dodging my question about your work for the Heartland Institute?

“DeGrow points out a few subsequent articles which show the attack to be erroneous as well as discussing how two of the “big names” leading the attack, former high-level diplomats, are now Democratic activists and at least one works with the Obama campaign.”

Let me get this straight. You’re saying that because the attacks are coming from Democrats, it’s not valid? Nice argument. I now reject all your arguments as they come from a right-wing shill who formerly directed the Heartland Institute.

And speaking of Ben Degrow, isn’t he a right-wing partisan hack of the Independence Institute?

I posted the comment here not to give repute to the nameless commenter, but to highlight a series of tactics featured early and often in the Lefty political playbook:

• Ignore the relevant facts. Go back and read both my post and Rossputin’s post linked above. Notice the weight given to the “fact that the attacks are coming from Democrats” as an argument refuting the original charge. Yes, it’s a secondary point, at best, one that highlights the very duplicity of this commenter’s self-righteous attacks against partisanship.
• Distort other facts. The commenter totally misidentifies the nature of Rossputin’s former relationship with the Heartland Institute.
• Name-calling. The argument ad hominem is the last recourse of an empty argument. Never mind that the phrase “right-wing partisan hack” suffers from its own absurdly illogical construction.
• Guilt by association. The commenter too easily conflates my open and clearly stated political philosophy and leanings and the research and writing I do in my spare time with my employer. Apparently, this is supposed to detract from the substance of what I say. Okay….
• Hide in anonymity. Admittedly, this is a tactic used by some both on the Left and the Right. Note that it tends to encourage the other kinds of behavior listed here.

To the anonymous Lefty commenter, thanks for the instructive example. Oh, by the way, my name is spelled with a capital G, too.