Earlier this evening I got the opportunity briefly to attend a Josh Penry for Governor meet-and-greet session in Broomfield. The campaign is just out of the gate, and the Grand Junction native is busily plowing his way around Colorado. No doubt he’s been on a hectic schedule, but Penry demonstrated a good stump speech delivery, staying on message.

I am pleased to see him make no bones about the national Republican Party’s failure to govern according to fiscally conservative principles, and his clear decision to run against that failing as well as against incumbent Bill Ritter’s weak leadership, misguided philosophy, and misplaced priorities. (more…)

So you like the idea of Obama Care? You want to go in the direction of the Canadian health care system? Follow the creative and energetic Steven Crowder into the waiting rooms of Quebec clinics and doctors offices, and take a reality check. If you have 20 minutes to spare and you aren’t convinced about this important issue, it’s well worth your time: (more…)

The big local political news for the weekend, of course, was the worst-kept secret: Republican Josh Penry officially threw his hat into the ring to run for governor in 2010. By all honest admissions, Penry’s entry into the race has been well-executed and well-timed.

First glimpses on the campaign trail indicate the strong delivery of a clear, consistent message: 1) incumbent Democrat Bill Ritter’s misguided philosophy and lack of fiscal leadership have contributed greatly to an unfriendly economic climate and pain in the wallet for many average Coloradans, and 2) Penry’s own record of effective leadership in the areas of fiscal responsibility, expanded energy options, and education reform qualifies him to take Ritter’s place.

If he keeps it up, the 33-year-old state senate Republican leader will effectively downplay the only knock against his candidacy: his youth and apparent inexperience.

The recent press surrounding Ritter and his actions have only enhanced Penry’s timing. Hiring his lawyer friends with taxpayer dollars at six times the cost offered by the Attorney General’s office just to tell Ritter how he can spend taxpayer dollars. Yes, seriously. (more…)

Mercifully, for the sake of fellow blogger Civil Sense, I haven’t harped on the American League Central race in awhile. But the All-Star break is upon us, and a good time for reflection on the standings:

1. Detroit Tigers 48-39 –
2. Chicago White Sox 45-43 3.5 GB
3. Minnesota Twins 45-44 4 GB
4. Kansas City Royals 37-51 11.5 GB
5. Cleveland Indians 35-54 14 GB

It’s not looking good for the Indians, especially after the symbolic 10-1 spanking Detroit delivered to them this afternoon.

GO TIGERS!

At the beginning of Wednesday’s session of the TABOR Negation Fiscal Stability Commission, Chairman Rollie Heath asked the commission members to introduce themselves.  HD-6 Rep. Lois Court, who was a strong supporter of Amendment 59, and campaigned on the repeal of tax and spending limits, had this to say (I’m doing this from memory, but it’s very close):

I teach political science at a local community college, and I always tell my students that society is like a wheel, and the people are the spokes.  And it’s the job of the government to keep the wheel balanced.

This statement followed a theme of the day: that the job of the commission is to determine what kind of society we want to have, and then figure out how to fund that.

Unfortunately, this is exactly backwards.  It is decidedly not the job of the government to decide what kind of society we want to have.  If anything, it’s the job of society to determine what kind of government we want to have.  The miracle of a strong civil society is that the wheel is largely self-balancing.  Given the chance to for free associations, people will, of their own accord, form counter-balances to forces that get out of control.  They won’t do so immediately, and they won’t do so unfailingly, but the first instinct of the government of a free society should be to let that happen, rather that to try to impose a balance from above.

The two main motivations for those who want government to impose a balance on your life are 1) to make themselves feel and be important, 2) to reward their friends and punish their enemies, and to do so with your money, and by making decisions for you.

Due to a security breach (since fixed), visitors to my own site, View from a Height, are receiving a message that claims that it’s suddenly turned into the blog equivalent of Cujo.  I’ve cleaned off the offending files and am reloading the new version of Movable Type, but until I can persuade Google that there’s nothing to see here, Ben’s graciously letting me co-blog here at his place.

Ben started in on the Bell Policy Center’s Wade Buchanan’s comments to the TABOR Repeal Fiscal Stability Commission on Thursday, but I wanted to point one of the rhetorical devices that he used to justify once and future extravagance on the part of the state government.  The title of this post actually applies to Mr. Buchanan’s comments.

During his remarks, Mr. Buchanan referred to his own family history, and the choice of the Lamar city fathers to start a college in the middle of the depression, as an act of faith.  He then went on to claim that the government programs and institutions we have in place are the result of the collective wisdom of our ancestors, and that we should not lightly toss them aside.

Welcome to the ranks of Burkean Conseravtives, Mr. Buchanan.  For that’s exactly the argument that conservatives – as opposed to libertarians – make about societal and economic institutions that have evolved over the ages.  Of course, Mr. Buchanan is echoing conservative themes because they resonate, not because they’re applicable.  I doubt he’d support their use to oppose gay marriage, for instance.  More importantly, Burke used them to show the interconnectedness and the complexity of such institutions.  In his own example, you can’t re-create the morning paper every day; the activities required to produce it must be regularized, the efficiencies and processes learned and refined.

And there’s one other major difference: the institutions, programs, and subsidies that Mr. Buchanan refers to are the decisions of a relatively small number of people, legislators, acting in response to political pressures of the day, and capable of funding by someone other than the decision-makers.  The processes and pressures that produce a small-town college are narrow; those that create – and eventually destroy – the major city newspaper are broad and diverse.  The civil society and its collective, inherited, and accumulated wisdom, are much better displayed by the latter.

By the way, there’s a much better-known example of faith in the midst of despair.  It’s not local to Colorado, but that he didn’t choose this example of private investment is telling.

A Thursday afternoon hearing of something known as Colorado’s “Long-Term Fiscal Stability Commission” doesn’t sound like a spectator event for which you might grill a few steaks or even pop up some popcorn. In most cases you’d be right.

But yesterday brought an alternatively cutting, humorous and genial showdown between the intellectual heft and fiscally sound policies of economist Barry Poulson, representing the Independence Institute, and the silver-tongued sob stories of Wade Buchanan from the Left-leaning Bell Policy Center.

Okay, so it still doesn’t sound like action-packed, thrill-a-minute viewing entertainment. But since we’re talking about what to do to keep our state budget sound, revenue stable, services efficient, and taxes low, it’s in our interest to pay attention. Poulson argued effectively against the drumbeat in the media:

The white-haired Barry Poulson, a senior fellow at Independence and a CU-Boulder economics professor (right in picture), is anything but low key and opened his comments by emphatically declaring, “Colorado is not experiencing a fiscal crisis.”

Arms waving for emphasis, Poulson moved into a conservative’s critique of California’s fiscal mess; defense of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights; a call for even stronger spending, revenue and debt limits, and suggestions for greater financial transparency, banning of earmarks and reform of Medicaid.

(more…)

Under the headline “Governor gave no-bid deal to former partners”, the Denver Post‘s Karen Crummy reports today:

As the first stimulus money flowed into Colorado, it was doled out to shovel-ready transportation projects — and some of Gov. Bill Ritter’s former law partners.

Ritter hired the politically connected firm of Hogan & Hartson three months ago to work on issues surrounding the state’s disbursement of federal stimulus funds. The firm has been paid $40,000 through June and is expected to file monthly bills.

Did Bill Ritter do anything illegal? Almost certainly not. Unethical? Well, if he were a Republican governor, you can be sure Colorado Ethics Watch would have filed a complaint by now.

Ritter’s cronyism aside, this story says at least as much to me about the inherent deficiencies of the “stimulus” (aka government pork-barrel spending on steroids). The legislation is so complex that the state has to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to figure out how to administer it. What marvelous efficiency … Ha! (more…)

It’s the middle of the summer. The limelight surrounding Colorado politics is hazy. Blogs like this one experience a yawn in their already modest traffic. It’s time for something new to talk about. And if you can’t report the news or comment the news, it’s time to make a little news. And time to take the online temperature of Colorado political activists about the leading issues and candidates of the day — in our state and nationwide.

El Presidente and I have commissioned and fashioned a survey that we hope you will take 10 minutes or so to complete — especially if you’re from Colorado. We didn’t want to make another run-of-the-mill quick-hit poll. We want to take it a little more in-depth.

Click here to take the July 2009 Colorado online political survey

Your opinion counts. Take a few moments to make it happen. Not only show your support for candidates, but also let us know where you stand on key issues and give us some honest prognostication about the 2010 elections. The survey won’t be there forever, only until next Friday, July 17, 5 PM local Mountain time … Thanks for participating! We’ll get back to you with the results soon. Stay tuned.

Below the fold is the “official” release announcing the survey: (more…)

Let me be the first to welcome Michael at Best Destiny back to the blogosphere following his hiatus. It seems he is rather despondent about the Grand Old Party, and not without good reason. As a result of the lack of national leadership, he writes:

The Republican Party is dead. It must either be reborn in a Reagan/originalist image, or it must be stashed and have dirt heaped on it’s grave. I’m open to the latter.

I’m not sure what you would have to call it, but let me throw this out: the Independence Party. We stand for originalist ideas of limited central government, states’ rights; we stand for a strong national defense with limited and clearly defined international responsibilities; we stand for open markets and economic freedom; we stand for American sovereignty and the right to protect our own borders; we stand for American individualism and the need to disentangle from international institutions.

But mostly, we stand for the rights, privledges and responsibilities articulated in the Constitution of the United States.

Sounds like a Republican platform . . . from 25 years ago.

While I respect where Michael is coming from, I’m not open to the latter … yet. Taking over from within is much easier than overthrowing from without. We have a few elected Republicans in Congress still worthy of the office, but the leadership in Washington has been slow to get it. Yet as long as they don’t make headway into co-opting the nonpartisan grassroots Tea Party movement, I believe there is hope to avoid the more extreme option.

But the very fact we’re having this online conversation says a lot about the times in which we live.

Gallup yesterday posted the results of a very interesting poll that shows far more Americans self-identifying in a conservative direction than in a liberal direction. Brian Faughnan at Red State has it about right concerning the broad message of the poll:

I think it’s a growing distrust of what they view as the liberal agenda of this Congress and this president.

At the same time, when you break down the poll on an issue-by-issue basis, Rossputin makes a great case that on most issues Americans are tending to move in a libertarian direction. It’s hard to say how much the broad shift against environmental policies that harm the economy and against restrictive immigration policies are the result of our current economic situation versus a genuine ideological awakening, but there is reason for optimism. (more…)

Congratulations appear to be in order for Jeremy Pelzer, who has landed some sort of gig at the new online Rocky Mountain Independent. Jeremy’s fairly long feature today is the latest Colorado GOP postmortem piece, with the standard news hook of a lifelong moderate Republican switching parties in disgust:

The Colorado Republican Party has had few supporters more loyal than Brandon Curtis.

The 32-year-old sales marketer from Denver had voted straight Republican in every election since he first cast a ballot in 1996. Last year, he was a delegate for John McCain in the Republican presidential caucus.

But in the general election last November, Curtis voted Democratic for the first time in his life, picking Barack Obama and Mark Udall for president and U.S. Senate, respectively.

And he says he’ll do it again next election.

“I feel like the current state of the Republican Party would lead me away and have me vote Democratic,” Curtis said. “It’s a situation where moderates like myself — the (Republican) party just doesn’t want us right now. . . . There’re still a lot of principles that I agree with, but I think there’s too much focus on the social issues.”

Having read that, I don’t doubt its veracity or Mr. Curtis’ sincerity. I’m not exactly thrilled with the state of the Republican Party myself. But as usual when reading this sort of story — especially with someone of the same age and especially of the ambiguity of the term “moderate” — I’m left with a series of questions for the person highlighted. For the purposes of drawing the most meaningful lessons from his example, I’d be curious to know the following answers: (more…)

Other days leave us to ponder and fight for the future of personal and economic liberty. Other days leave us to dwell on the financial challenges that face so many Americans. Today we celebrate and commemorate the blessings of liberty enshrined in sacred words of our nation’s founding, ratified 233 years ago during a remarkable time that tried the souls of patriots: (more…)

I wasn’t planning to blog on politics at all over the long weekend, but the very recent news emerging that Alaska governor Sarah Palin not only won’t run for re-election in 2010 but also is stepping down later this month has changed my mind.

Right now, speculation is running rampant why Palin has chosen to take this course of action. John Hawkins at Right Wing News has taken a break from his vacation to offer up four likely scenarios: (more…)

The chronic inability of Colorado’s appointed U.S. Senator Michael Bennet to take a position on the union card check bill (also known as EFCA) has moved deep into the realm of bizarre self-parody. It’s a political joke that has lasted so long that the label of “Both Ways Bennet” has been branded permanently on his (hopefully brief) career.

A member of the Denver Post editorial board, Chuck Plunkett observes that the long-awaited seating of Al Franken as Minnesota’s U.S. Senator has once again ratcheted up the pressure that EFCA could come to a vote and force Michael Bennet into the uncomfortable position of, well, having to take one:

I’ve asked Bennet’s office whether he wants to come on with his position on card check. (We oppose it.)

As observers are aware, he’s been more than coy on the question, and our board is among those who’d love to know where Bennet, who faces re-election in 2010, stands on this important question.

Update: Bennet’s office says the senator isn’t prepared to comment at this time. So we’ll keep waiting.

Then again, Michael Bennet still isn’t quite ready. It’s been nearly six months we’ve waited thus far. What’s a few weeks more at this point? In honor of the never-ending saga, here’s a quick trip down memory lane 2009 for Mount Virtus readers: (more…)