Mount Virtus

Perhaps the most closely contested state legislative race of 2008 is the battle for Senate District 19 in Arvada and Westminster. But how close would it be if people really knew what Democratic candidate Evie Hudak stood for? Yes, the same Evie Hudak who has a bizarrely condescending view of homeschoolers and parental responsibility in education.

A revealing document goes even further, telling us just how much Evie Hudak is attuned to a rigid, Left-leaning ideology - far more than to the interests of everyday people in Senate District 19. On an online questionnaire for the Progressive Democrats of America, Hudak wrote:

I support the entire Democratic Party platform. I have supported the issues in previous elections as an active Democrat and as a candidate. I have been on the Platform Committee in the past, and I work with the members every year to ensure that it is good. In terms of which planks are most important to me, I have a hard time picking, because every topic is meaningful….

Based on this answer, it’s pretty apparent that Evie Hudak doesn’t place a high premium on independent thought. So what are some of the things in the Colorado Democratic Party platform that the lockstep liberal Hudak supports? And exactly which ones did she help to write? Here’s just a sampling:

• Against traditional marriage: “We urge our elected representatives at all levels to vigorously oppose legislation or ballot initiatives that would narrow the definition of marriage to a partnership between two persons of opposite genders thus excluding other committed, but non-traditional relationships.”
• Against free religious expression: “We are committed to…the elimination of the use of public property for the display of religious symbols such as the ten commandments [sic]“
• Against all reasonable domestic energy exploration: “We urge the Department of Interior, the State of Colorado and Garfield County to prohibit any natural gas leases or any drilling on the Roan Plateau.”
• Against free political speech: “We support reinstating equal time requirements (the fairness doctrine) and the principle of fair and balanced reporting. We further support laws requiring broadcast license holders to give free substantial airtime, equal in both quality and quantity, to all ballot qualified candidates, sufficient for substantial presentation of the issues.
• Against taxpayer protections: “We request … [the] revocation of the TABOR amendment.”
• Anti-business: “Regulating premium increases on health insurance; prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions by insurance companies; and reinstituting ‘no fault’ automobile insurance coverage for medical expenses.”

Some reporter who is actually interested in balanced coverage of this election might want to ask Evie Hudak if she really supports the entire Democratic Party platform, and if so, explain what that will mean for the families and businesses of the people in north Jefferson County she seeks to represent.

If this disturbs you at all, please support the common-sense candidate in the race: Libby Szabo.

Okay, this one made me laugh. When I read the liberal wag’s op-ed, I nearly fell out of my chair. Now, there’s no need to glorify his work with a link or even a free Google mention - especially since, given the site, the link figures to evaporate very soon. Nevertheless, the following paragraph was written under the sub-heading “Bigoted remark”:

Another senior staff member of the Independence Institute, education policy analyst Ben DeGrow, offered the “analysis” on a Feb. 20 Internet broadcast of RIGHTTALK.COM, that because of [Governor Bill] Ritter’s executive order enabling state employee groups to form partnerships, a variety of unions had “been attracted to the state like opening up a can of dog food and getting your dog to come in.”

I can’t vouch that the way the quote has been excerpted accurately reflects the context of what I was saying. Presuming that it was, I will admit the selected quote from the long, off-the-cuff interview was hardly the best analogy and was less than artfully delivered. But I didn’t realize until re-reading it today, more than six months from its initial utterance, just how awfully bigoted it sounds.

So I apologize to all the loyal, innocent, and trustworthy members of canine-kind for comparing you to fatcat union leaders who make big salaries and live high on the hog from workers’ paychecks, only to spend workers’ pension dollars freely on political causes, and fight to take away their secret ballots. I hope Fido and Lassie have not been too badly scarred by my bigoted outburst, and I promise to mend my ways in the future.

Remember a couple weeks ago, Barack Obama’s infamous response to “rumors” that he plans “to take away your guns.” The junior Illinois Senator said: “I believe in the Second Amendment… you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration… And by the way, here’s another thing you’ve got to understand. Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn’t get it done. I don’t have the votes in Congress.”

As ABC News blogger Jake Tapper points out:

That “I don’t have the votes in Congress” line has ricocheted around the country…

Let’s take an extreme hypothetical to make a point. Can you imagine a candidate saying something egregious as: “Why, of course, I’m against legalizing the international child kidnapping trade. And by the way, there’s something else you ought to know. Even if I wanted to give in to the ’shanghai’ lobby and make it easier to sell your child to sex traffickers, I don’t have the votes in Congress to do it.”

That’s an absurd case that would rightly cause people to be scratching their heads. In Obama’s real-life case, he just so happens to have the anti-gun record that could cost him a narrow victory in the key state of Colorado.

In our swing state backyard, Barack Obama has built himself a major challenge:

Colorado is home to more than 100,000 dues-paying members of the National Rifle Association, all of whom should have received THIS MAILER sometime in the last week, which says he would be “the most anti-gun president in American history,” and refers gun rights enthusiasts to the website GunBanObama.com.

The importance of this issue among a significant voting bloc in Colorado should not be underestimated. In a very tight race for our state’s 9 electoral votes, every little edge is needed. John McCain and Sarah Palin must be telling Obama: Thank you very much.

Over at People’s Press Collective last night, El Presidente posted the picture and story of an Alaskan couple temporarily displaced to Colorado:

The attached photo is from a young couple from Anchorage, Alaska; here in Denver to have their special needs baby. The mother, Megan, said a few weeks ago she spoke with Gov. Palin about special needs babies for about ten minutes. They are so excited about her that they’re now volunteers for this rally! Megan will deliver their special needs son and then he will be cared for at Denver’s Children’s Hospital. Megan had a little blue baby outfit that said, “My mom is voting for Trig’s mom!” and both Megan and her husband were proudly wearing their Palin t-shirts, which they had ordered on the Internet.

I had the opportunity to meet them, too, during the rush of activity this morning at the Jeffco Fairgrounds. Real people with a compelling story, strong opinions, and genuine warmth. All the best to them, and a safe and healthy delivery. Here is a picture of the outfit that the expectant mother waved at this morning’s rally:

That about says it all. As you can see, with a subpar camera (or a subpar photographer), there really aren’t any other pictures of worth for me to share from this morning’s Sarah Palin rally. Check out Slapstick Politics and The Daily Blogster for something more akin to real photojournalism.

All I can say is I haven’t seen that much genuine grassroots energy and enthusiasm around Republican politics in a long time … if ever. It was also nice to see a high-quality GOP candidate in a targeted local race get to take the podium this morning: way to go to the next state senator from District 19 in Arvada and Westminster, Libby Szabo (who drew wild cheers at the mere mention of “soccer mom” and “lipstick”)! What a strange but refreshing political environment we now inhabit.

Three months ago I asked the question: “What does Bill Ritter know about the Supreme Court to gamble taxpayer dollars?” Yesterday, the same sort of hubris was on display, following the oral arguments that were held before the state’s highest court to hear Gov. Ritter’s appeal in defense of his unconstitutional property tax hike.

The Denver Post reports:

Ritter’s office has downplayed the need for any contingency plans in the event the high court throws out the mill-levy freeze.

Evan Dreyer, a spokesman for Ritter, gave a low-key response.

“This is a complex case, and it is now in the hands of the court,” Dreyer said. “We appreciate that the court heard oral arguments so quickly, and we look forward to the court’s decision so we can all move forward.”

Given the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent partisan history, maybe leading Democrats in the statehouse are comfortable knowing the fix is already in. Forget the state constitution and the rights of taxpayers.

But it’s Friday: Can’t a fellow still dream that our state’s highest judicial body will transcend partisan politics and do the right thing?

In case you had any doubts about the intentions of leading Colorado Democrats in bringing forward Amendment 59, Education Week brings you the straight skinny (H/T Rocky Mountain Right):

Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff praised the [National Education Association]’s state chapter as one of the “most aggressive and successful” groups assisting Democrats in their takeover Colorado’s Statehouse and governor’s mansion. State Treasurer Cary Kennedy (no relation to RFK Jr.) said that Democrats would win a ballot initiative to “drive a stake in the heart” of the state’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights [TABOR]–a conservative cost-cutting measure.

Yes, the Democrats behind Amendment 59 - Andrew Romanoff and Cary Kennedy - want to stick it to the taxpayer in the service of their liberal interest group masters (read: Colorado Education Association). While anyone who has been paying attention understands Romanoff’s and Kennedy’s basic intentions, it is somewhat surprising to see their unguarded opinions reported in black and white.

Complete Colorado has uncovered some unflattering information about one of Bill Ritter’s leading energy advisers:

After winning the election in November 2006, Governor Bill Ritter tapped life-long Yuma County resident Mike Bowman to be co-chair of his transitional energy team.

CompleteColorado.com has obtained documents showing in 1999, a Yuma County jury held Bowman liable for almost $4 million dollars in damages due to “fraudulent representation.”

Copies of the relevant documents are already posted there. How long before reporters for Colorado’s major newspapers and other media outlets start digging a little deeper?

No doubt the political season is upon us, and the hypocrisy of large special interest groups is on display. Nowhere is this more true in our state than with the political group Protect Colorado’s Future. Their spokesman said in an interview last week with Channel 7:

“When you have these out-of-state, or narrow corporate interests trying to divide Coloradans, it’s bad for all Colorado,” said Jess Knox, wearing a pin that says, “No on 47, 49 and 54.”

So Protect Colorado’s Future wants to make a big deal out of “out-of-state” campaign funds? Well, as Face The State points out today:

It’s no secret that out-of-state money is flooding Colorado from both sides. In the unions’ case, the out-of state money is coming from the pockets of hard-working union workers across the country, who most likely are unknowingly funding a ballot fight in Colorado they probably don’t care about.

Meanwhile, individuals who aren’t forced to give political contributions through their union dues can contribute to any campaign willingly and intentionally. If Knox is going to the be critical of “narrow” out-of-state interests playing ball in Colorado politics, than he need not look further than his own employer. Protect Colorado’s Future has seen 98 percent of its $3.3 million in contributions since March come from unions, and 67 percent, or $2.2 million, came from out of state. [emphasis added]

Read the rest of this entry »

The Denver Post has a great feature story today about Colorado state employee Dave Ohmart, who has been challenging the union organizing power with a mixture of tenacity, fair-mindedness, and self-deprecating wit:

The self-described “nonunion rep” worries that the nascent state workers union will eventually draw dues from even employees who voted against it, a specter other states have faced. It’s a scenario Colorado union organizers flatly reject.

Nevertheless, Ohmart in June began offering counter-points to union pitches through a group dubbed “Colorado LOSES,” a jab at the three-union coalition Colorado WINS that won the right to represent all 31,000 eligible state workers last month.

“I don’t want someone forcing me to join something,” Ohmart, 59, said. “I want my money to come here and help me and my friends, to help solve problems at work. What they want their money for is political advantage.”

LOSES’ 50 members, who Ohmart affectionately calls “losers,” are a tiny sum compared to the nearly 7,700 state workers who supported unionization.

If nothing else, Dave Ohmart has found a clever way to counteract the self-aggrandizement, greed, and political ambition of union leaders. Faithful readers of my blog may remember Ohmart as the state employee who had a legally-placed poster torn down and received subtle threats from the in-house Colorado WINS representative.

Good luck to Dave Ohmart as he battles the growing specter of monopoly union power and apathy, too - potentially the bigger foe of the two.

I wonder what it takes for a non-state employee to become an honorary “loser”.

In an article printed today, the Denver Post’s Jeremy Meyer asks why Colorado school district leaders are pushing a massive slew of construction bond proposals on the ballot:

But presidential elections produce large voter turnouts, and 90 percent of Colorado school ballot issues pass when they are on the general election ballot.

“My hypothesis is the larger turnout means (districts) are reaching into a voter base that is generally less informed about local issues and more inclined to give money to schools because it sounds like it is the right thing to do,” said Ben DeGrow, education-policy analyst for the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank based in Golden.

On the other hand:

DeGrow, however, said he thinks Colorado residents might be growing weary of tax increases.

“Taxpayers keep getting taken for more and more,” DeGrow said. “That adds up and tends to make a difference over time.”

I also made a strong point about the need for greater online financial transparency in school districts that wasn’t included in the story.

When local reporters are looking for a different perspective on school district bond and mill levy elections, they seem to know whom to call.

A source in El Paso County tells me that this Saturday’s John McCain-Sarah Palin event in Colorado Springs has long since exhausted its 10,000 ticket supply and has put thousands more on waiting lists. I’m told this is bigger than President George W. Bush’s appearance in Colorado Springs in 2004 - not surprisingly, as the conservative base has received its biggest jolt of inspiration since Ronald Reagan was running for President.

Also, remember in last night’s speech when Sarah Palin pointed out that her husband is a member of the United Steelworkers Union? Today, National Right to Work sends an open letter to Todd Palin informing him that he is inadvertently helping to fund attacks against his wife but can get some of that money back. This might get some media attention.

Big Labor … hmmm. Is that another reform effort Sarah Palin will lead?

Peter Blake yesterday wrote a great Rocky Mountain News column about one of the major initiatives on Colorado’s statewide November ballot - Amendment 49:

As [Jon] Caldara, head of the Independence Institute, likes to put it, government would no longer be able to act as “the bagman for political special interests.”…

No doubt passage of No. 49 would make it more difficult for unions to collect dues. But Caldara said that in the age of automatic bank transfers, union members can easily arrange to have dues deducted if they want. “Taxpayers don’t have to be on the hook for doing the accounting, the bookkeeping and collection work for special interests and their lobbyists.”

Caldara maintains it’s a conflict of interest for, say, school board officials to be funneling money to local unions through paycheck deductions and then getting a check back from the same unions in the form of campaign contributions.

Government employees can arrange to stop dues deductions from paychecks now, but it can be a difficult process.

Read more about Amendment 49 here and here.

(Full disclosure: I also happen to work for the Independence Institute, which has provided the intellectual ammunition behind the Ethical Standards Initiative.)

After last night’s amazing speech, I’m jealous. Alaska, you can have Bill Ritter. Can we have Sarah Palin? Then I thought, in a few months she has a very good chance of being our vice-president. I’ll settle for that.

Interestingly, the Denver Post reports today about Gov. Ritter’s lackluster speaking performance at last week’s Democratic National Convention. A broken teleprompter appears to have been part of his problem. It seems Sarah Palin faced the same teleprompter problems, but went on unfazed to deliver a homerun. Could the same be said of Bill Ritter - or for that matter, Barack Obama - when they’re off teleprompter?

Broken teleprompter or not, I like this take from Michael at Best Destiny:

But let me just leave this first impression: the Bewitching Mrs. Best Destiny, who has the most active Bull S%*! alarm I’ve ever seen (a fact which has caused me no small amount of consternation over the years), and who, because of that, has almost no tolerance at all for politicians, WAS RIVETED by Sarah Palin tonight.

I was an easy sell–I wanted her to succeed; my wife had no stake in it, and loved what she saw.

This morning, Lefties are either suffering some serious heartburn, or in a terrible state of denial.

It’s normal for a major national political convention to give its nominee a “bounce” in the polls, so it’s too early to reach any conclusions. After all, the Obamessiah has yet to give his rock star speech at Invesco Field, which may cause the knees of middle America to swoon. But so far, Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll has yet to pick up on the signs of major Joe(Biden)-mentum.

No, wait, that’s not fair … Today’s results show “hints of a modest convention bounce building for Barack Obama”. Obama broke the tie with John McCain to forge a one-point national lead - still, not that compelling after last week saw the Democrat candidate with a consistent three-to-four point lead. And after three days of fawning media coverage of the Democratic National Convention, the more important analysis shows neither candidate at the magic total of 270 electoral votes, even with “leaners” factored in.

Obama’s chances right here in the toss-up state of Colorado - which Rasmussen currently slates in the Democrat column but sees as slowly sliding toward McCain - may be significantly upset by a major Denver traffic jam while Colorado’s busiest stretch of highway is closed.

The John McCain campaign had braced itself for a 15-point Barack Obama bounce from the DNC. Unless Obama can significantly outdazzle a typical David Copperfield performance in tonight’s Invesco appearance, that certainly doesn’t look it’s going to happen. The forecasted hype has yet to materialize - whether for Obama’s scripted cast at the convention podium or, as Peoples Press Collective has shown, for the numbers of protestors in the street. Simply underwhelming.

At least Hillary’s speech got her off to a great start for 2012.

Over at the Denver Daily News, my op-ed on the recent union elections in state government is up. The piece begins:

Some pundits and hopeful partisans speculate that our upcoming national election may see less apathy among younger voters. Coloradans might also wonder about the apathy among their state employees.>

Forty-nine percent of Americans between 18 and 29 voted in the 2004 national election, a slight rise from previous showings. While at least one candidate has made more appeals to the youth on the bases of “hope” and “change,” it’s unclear whether the trend will continue.

Overshadowed recent news in our own backyard shows even greater voter apathy outside the sphere of electoral politics. When faced this year with deciding on union representation, two-thirds of state workers never cast a vote. Fewer than one in four affirmatively chose the union. All are stuck with the result.

It seems a safe bet the story will continue to be overshadowed this week by the events at the Democratic National Convention.

Bringing the Democratic National Convention to town means not only cleaning up the homeless off the streets but also cleaning up any vestiges of apparently offensive speech. One of the capable Peoples Press Collective video journalists caught it on video in front of the Pepsi Center today:

“Obama, stop abortion!” … “Stand for life” - All getting washed away. I doubt there will be any debate inside the Pepsi Center about the Democratic Party’s abortion platform. Free speech can be a matter of convenience sometimes.

Barack Obama really, really, really needs a bounce from the Democratic National Convention. First, nationally, as political guru Michael Barone points out:

Realclearpolitics.com yesterday had John McCain ahead of Barack Obama by 274 to 264 electoral votes, counting leaners. RCP has Obama carrying just two Bush ‘04 states, Iowa and New Mexico, with 12 electoral votes. McCain’s lead in two other Bush ‘04 states, Virginia and Colorado, with 20 electoral votes is microscopic, but then so is Obama’s lead in New Hampshire, with four electoral votes.

Showcasing Jimmy Carter on the opening night of the DNC is not a good way to separate Barack Obama from the obvious comparison with the malaise president or to generate a national bounce.

And Barack Obama needs a bounce in Colorado, too, as the latest Rasmussen survey reveals him in an incredibly tight race with Republican John McCain. However, Obama appears to be writing the How-Not-to-Win-Crucial-Swing-State-Colorado manual, closing the state’s busiest highway for his Thursday ego-fest.

This is the baseline to see what the Democratic National Convention does to sway public opinion in the race for the White House.

My friend Libby Szabo - candidate for State Senate from Arvada, Colorado - is the subject of a new television ad created by the Senate Majority Fund:

A “can-do attitude” is one of the truest descriptions of Libby Szabo that I know — and a real contrast with her opponent’s can’t-do attitude when it comes to parents who choose homeschooling.