Dear Congressman Tancredo:

Many Coloradans and liberty movement individuals respect you for your courage and honorable service to this state. But, we ask what really has changed, and how your High Noon ultimatum issued July 22nd reflects the principles and values you have long stood for? This ultimatum seems out of character and completely contradicts the sage advice you offered us in an open letter on December 21, 2009 and reiterated again passionately at a joint 9-12 Project/Tea Party event on January 16, 2010.

We would like to remind you of this particular section of your open letter, which continues to resonate with us even today:

“Yes, over the last decade, many individuals left the Republican Party because George Bush led the national party to abandon its principles and support several big government programs. But leaving the party is not the answer. Fighting for your principles and reshaping the party is the answer.

“Throughout our nation’s history, third parties have never succeeded in taking power and running the government. They have sometimes succeeded in pushing a major party in a new direction, but just as often, they succeeded only in electing the more liberal candidate after many conservatives waste their votes on a third party candidate. Remember 1992? Ross Perot never had a chance to be president, but he did help elect Bill Clinton.

“Here in Colorado we have an uphill road in 2010, but the good news is we have the opportunity for a broad resurgent victory if we work together.” – Tom Tancredo

Over 800,000 Coloradans or 33% of likely voters, including almost 550,000 or 64% of likely Republican voters in our state, have joined the “Tea Party* movement in the past 17 months. We clearly demonstrated at the precinct causes and state assembly a significant portion of the 9-12 Project, Tea Party and other pro-liberty grassroots individuals have worked tirelessly for more than a year championing our principles, becoming engaged and informed, learning the political process, vetting candidates at all levels, and also reshaping the Colorado Republican Party as you advised. We trusted and listened to you among others; but, now you do not trust the Republican voters of Colorado to thoughtfully and logically evaluate the choices before us. You want to impose your personal choice and will over the will of the people. You are subverting the process and our will. This is the opposite of the liberty movement and what we are about.

Since your ultimatum, several liberty groups have queried their members and found about 2/3 (66% of 754 responses – over 250 more than used in Rasmussen polls for Colorado) of the responders to this non-scientific internal survey would not vote for you in the Governor’s race. This does not foretell a conservative victory, but rather an impending disaster, assuring victory for Mayor Hickenlooper and the liberal agenda in Colorado for at least four more years. Congressman Tancredo, together our groups strongly urge you to reconsider, withdraw your ultimatum, stay in the Republican Party, let the process play out for the Governor’s race within the rules already set forth, and continue to help us improve this party, its candidates, and the process – in other words to trust and respect the newly awakened, energized and informed voters of Colorado.

Pledging our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to Colorado and our Constitutional Republic, the United States of America –

9-12 Pikes Peak Patriots

9-12 Project Liberty Circle

Broomfield 9-12 Project

Cherry Creek District 9-12 Project

Colorado 9-12 Project (Including Denver metro area, Front Range communities & Eastern I-70 corridor)

Elbert County Tea Party

Four Corners 9-12 Project/TEA Party Patriots (Cortez)

Four Corners Liberty Restoration Group (including Bayfield & Durango 9-12 Project/Tea Party)

Greeley 9-12 Project

Longmont 9-12/Tea Party

R Block Party

South Denver 9-12 Project

The 9-12 Project Colorado Coalition

The912Project.us Network – Colorado Chapter

The Constitutionalist Today Editorial Board

Tri-County 9-12 Project (Delta/Montrose/Ouray)

Two Rivers 9-12 Project

Vail Valley 9-12 Project

We Will Not Fall – Fort Collins 9-12 Project

Western Slope Conservative Alliance

Windsor 9-12 Project

It was only a couple weeks ago that Lu Busse criticized Scott McInnis for his plagiarism scandal.

One day to go for the Colorado Secretary of State’s office to verify whether candidates who opted to petition onto the ballot collected a sufficient number of signatures to move ahead. The updated list is here (PDF).

As of 5 PM on Thursday, five candidates (including Jane Norton for U.S. Senate) have qualified for the ballot and one was disqualified. The fate of two Democrat and five Republican campaigns are up in the air, including:

• State treasurer hopeful Walker Stapleton, who likely has enough to qualify
• Gubernatorial contender Joe Gschwendtner, who looks like he’ll be cutting it very close
• State senate candidate Mark Hurlbert, whose chances don’t look too good

Tune in tomorrow to find out what happens.

First, it was the over-the-top attacks from Norton lieutenant Josh Penry (whom I had enthusiastically decided to endorse during his brief, abortive run for governor) against Buck.

Then yesterday I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this bizarre hit piece by Red State’s Erick Erickson on Jane Norton. Until today, most of Buck-backer Erickson’s jabs at Norton have been at least somewhat reasonable. Then he highlighted this passage from an AP story:

Not all Colorado Republicans are sold. Many fear that Buck’s too conservative to be elected statewide and that his background as a tough-on-immigrants prosecutor will turn off Latino voters in a state where more than a fifth of residents are Hispanic.

“I can actually beat Michael Bennet. There’s an electability factor,” Norton told about 30 Republicans at a McDonald’s in eastern Colorado last month. “I can reach out to Hispanics, to women, to young people.”

Erickson interprets the last line to mean that Colorado’s former lieutenant governor “wants a path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants. Since when does broadening the GOP’s appeal to Hispanics mean you are automatically a sell-out on the immigration issue? Norton’s own campaign website says:

* As your Senator, I will make securing our borders and ending illegal immigration a priority.

* I oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants already in our country.

Erickson is trying way too hard to read between the lines in order to make Norton look like some member of a secret handshake, pro-amnesty cabal. Sorry, but I don’t see it as reasonable. I like candidate Ken Buck a lot. But asserting that Jane Norton looks like Charlie Crist because they both have made claims to greater electability is a stretch, to put it mildly.

I think Rossputin is onto something wondering whether Erickson has become a Colorado ankle-biter. And kudos to my fellow blogger Night Twister for valiantly trying to inject some common sense into the RedState comment threads.

Let’s be honest and admit the ongoing tit-for-tat is far less about the minute issue differences between Norton and Buck, and much more about whom the respective Republican candidates likely would back for Senate party leader once elected and serving in Washington D.C. It’s an insider’s game playing out on the public stage. And it’s dragging down the tone of the campaign.

Right now, for what it’s worth, I gladly remain neutral in this intraparty contest. My hope is that after August 10 Colorado Republicans can unite in full force behind whichever of these two conservative candidates emerges on top.

Then we can restore just a little fiscal sanity and common sense to Congress by unseating Michael Bennet and replacing him with someone who won’t be a pawn in a powerful game to impose destructive investment taxes on the U.S. economy — to mention just the latest concern. Whether you support Buck or Norton, we all should agree to focus energy on the chief target this election.

Ben DeGrow is a Contributing Author at People’s Press Collective, Your Source for Colorado Politics

A quick overview: There are 65 seats in the Colorado state house, and all of them are up for re-election every two years. State representatives are limited to four two-year terms of service. Currently, the Democratic majority holds 37 seats and Republicans 27, with one seat belonging to unaffiliated (and former Democrat) Kathleen Curry.

Fifty-two incumbents are running to retain their seats: 30 Democrats (including 2 vacancy appointments), 21 Republicans (including 2 vacancy appointments) and Curry. That leaves 7 open Democrat and 6 Republican seats.

Interestingly, Colorado Republicans are very close to running a 65-district strategy, as the GOP is fielding candidates everywhere except Boulder County’s House District 10. On the other hand, Democrats are competing in only 49 of 65 districts, conceding 16 races (including five with no incumbent) out of the gate by not fielding any candidates.

Given the dynamics shaping up through the end of April, I rate 30 of the 65 races as marginally competitive or better: 26 held by Democrats (21 incumbent, 5 open); 3 held by Republicans (2 incumbent, 1 open); and the unaffiliated seat. I have listed all 30 below in order that they are likely to switch party hands, but only include comment on the first 12.

As the spring finally dawns, it looks extremely narrowly like the GOP has just enough momentum to win a 33-31-1 majority heading into 2011. But plenty can happen between now and the time the final votes are cast in early November:

1. House District 27 (Jefferson) – DEM Prev rank: 2 No bias here, honestly. A strong fundraising quarter from challenger Libby Szabo already has her ahead of liberal incumbent Sara Gagliardi in a district that has a 36-32 Republican voter advantage. Likely GOP pick-up

2. House District 47 (Pueblo, Fremont) – DEM Prev rank: 1 Republican Keith Swerdfeger is still bringing money in strong, but now has two Democrats — Mark Maestas and Carole Partin — vying to take him on and make this one of the most closely watched races of the cycle. Leans GOP pick-up

3. House District 38 (Arapahoe, Jefferson) – DEM Prev rank: 6 Democrat Joe Rice is finally vulnerable with a credible Republican challenger in Kathleen Conti. This is Colorado’s most heavily Republican district not currently represented by a Republican (40-31). Leans GOP pick-up

4. House District 33 (Broomfield, Boulder, Adams, Weld) – DEM Prev rank: 3 Republican challenger Don Beezley is on a steady course to take out Rep. Dianne “Tax on a Fee” Primavera in a suburban district with a healthy amount of unaffiliated voters up for grabs. Leans GOP pick-up

5. House District 17 (El Paso) – DEM Prev rank: 4 Funds have not flown in heavily into either side of this race featuring two Republican challengers — Mark Barker and Kit Roupe — versus the most invisible incumbent, liberal Rep. Dennis Apuan. Democrats have the voter registration edge in this district, but Apuan didn’t beat Roupe by much in the strong Democrat year of 2008. Toss-up: slight edge GOP pick-up

6. House District 56 (Eagle, Summit, Lake) – DEM Prev rank: 8 With another decent fundraising take, Republican challenger Debra Irvine is keeping the heat on Rep. Christine Scanlan in this heavily unaffiliated district. Toss-up: slight edge GOP pick-up

7. House District 18 (El Paso) – DEM Prev rank: 9 The winds are still blowing strong in the Republican direction for this seat open due to term limits, but Democrat Pete Sandford still owns a fundraising advantage over Republican Karen Cullen. Toss-up: slight-edge Dem hold

8. House District 23 (Jefferson) – DEM Prev rank: 11 Appointed incumbent Democrat Max Tyler really may have stepped in it when he recently compared troubled students to “maggoty flour.” This has been a tough district for Republicans since 2004, but challenger Edgar Johansson has started to build a cash advantage over Tyler. Watch this one. Toss-up: slight edge Dem hold

9. House District 29 (Jefferson) – DEM Prev rank: 10 Despite the evenly-divided nature of the district’s voter registrations, northern Jefferson County is a tough nut for the GOP to crack against incumbent Democrat Debbie Benefield. Robert Ramirez is off to a good start to take a crack at victory, but needs to bring in more campaign funds in earnest. Toss-up: slight edge Dem hold

10. House District 64 (Otero, Las Animas, Prowers, Huerfano, Baca, Bent) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Democrat Rep. Wes McKinley’s district favors his party in registration by 42-35 over Republicans. Largely known as a maverick, he did cast the deciding vote for the Amazon tax. And GOP challenger Lisa Grace Kellogg looks like she will bring some money and determination to the race. Leans Dem hold

11. House District 52 (Larimer) – DEM Prev rank: 13 It took ’till nearly the last minute, but Democrat Rep. John Kefalas has a challenger in a district that tilts ever so slightly in the Democratic direction. First-term Fort Collins City Council member Aislinn Kottwitz has stepped into the breach. If Kottwitz can raise some campaign cash, this race could ascend the rankings. Leans Dem hold

12. House District 50 (Weld) – DEM Prev rank: 15 Conservative voter discontent in the greater Greeley area is growing. Unaffiliated voters make up 35 percent of District 50, with Democrats holding only a small edge over Republicans among active voters. Even with his stockpile of re-election funds, Democrat Rep. Jim Riesberg has started looking over his shoulder at local business owner and Republican challenger Bob Boswell. Leans Dem hold

13. House District 53 (Larimer) – DEM Prev rank: 14, Leans Dem hold – Rep. Randy Fischer over Dane Brandt
14. House District 59 (La Plata, Montezuma, Archuleta, San Juan) – REP Prev rank: 7, Leans GOP hold – Paul Brown over Brian O’Donnell
15. House District 31 (Adams) – DEM Prev rank: 17, Leans Dem hold – Rep. Judy Solano over Tom Janich
16. House District 26 (Jefferson) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Leans Dem hold – Rep. Andy Kerr over Mark Barrington
17. House District 11 (Boulder) – DEM Prev rank: 16 Likely Dem hold – Deb Gardner over Wes Whiteley
18. House District 30 (Adams) – REP Prev rank: N/A Likely GOP hold – Rep. Kevin Priola over Dave Rose, Laura Huerta or Mary Ellen Pollack
19. House District 3 (Denver) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Rep. Daniel Kagan over Christine Mastin
20. House District 61 (Garfield, Pitkin, Gunnison, Eagle, Hinsdale) – UNA Prev rank: 5 Likely hold – Rep. Kathleen Curry over Luke Korkowski
21. House District 34 (Adams) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Rep. John Soper over Brian van de Krol
22. House District 1 (Denver) – DEM Prev rank: 12 Likely Dem hold – Rep. Jeanne Labuda over Danny Stroud
23. House District 24 (Jefferson) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Rep. Sue Schafer over Ron Webster
24. House District 41 (Arapahoe) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Rep. Nancy Todd over Brad Wagnon or Arthur Carlson
25. House District 32 (Adams) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Rep. Edward Casso over Kaarl Hoopes over Alexander Jacobson
26. House District 12 (Boulder) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Jake Williams or Matt Jones over Jeffrey Ilseman (Republican) and Bo Shaffer (Libertarian)
27. House District 9 (Denver, Arapahoe) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Rep. Joe Miklosi over C. J. Garbo
28. House District 22 (Jefferson) – REP Prev rank: N/A Likely GOP hold – Rep. Ken Summers over Chris Radeff
29. House District 6 (Denver) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Rep. Lois Court over Joshua Sharf
30. House District 35 (Adams) – DEM Prev rank: N/A Likely Dem hold – Rep. Cherylin Peniston over Edgar Antillon or Eric Mercer

Two other great resources to bookmark for more information on state legislative races:

• Comaps.org
• Dan Willis Election 2010

It’s been a few months since I provided an update of Colorado state senate races. I rated Senate District 6 — in southwest Colorado, on the other side of the state — as the number one Republican target, noting with current Rep. Ellen Roberts remaining on pace fundraising with Democrat incumbent Bruce Whitehead that, “This seat remains the closest to an automatic party switch in the fall.”

But the people of Senate District 6 will have something to say about the matter first. Last Saturday the late-entry campaign of San Miguel County’s conservative Dean Boehler took some state political observers by storm by capturing 66 percent of the delegate vote at the SD 6 Assembly. The Boehler campaign has put together an 8-minute video featuring the candidate’s Assembly speech:

It’s hard to imagine something like this happening in any of the other recent election cycles. But Boehler’s upset assembly win demonstrates the energy and enthusiasm in 2010′s local surge of Tea Party and 9/12 groups. How far it will take the conservative newcomer remains to be seen. I will restate what I’ve said before many times: The biggest impact these groups can have this year is on state legislative races.

GOP primary election voters are not necessarily of the same mind as assembly delegates. Dean Boehler no doubt is busy working behind the scenes to throw together a grassroots campaign machine that can make him competitive in the fall. The political theme of the year is not to take anything for granted.

The 68-page draft bill, likely to be sponsored by House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D- Denver, and introduced later this week, would allow Colorado voters to register just three days before the 2010 election.

Currently, Coloradans must register to vote up until 29 days before an election. Carroll says allowing a longer registration period will open the door to greater voter turnout. But Republicans see it as a blatant attempt to bolster Democratic voter ranks ahead of an important election.

“I think it’s 100 percent politically-motivated,” said state Rep. Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock, the former Douglas County Clerk and Recorder. “I can’t understand how someone would present such dramatic change to election law just short of an upcoming election, unless they had some ulterior motives.”

Fellow blogger Al Maurer breaks down the provisions in the bill and explains why it’s worthy of opposition “regardless of political affiliation.” GrizzlyGrannyLu at the People’s Press Collective posts a draft copy of the bill and contact information for your public officials to hear from you.

One unconfirmed report suggests 26 of Colorado’s 64 county clerks already have chimed in with their opposition. I don’t know if that number is accurate, but have it on good word that clerks in the larger counties of Arapahoe, El Paso, Mesa and my own Jefferson County have taken a stand on the right side.

Republican Secretary of State candidate Scott Gessler also chimed in today with a press release:

“This new bill is an open invitation to voter fraud in Colorado. Election-day registration has proven to be a disaster in places like Milwaukee, and we shouldn’t allow outside groups to collect live ballots and hold them for ten days”.

It would be good to know where current Democrat Secretary of State Bernie Buescher stands. But for now, you can do your part and speak out against it.

A lot of momentum is building against the proposed bill’s attempt to change this year’s elections rules midstream before the bill even has been filed. Now indeed is a good time to follow Deputy Barney Fife’s admonition and “Nip it in the bud.”

The Denver Post‘s Jessica Fender reports now that the bill “may not see daylight” … I’ll be happy when the may is replaced by will.

Yesterday I received a strange mailing from a group called Taxpayers for Liberty. (Many of my fellow conservative, politically-active Colorado friends likely received the same.) It’s a self-described 501c4 organization with a Denver P.O. Box and an executive director named Andrew O’Neill — I’m almost positive it’s not this Andrew O’Neill.

I will take time later today to scan and post the four-page letter, along with the attached questionnaire and reply form, so you can see the mailing for yourself. It looks a lot like your standard political fundraising letter, with short paragraphs and heavy on underlined text and bullet points. Suffice it to say, the group Taxpayers for Liberty is very fond of Ken Buck, while railing on Jane Norton for not returning the questionnaire and Tom Wiens for filling out the questionnaire identically but having a voting record, or something like that.

Let me add here that the Taxpayers for Liberty questionnaire leaves a lot to be desired in its ability (or lack thereof) to meaningfully distinguish candidates from one another. For the most part, the 12 statements are largely factual in nature and focus on perspectives of existing problems without proposing or suggesting what type of solutions are needed. So at best, the answers might tell us all the candidates agree on the nature of the problem. Okay … then what?

So who is Taxpayers for Liberty? A search on the Colorado Secretary of State website finds the group originally was registered last November to one Sue Rehg of Loveland, a Republican activist and currently listed as a Larimer County co-chair of Ken Buck’s campaign. Last month the group switched registered agents to Denver attorney Adam Kehrli, no doubt to help make sure the language of the letter complies with electioneering regulations on 501c4 groups.

But this information only leaves many other questions unanswered — such as how large the group’s list or expenditure is. I’ve contacted representatives of the three leading Republican U.S. Senate campaigns to see if they have any insights or reactions to offer. But if anyone else out there has valuable information to add, please feel free to add to the intrigue.

Here’s a scanned copy of the actual letter. Click Fullscreen for an easier read:
?March 5, 2010

Studio 12 “Tea Party Movement”

Wednesday, February 17 at 8:00 pm on Channel 12 / 12.1

Host Tamara Banks explores what’s brewing with the emerging Tea Party movement. Is this a growing political party or just a group of angry citizens who are fed up with the government? And what effect will the tea party have November’s big election? Those questions and viewer phone calls on the next STUDIO 12.

Guests:

• Dr. B. Leland Baker Author of Tea Party Revival: The Conscious of a Conservation Reborn
• Judson Phillips Founder and President of Tea Party Nation
• Ross Kaminsky Libertarian-leaning blogger on Rossputin.com
• Don Christenson Evergreen/Conifer Tea Party organizer
• Amanda Teresi President & Co-founder of Liberty on the Rocks, a pro-liberty coalition of twenty-somethings

If you watch live, you can participate in the program and share your views on the Tea Party movement by dialing 303-296-1253. Otherwise, set your DVR. Then, once you’re done feeding your secret love for figure skating, you can go back and watch tonight’s Studio 12 to get up-to-date.

Then Bennet sticks out his neck, kowtows to Barack Obama to cast a losing vote for Craig Becker and back-door union card-check, only to get this news shortly thereafter:

Ex-CO House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D) received 2 key labor union endorsements this week, less than a day after his primary rival, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), made a play to rally them to his side.

The CO Teamsters and UFCW announced that they are throwing their weight behind Romanoff in the Dem primary, citing their “long-standing relationship” with him. The 2 are among the largest unions in the state.

If labor leaders back up their words with funds and foot soldiers — even though they may be at historically low numbers here in Colorado, unions still are politically formidable — we could have an interesting primary on our hands.

Not bad from a Republican point of view.

Can Erick help do the same for Ken Buck here in Colorado? Perhaps. The Weld County DA has a lot of catching up to do on the fundraising front.

Is Buck (or someone else) the grassroots candidate? You help decide by casting your vote before tomorrow (Friday) at 5:00 PM on the latest survey of Colorado’s political temperature.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks. Yet somehow it escaped even the watchful eye of the Denver Post‘s “The Spot” blog. Oh, well….

It was also on this day that the Senate voted 60-39 to increase the national debt ceiling by another $1.9 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

It is the largest debt ceiling increase in U.S. history — in human history, in fact — totaling even more than the projected federal budget deficit for 2010, which CBO states will be an eye-popping $1.35 trillion….

The vote was straight down party lines, with Senate Democrats enabling the Barack Obama administration to continue the federal spending spree, putting my children and grandchildren deeper in debt. Yes, that means the Appointed One Michael Bennet on his 2010 U.S. Senate Farewell Tour, and Mark Udall — he of the “dirty politician filter.”

Another reminder for Colorado’s fiscal conservatives, limited government supporters and liberty lovers to get involved and support the GOP candidate who you believe best fulfills your values and can unseat Bennet. Let’s keep the momentum going.

For this distinction, The Hill rates Perlmutter as one of Congress’s fundraising losers, noting that Frazier’s “$219,000-to-$215,000 advantage in the fourth quarter was slight, but it serves as notice that a district that began as an afterthought could see a race.”

Meanwhile, Lang Sias has filed his report: He raised $30,914. To be fair, Sias wasn’t in the race for the entire October-December reporting period (his first contribution was received on November 2). Nearly half his contributions come from the Washington DC area — including $5,000 from John McCain’s Country First PAC and $1,000 from Joe (brother of John) McCain.

Saturday I highlighted the Democratic House seats in the Colorado state legislature most vulnerable in the upcoming election. Today the House voted (with a 37-27-1 Democratic majority) to approve eight of the “dirty dozen” tax hike bills on: Direct mail (1189); Candy and soft drinks (1191); Software downloads (1192); Online sales (1193); “Non-essential” food containers (1194); Insecticides, pesticides and bull semen (1195); Alternative fuel vehicles (1196); Corporate net operating losses (1199).

When push comes to shove, I can give a pass on HB 1196. As for the other seven, it’s interesting to see which Democrats exhibited momentary symptoms of common sense and voted No … and which Democrats did not. Among those who voted Yes on every one of the tax increases:

• Sara Gagliardi (27)
• Dianne Primavera (33)
• Debbie Benefield (29)
• Max Tyler (23)
• Jeanne Labuda (1)
• Judy Solano (31)

In the case of the first two, you have to wonder if Democratic leadership has already signed off these two seats as Republican pick-ups. As for the last four (and possibly others), they’ve handed a giant issue to their opponents or potential opponents.

Additionally, other vulnerable incumbent Democrats voted for nearly all of the tax increases. Dennis Apuan (17) voted for everything but the soda and candy tax (HB 1191). The only no vote from Christine Scanlan (59) and John Kefalas (52) was against the online sales tax (HB 1193). Jim Riesberg (50) and Randy Fischer (53) cast a vote for every tax hike except the one on agricultural products (HB 1195).

The Democrat running for re-election in the most Republican district, Joe Rice (38), voted against two of the “dirty dozen”: software downloads (HB 1192) and online sales (HB 1193). Unaffiliated representative Kathleen Curry (61) also voted against those two bills, as well as the food containers (HB 1194) and agricultural products (HB 1195) taxes.

As interesting proof that at least the Democrats are good at whipping the caucus into shape, Rep. Wes McKinley (D-Walsh) voted against nearly all of the tax increases except for HB 1193. He was the deciding vote in favor of increasing taxes on online sales.

So while many vulnerable Colorado Democrats have put themselves in bad shape politically by supporting most or all of the “dirty dozen” tax hikes, even the one or two who voted on the right side more often than not ended up enabling the entire package to pass.

Now on to the state senate, where the drama gets played out again. Will any Democrats (21-14 majority) in the upper chamber have the courage to cast the deciding vote against even one of these destructive policies? Don’t bet on it.

I have tried to make the point before — if inartfully — that some of the “dirty dozen” tax hikes are worse policy than others. The fact they are being rammed through so quickly with so little deference to the concerns of large numbers of citizens showing up in protest has earned them all the “dirty” appellation.

But now, at last, we have a thoughtful analysis from the Tax Foundation’s Mark Robyn that carefully distinguishes nine of the bills: Bottom line? Seven are bad, two are good.

I commend this piece to everyone involved in the debate. The majority Democrats are fixated on raising revenue to prevent cuts to government programs and personnel — even though in some cases, the bills they are pushing are bolstered by overly optimistic fiscal notes that don’t take into account changing business and consumer behaviors. They refuse to see the unintended consequences of private-sector job losses and cutbacks.

On the other hand, Republicans ought to consider conceding ground on the two bills deemed good policy by the Tax Foundation. If any of my fellow fiscal conservatives and limited government supporters can refute Mr. Robyn’s analysis of why HB 1196 and HB 1198 make good legislation, I’m open to listen. (Let me say I’d like those two bills more if they were offset by a modest across-the-board tax cut to make them revenue-neutral, but so be it.)

I think GOP leaders making the distinction would be a sound move politically. Most of the bills are very much worth opposing, and stridently so. But recognizing the differences strengthens the cause.