Mount Virtus

Two days, two stories, two reasons why I believe the Colorado General Assembly needs more legislators like Senator Shawn Mitchell fighting for us. First, Colorado Senate News reports a recent floor debate in which Mitchell assumes his usual role as bold and articulate spokesman for common sense and liberty, leading the vote against a heavy-handed, onerous renewable energy mandate:

“I don’t want a European society where government will decide what life will look like tomorrow,” said Mitchell. “I want a free American traditional society where my choices, your choices–as consumers, as families, as citizens–will determine what society will look like tomorrow.”

Second, a Colorado News Agency story on a committee meeting in which Mitchell pushed the logic behind majority Democrats’ bill to ban health insurance companies from taking gender into account in issuing premiums:

“Should auto insurance companies be allowed to charge more for boys than girls?” asked Mitchell, in reference to the much higher rates that are applied to the policies of teen-age male drivers than to teen-age female drivers.

Mitchell nevertheless was the lone Republican joining the Democrats on the committee in voting for the bill, saying that he will now consider introducing a bill that prohibits gender discrimination for auto insurance and that he anticipates their support. The other two men on the committee, both Republicans, voted against the bill.

Can we get more Shawn Mitchells in the state legislature? There’s a reason why Democrats don’t enjoy debating him. With enough likeminded Colorado legislators, Mitchell and the fiscal conservatives can do more than win debate on technical points. SOmething to think about going into 2010….

You knew Democrats are very comfortable with the idea of appearing generous by spending other people’s hard-earned money. But you may not have known just how generous at least one liberal Democrat leader in Washington, D.C., is with the political careers of her minions, er, fellow members of her Congressional caucus:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue’s massive role in this election year.

Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program “This Week.” “We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress,” she said. “We’re here to do the job for the American people.”

Easy to say when you don’t have to fear your own re-election, Madame Speaker. Pelosi makes Senator Michael Bennet look noble by comparison. Yes, it’s still bad policy — for your liberty and your pocketbook and quite possibly your health. After all, you can almost hear Pelosi saying:

Open wide and drink your Obama Care poison, er, medicine…. It’s good for me … I mean, for you.

But even so, at least Bennet’s own short-term job on Capitol Hill actually is at stake. Then again, looking noble by comparison to Nancy Pelosi isn’t exactly something you publish on your resume.

Say what you will about yesterday’s Health Care Summit. Obama and the Democrat leadership didn’t make the case for expanded government control of medicine and didn’t move the ball politically in any way to help ram through the Obama Care monstrosity.

In Colorado, that has to be especially unsettling for 3rd District Congressman John Salazar. Dick Morris has listed Salazar as one of 30 House Democrats who voted for Obama Care the first time but are “vulnerable” and “frightened of the voter backlash.” And now the Summit has given him no political cover. The more he hears from unhappy constituents, the more likely he is to come to his senses and try to save his own hide politically.

Meanwhile, don’t forget there are two fine Republican candidates running for the chance to take down Salazar: Scott Tipton and Bob McConnell.

Interestingly, 7th District Democrat Ed Perlmutter didn’t make Morris’ list. I would argue he is at least as vulnerable as Salazar, but for some reason maybe he hasn’t come up with reason to be “frightened of the voter backlash.” At least not yet.

A good reminder that not only is Big Labor anything but monolithic but also that the Democrats potentially face a very competitive primary for Colorado’s U.S. Senate seat: The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has endorsed the Appointed One, Michael Bennet.

While rival Andrew Romanoff has won backing from the Teamsters and UFCW, Bennet at least finally has gained something for putting his neck out to try to ram Obama Care through Congress.

Interestingly, The Atlantic (edited by Michael Bennet’s brother) reports the same story about the SEIU endorsement and then selectively notes: (more…)

A couple days ago I told you about my friend Libby Szabo running for House District 27. Well, you also ought to know a bit more about the incumbent Democrat who she is trying to unseat: Rep. Sara Gagliardi.

Check this out from a recent Colorado News Agency story about Tuesday’s health care freedom rally at the State Capitol:

“We need to do something in this country, and I am in favor of single-payer national health care reform—so I would not support this initiative at all,” said Rep. Sara Gagliardi, D-Arvada, who is vice chair of the House Health and Human Services Committee.

Yes, that’s right. My state representative thinks the current Obama Care proposals rejected by a majority of Americans — and most recently, Massachusetts voters — don’t add enough government controls to medicine. At least my fellow Arvadans and I have a clear choice come November. Go Libby go!

From today’s Denver Post:

Voters who elected Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Edward Kennedy for 47 years sent a clear message that they expect Washington to listen to their concerns, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet said.

“Last night, the voters of Massachusetts didn’t just elect a senator; they sent a message to Washington that I have heard all across Colorado — they want their leaders to listen to them and not the special interests,” Bennet said. “They want us to focus on jobs, on lowering the cost of health care, and holding Wall Street accountable. They expect results, and it’s up to me and the rest of Washington to deliver.”

Senator Bennet should have added, “And after a year of being in the Senate, I’ll finally start paying attention to you and making up my mind on important issues to Colorado, rather than kowtowing to liberal party leaders and hiding under a rock to avoid sharing an opinion on the Big Labor card-check bill. (more…)

Yesterday two political science professors — one from Yale and one from Georgetown — had a column published in the Washington Post titled “After Massachusetts, why the Democrats should still pass health-care reform.” Here is the argument they make (apparently) with a straight face:

The bills in Congress hardly enjoy runaway popularity. But the problem isn’t that health-care reform itself is unpopular. It is that people are turned off by the current debate about it. And those repelled by what is happening in Washington include a lot of liberals as well as conservatives. In a recent nationwide CNN poll, for example, 10 percent of respondents opposed reform from the left because they felt it was not liberal enough. Another 40 percent supported reform outright, bringing the total supporting the current bills or something more liberal to 50 percent — compared with 45 percent who oppose the bills because they think they are too liberal.

Brilliant! So why don’t we try health care reform that’s more “conservative,” i.e., that promotes more liberty and less regulation? Maybe some tort reform, fewer purchasing mandates, Health Savings Account (HSA) expansions, allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines, etc. — ideas touted by many (and captured on video by Ari) who attended yesterday’s “Freedom of Health Care” rally. Because clearly 85 percent of Americans (40 percent who support the current reform plus 45 percent who oppose it for reasons other than it’s “not liberal enough”) would support that, right?

There’s no reason to believe that if the bill was made even more “liberal” (e.g., a straightforward single-payer government medical system), that any of the current 40 percent supporting the bill might change their minds, right?

I’d love to know how to become a tenured professor at one of our nation’s “elite” universities.

Today’s editorial from the liberal- leaning Denver Post urges Colorado Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet to vote against the “bad medicine” of Obama Care. If that doesn’t tell you how blindly out of touch the national Democratic Party has become, and the political dangers awaiting them on the near horizon, I’m not sure what will: Maybe a “Massachusetts Miracle” by Republican Scott Brown?

Update, 1/22: Two other Republican candidates — U.S. Senate hopeful Ken Buck and 7th CD contender Ryan Frazier — also have signed the “Repeal It” pledge.

The Club for Growth has created a “Repeal It” pledge for candidates running for Congress in 2010. It reads:

I hereby pledge to the people of my district/state upon my election to the U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Senate, to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.

There’s a cause the majority of Coloradans (and indeed, Americans) can rally around. Kudos to Republican 7th CD candidate Lang Sias for being the first non-incumbent from our state to sign (GOP 5th District Congressman Doug Lamborn also has signed).

Just because Sias is the first Colorado candidate to sign and have his name appear on the “Repeal It” site, I would be greatly shocked if others in the 7th CD race — not to mention candidates for the U.S. Senate and other Congressional districts — did not join him shortly.

Way to keep it classy, Mark Udall! From a 9News report (H/T Complete Colorado):

Sen. Mark Udall is wading into a hotly contested special election on behalf of a fellow Democrat, and it’s his use of the word “tea-baggers” that has upset some conservatives.

The fundraising e-mail is on behalf of Martha Coakley, a Democrat, who is facing Republican Scott Brown in a tight race to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.

Udall’s e-mail reads, in part, “Martha’s opponent is receiving millions of dollars in support from far-right tea-baggers across the country, claiming him as one of their own.”…

A campaign representative for Udall, who is not up for re-election until 2014, issued a statement in response to an inquiry by 9NEWS.

“Over the past year, multiple media outlets have used the term as a short-hand reference to tea party activists,” the statement read. “That is what was intended by the campaign and nothing more.”

Apparently, the extent of Colorado’s senior U.S. Senator’s experience with “media outlets” is MSNBC and Lefty blogs like the Daily Kos. As 9News notes, even NPR has added the term to its “dirty word filter.” Maybe taxpaying Coloradans should add Udall to their “dirty politician filter.”

I don’t agree with attorney general John Suthers on everything, but kudos to him for taking some bold stands recently. Of course, there is his active role in participating and speaking out against the Obama Care Nebraska bribe in the U.S. Senate. Then this week came Suthers’ three-fourths endorsement of the Clear the Bench Colorado cause, another bold move.

Lesser known, but also important today for those procrastinators out there, is the Attorney General’s Twitter endorsement of the Survey of Colorado’s Political Temperature. While the endorsement came with the original survey in July, the January edition is closing up at 5 PM today, so… Time to Take the Survey!

And thank you, Attorney General John Suthers!

Another Obama Care backroom deal? Yes, and who can keep track of them as they go by? This one from the Alliance for Worker Freedom:

After a Tuesday meeting between White House officials and union leaders, the two sides reached a health care deal that would exempt union health care plans from new taxes. While plans with similar benefits are likely subject to tax rates as high as 40%, health care plans negotiated under union managed collective bargaining agreements will remain tax-free.

“The decision to exclusively tax non-union health care plans represents the latest and most egregious sop to Democrat’s most loyal ally – big labor,” said Brian Johnson, Executive Director of The Alliance for Worker Freedom. Johnson added, “Unions got the legislation they were lobbying for while getting the rest of the country to pay for it; and Burger and Stern aren’t even registered lobbyists!”

I know, I know. You’re scarcely impelled to bat an eyelash anymore, much less jump out of your chair and fly into an indignant rage. Corrupt, special-interest Chicago-style politics has become synonymous with the so-called attempt by Congress and the Obama administration to reform health care.

Help back Scott Brown in Massachusetts and secure the 41st vote to block the monstrosity of Obama Care.

While I agree with Don Johnson that Republican Scott Brown is still the underdog in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat, the latest Rasmussen poll showing some powerful Brown momentum against Martha Coakley (shaving the lead from 9 points to 2 in less than a week) gives me greater hope.

And I’m not alone. The conservative gang over at Red State is fired up with confidence (apparently Democratic internal poll numbers are plummeting, too, and signs of panic in the Coakley camp are growing evident). Less than a week now to see how this plays out and affects Obama Care and sets the stage for the 2010 national elections.

No doubt this is an important race, and one I’ll continue to keep a close eye on. After all, we know what a “Massachusetts miracle” would mean for Colorado’s appointed Michael Bennet.

There are multiple fronts in which to fight the increasingly unpopular Obama Care legislation being hammered out behind closed doors in Washington, D.C. One is still somewhat of a longshot: to win a 41st vote in the Senate in the January 19 Massachusetts special election. On the same day, Coloradans can help fight Obama Care on another front.

Right now headlining the Independence Institute website (disclosure: my employer) is an important announcement: Next Tuesday, January 19, from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM on the west steps of the Colorado State Capitol will be the “Defend Colorado from Obama Care” rally. Featured speakers so far include I.I. president Jon Caldara and state representative Cindy Acree, with more likely to come.

Be there for the cause and for the camaraderie. Make your voice heard by taking time to come to the rally. As a sideshow opportunity, you may even get a chance to see “peeping Tom” Michael Huttner at work.

Huttner or no, hope to see YOU there!

So I take a weekend away from blogging, and the national political landscape quaked with a Democrat-sponsored poll showing Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown in a statistical dead heat with Democrat Martha Coakley. Yes: in Massachusetts! Now let’s be honest: odds are still against a GOP win in the Bay State, but the fact that victory is in the sights a week before the special election to replace Ted Kennedy sends a loud message in itself.

Now word leaks that the Democrats actually are considering delay of seating Brown, should he win, to take another step toward cramming Obama Care down our collective throats. Redstate blogger Dan Perrin aptly describes the political consequences of such a tactic as “lighting a torch while standing is [sic] in a field of gasoline”. After noting Scott Brown’s tremendous momentum, political guru Michael Barone echoes Perrin and predicts such Democrat obstructionism would create a “national firestorm.”

Would Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi really have the nerve to do it? I’m sure they would much rather drag Martha Coakley — “who is running as an assumption,” Hugh Hewitt writes — across the finish line than have to choose between stonewalling the clear will of Massachusetts and the American people on one hand and giving up on Obama Care on the other.

If you’re Michael Bennett, there would be no positive spin for a “Massachusetts miracle” electoral outcome. His pledge to commit political seppuku on the altar of Obamacare, if necessary, would look even more like it’s coming to fruition. Even an uncomfortably close Coakley win in the Bay State’s liberal bastion would portend an extremely difficult slog for the appointed Senator Who.

I’ll be paying close attention to Massachusetts to see if it’s time to start the countdown on Bennet’s short Senate tenure.