Yellow Dog Dem

Step away for a day and look what happens...

2005-08-19T09:20:00.000-06:00

I wasn't around at all yesterday but boy look's like I missed a good time over at Colorado Pols.

First they wrote a story about the SurveyUSA poll that I had commented on Wednesday afternoon. Of course they cited Colorado Luis and not me but hey, at least they got the story.

And then they ran a story about Bill Ritter fighting back against the outright lies of the anti-growth crowd. Specifically the fuzzy math that John Andrews has employed in his latest ad campaign. That piece seems to have generated quite the buzz with over 150 comments, should make for some choice reading this morning...

Good stuff, perhaps as labor day comes and goes the political season will heat up out here in Colorado.

527's are outpacing their 2004 fundraising efforts...

2005-08-19T09:03:00.000-06:00

It looks like the 527's are gearing up to make some noise in 2006. From The Hill,

Soft-money political committees are well ahead of their fundraising pace for the 2004 election cycle, raising more than $48 million in the first six months of this year, according to a review of fundraising totals

Known as 527 groups, after a section of the tax code, the 30 groups that raised the most this election cycle have raised $48.3 million through the end of June, putting them on pace to raise at least twice that much by the end of the year.

The 527's levelled the electoral playing field for Democrats in 2004. The Democrats had a distinct fundraising advantage and thus far that advantage is holding firm,

Of the 30 groups that have raised the most money this year, 19 are either clearly affiliated with labor unions or allied with the Democratic Party. Only eight of the groups were clearly allied with the Republican Party.

The Democratic-leaning groups raised more than $28 million through the end of June. The eight Republican-allied groups raised $18.2 million.

Iraq worries continued...

2005-08-19T08:55:00.000-06:00

That growing sentiment that I talked about earlier isn't just a figment of my adled-liberal mind. Indeed the GOP is probably going to be running scared from the war in the 2006 elections. GOP candidates are no longer towing the administrations line and are straying from the talking points on Iraq in an attempt to save their electoral hides.

From Wednesday's New York Times,

A stream of bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush's Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles, party officials said Wednesday...

..."There is just no enthusiasm for this war," said Representative John J. Duncan Jr., a Tennessee Republican who opposes the war. "Nobody is happy about it. It certainly is not going to help Republican candidates, I can tell you that much."
Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Maryland Republican who originally supported the war but has since turned against it, said he had encountered "a lot of Republicans grousing about the situation as a whole and how they have to respond to a lot of questions back home."

"I have been to a lot of funerals," Mr. Gilchrest said.

Who said it?

2005-08-19T08:39:00.000-06:00

"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should"

Who said it? Russ Feingold? Howard Dean? Cindy Sheehan?

Republican Chuck Hagel.

He also drew parallels between Iraq and Vietnam this week,

Iraq and Vietnam still have more differences than similarities, he said, but "there is a parallel emerging."
"The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop, meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States," Hagel said.

In the last couple of days both Russ Feingold and Chuck Hagel have advocated withdraw with Feingodl pinpointing an exact date (Dec 31, 2006). Both of these men are considering runs for the Presidency and both are positioning themselves as anti-war candidates, coincidence? I think not - Independents and Democrats are solidly against the war and there is a growing sentiment amongst Republican's to get out as soon as possible. Feingold is a progressive Democrat and Hagel is a bit of a maverick Republican but I don't think they are trying to appeal to fringe elements within their respective parties. Their is a burgeoning sentiment in this country that Iraq has not made us safer and has not been worth the costs in American lives and Feingold and Hagel are astute politicians who are tapping into that sentiment.

New SurveyUSA 50 State Presidential Poll

2005-08-17T15:27:00.000-06:00

SurveyUSA has just released a new Presidential Approval Rating poll. They have Bush at 41% Approve to 55% Disapprove, a new low for the President. The President is currently at 45%-53% here in Colorado and you can see the Colorado Tracking Poll here.

MyDD has done some more in-depth analysis that I highly recommend you read.

Here is an eye-opening fact about the Survey USA 50-state tracking released today: in every single state, Independent approval of Bush was closer to Democratic approval of Bush than Independent approval of Bush was to Republican approval of Bush. That was the case in every state. Fifty out of fifty. Massachusetts and Utah. California and Alabama. New York and Idaho. In every single state in the country, Independents were more in line with Democrats than they were with Republicans.

Bush's approval is higher than his disapproval in just 10 of the states that he won in 2004. In 21 states he is even or behind, including....

Georgia -4%
Kansas -4%
S.. Carolina -6%
Florida -9%
Tennessee -9%
Kentucky -11%
Missouri -20%
Ohio -23%

I wouldn't want to be Republican running for Congress in any of those states....

Bosnia anyone?

2005-08-17T15:23:00.000-06:00

Quotes from when Clinton when committed troops to Bosnia. Thanks to Kos..

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Colorado Pols on Paccione's lackluster start

2005-08-16T17:20:00.000-06:00

I've been complaining for a while now that State Rep Angie Paccione needs to quit being so indecisive and state her intentions one way or another regarding Colorado's 4th Congressional District. Her public statements have been wishy-washy at best, she comes off as indecisive and unwilling to commit.

Today the good folks over at Colorado Pols chimed in on the issue...

If the Presidential election of 2004 proved anything, it's that voters gravitiate to a candidate they perceive to be a strong leader. Paccione is not only indecisive, she's putting herself right out there and saying, "Hey, I can't make up my mind at all - YOU tell me what to do!" Even when Paccione gets a chance to speak out against Musgrave, as she did when the latter announced her re-election last week, she fumbles the punt.

The Pols then turned to Paccione's weak recent comments in the Denver Post last week, which I criticised in a post last week.

Needless to say I'm in complete agreement with the Pols on this one...

USA Today chimes in on Roberts and the right to privacy..

2005-08-16T17:08:00.000-06:00

Good stuff from USA Today

Three current justices — William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — have questioned whether a right to privacy exists. The court doesn't need a fourth, not least because the anti-privacy argument is a denial of history and basic American values.
In fact, the right to privacy is older than the republic, protected in the Constitution and affirmed repeatedly in a century of court rulings before the abortion controversy. Though the word privacy isn't in the Constitution, the “right to be let alone,” as Justice Louis Brandeis put it, permeates the document.

I've been saying for a few weeks that if Roberts doesn't believe in a right to privacy he doesn't belong on the court. Aside from the abortion debate the right to privacy is fundamental in American life and it must be protected. Good to see the mainstream media catching on...

Bill Richardson in 2008?

2005-08-15T10:13:00.000-06:00

The Los Angeles Times and Salon.com have both run favorable profiles of the New Mexico Governor recently. I highly recommend both...

Los Angeles Times: A New New Democrat Looks West and Forward

Salon.com: What You See Is What You Get

Karl lied to the FBI

2005-08-15T09:47:00.000-06:00

Karl, Karl, Karl, tsk, tsk, tsk. You can lie, parse, and obfuscate to the American electorate but don't mess with the FBI. From today's Village Voice

Justice Department officials made the crucial decision in late 2003 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame in large part because investigators had begun to specifically question the veracity of accounts provided to them by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to senior law enforcement officials...

...investigators firmly believed that Rove had withheld important information from them during that FBI interview...

...During his initial interview with the FBI, in the fall of 2003, Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed Plame with Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper, according to two legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter. Federal investigators were also skeptical of claims by Rove that he had only first learned of Plame's employment with the CIA from a journalist, even though he also claimed he could not specifically recall the name of the journalist...

...from the very earliest days of the criminal probe, federal investigators had a strong belief and body of evidence that Rove and perhaps other officials might be misleading them.

What did we fight this war for?

2005-08-15T09:13:00.000-06:00

Really, ask yourself that question. First it was for WMD's and vengeance for Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 attacks... but neither of those worked out so it was on to plan B. We were supposed to be liberators, freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and creating a friendly, secular, and democratic state in the Middle East. Looks like we're going to have to find another reason...

From today's Washington Post

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say...

...Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.
Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent...

... the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

Last week I quoted at length from Irving Kristol's Confessions Of A Neo-Conservative, in which Mr. Kristol blasted those who were only concerned with the mechanisms and machinery of democracy and not the underlying quality of life, keep that in mind while you read this passage. The Washington Post continues,

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."

"Under pressure to get a constitution done, they've lowered their own ambitions in terms of getting a document that is going to be very far-reaching and democratic. We also don't have the time to go through the process we envisioned when we wrote the interim constitution -- to build a democratic culture and consensus through debate over a permanent constitution," he said.

I'd love to hear from the Bush apologists on this one. From here it looks as though 1,853 American soldiers have given their lives to establish an anti-woman, anti-Israeli, Islamist state. This administration has handled this war with breathtaking incompetency and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Congratulations George W. Bush, if you're goal was to create a new client state for Iran then sir all I have to say is Mission Accomplished.

Denver Young Dems president's take on the Gov's race

2005-08-12T11:14:00.000-06:00

The Denver Young Dems just recieved this email from DYD President Andrew Luxen.

Yesterday afternoon, with the Rutt Bridges bombshell announcement that he
was withdrawing from the race for governor, everything changed. This, the
biggest political news of the cycle thus far, means that there is only one
declared Democrat for governor and the otherwise narrow field has suddenly
widened.

Why should you care?

You should care because the people who climb into the race now are likely to
be in for the long haul. That means that if state Senate President Joan
Fitz-Gerald, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper or U.S. Senator Ken Salazar
decide to jump in, they most likely will defer to one another and one will
become the instant favorite to win the August 2006 Democratic primary.

Currently, former Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter is the other
announced Democratic candidate.

So who's it going to be?

The blogs and political gossip is a flurry with who should run, who
shouldn't and why. Here's my take:

SEN. FITZ-GERALD: (http://www.thismatters.org/FitzGeraldInfo.html)

YES RUN: A fiery and devoted liberal, she has the tenacity to lead across
the aisle and thoroughly understands Colorado. Plus, she helped engineer
the Dems takeover of the state House and Senate in 2004.

NO RUN: Some people dislike her aggressive approach and think she should
run for U.S. Rep. Mark Udall's CD2 seat in 2008 when Mr. Udall runs for U.S.
Senate. Plus, Ms. Fitz-Gerald would likely have to resign her Senate
presidency to run, if not her seat itself. Her current term is up in 2006
and she is eligible to run for one additional state Senate term.

MAYOR HICKENLOOPER: (http://www.drafthick.com)

YES RUN: With over 90% approval ratings, two separate, major ballot measure
victories (1A and FastTracks) and the sort of populist appeal that William
Jennings Bryan only dreamed of, Mr. Hickenlooper is the rockstar of Colorado
Democratic politics. Plus, he wins crossover votes because of his extensive
business background.

NO RUN: He has only been the Denver mayor for two years and held no previous
political office. Mr. Hickenlooper has stated that he is content with his
current job and couldn't imagine a better one. Also, it seems that his
wife isn't too keen on the idea of a statewide race.

U.S. SENATOR SALAZAR: (http://salazar.senate.gov)

YES RUN: Mr. Salazar is a proven winner statewide. He won handily in a
state that went to Mr. Bush in 2004, won two terms as Colorado attorney
general statewide and is beloved on the West Slope. If he won, he would get
to appoint his successor to the Senate seat for two years, until a special
election could be held in 2008 (two state-wide U.S. Senate races at once?!).
That keeps the seat in Dem hands.

NO RUN: He just got a new job as senator. Why would he want to come back
and do another statewide race so soon, when he hasn't had a real opportunity
to effect change for Colorado in DC?

MR. RITTER: (http://www.hhlaw.com/site/showbio.aspx?Show=7192)

YES RUN: His long experience as a Denver prosecutor and early campaigning
both work in Mr. Ritter’s favor. He has been riding the summer county fair
circuit and meeting people across the state.

NO RUN: Personally, he is anti-choice, which he says won’t impact any
decisions he would make as governor. The left in Colorado would likely run
a candidate further to the left than Mr. Ritter, making it tough for him to
emerge victorious from a Democratic primary. Plus, he may have little name
recognition outside of Denver.

Thanks for reading,

Andrew Luxen
President
Denver Young Democrats
(http://www.denveryoungdems.org)

Big Oil isn't interested in ANWR, but Vincent Carroll is...

2005-08-12T09:13:00.000-06:00

In today's Rocky Mountain News editorial page editor Vincent Carroll write a piece entitled "Oil Obstructionists". Carroll claims that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is being held up by obstructionists. Carroll writes,

To the obstructionists who oppose increased energy production - not just in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but also on the continental shelf of the lower 48, in western Colorado and indeed just about anywhere with genuine promise - pumping more oil and natural gas is never the answer.

Which obstructionists would those be Mr. Carroll? Big oil has stated that they are simply not interested in drilling in ANWR. From the New York Times on February 21, 2005

Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs...

...Whether that battle will be worthwhile, though, is not clear. Neither advocates nor critics can answer a crucial question: how much oil lies beneath the wilderness where the administration wants to permit drilling?

Advocates cite a 1998 government study that estimated the part of the refuge proposed for drilling might hold 10 billion barrels of oil. But only one test well has been drilled, in the 1980's, and its results are one of the industry's most closely guarded secrets.

A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. "If the government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take them," said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously because of his position. "No oil company really cares about ANWR," the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, pronounced "an-war."

Wayne Kelley, who worked in Alaska as a petroleum engineer for Halliburton, the oil services corporation, and is now managing director of RSK, an oil consulting company, said the refuge's potential could "only be determined by drilling."

"The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds that of industry because oil companies are driven by market forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising," Mr. Kelley said...

...ExxonMobil also has shown little public enthusiasm for the refuge. Lee R. Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, said in an television interview last December, "I don't know if there is anything in ANWR or not."

The fight over ANWR is not about America's present oil needs, as evidenced by the complete lack of interest in ANWR by America's big oil companies. Instead ANWR is a purely political battle, it's a chance for the Bush administration to flex their muscle and prove that they can drill anywhere they want. To pretend that ANWR is somehow the end all of our oil needs is just absurd, just ask the big oil companies.

Bridges out...

2005-08-12T08:50:00.000-06:00

So Rutt Bridges has dropped out of the Governor's race. A couple of thoughts...

1. That's the end of Bridges political career. This is the 2nd time he's dropped out of a race and I'm afraid that it's 2 strikes and you're out. Bridges will continue to be a voice within the Party on policy matters thanks to his Big Horn Institute but his days as a candidate are over.

2. I have to believe that someone else with a big name is going to enter this race and that's why Bridges dropped out. When Bridges dropped out of the Senate race it was to make way for Ken Salazar, are witnessing something similiar? I would anticipate that if an announcement from another candidate is forthcoming it would come on Monday

I know Bridges is claiming that this decision was borne out of his aversion to campaigning and I appreciate him getting out now instead of stringing us along but did he just now realize that campaigning wasn't for him?

Independence Institute editorials in the two dailys

2005-08-11T09:31:00.000-06:00

Both the Denver Post and the Rockymountain News ran editorials today about the II and the court challenge to the group's 501(c)3 status. Not suprisingly the Post comes out in favor of more transparency from the II and the Rocky defends the II and buy's Caldera's talking points hook. line and sinker.

The content of the two editorial's is really secondary to the point that the legitimacy of the II is now being questioned by the Post and is having to be defended by the Rocky. In the arena of public opinion when you have to go on the defensive - especially when that defense involves citing obscure tax laws and drawing legalistic distinctions - you are losing the fight.

The de-legitimization of the II has begun...

Musgrave: Running Scared

2005-08-11T09:19:00.000-06:00

The Denver Post has a piece this morning on Marilyn Musgrave, specifically the fact that she's running away from the Gay Marriage Amendment she wasted her first term hawking to the American people. Musgrave is extremely vulnerable and one of the reasons why is that she spent so much of her time in Washington D.C. working for the fringe right on social issues instead of working for the people in her district who actually elected her.

State Rep Angie Paccionne chimes in with her two cents,

"It's quite convenient, considering that she might have a challenger in '06 who might give her a run for her money," said state Rep. Angie Paccione, D-Fort Collins, who is considered the most likely Democrat to mount such a challenge.

I have to say Angie, if you're running then run. Paccionne's choice of language here certainly isn't going to do anything to inspire the Democrats in the CD-4. She might have a challenger? Who might give her a run for her money?

Angie, it's time to get off the fence and run and start talking and acting like a winner.

Report: "The Emergence of the Progressive Blogosphere"

2005-08-10T21:40:00.000-06:00

A new report was out today on the political blogosphere and the emergence of the progressive blogosphere. It can be found here.

Here's an intro that the Swing State Project put together,

Two guys well-known in the blogging world, Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller, have authored a report for the New Politics Insitute about the progressive blogosphere - sort of like a primer for establishment-types not wholly familiar with the warp and woof of blogistan, but also packed with a lot of information that even experienced bloggers will find interesting.

It's a great read, highly recommended.

Denver Post goes after Bob Novak...

2005-08-10T11:22:00.000-06:00

I didn't really expect to see this when I looked at the Denver Post this morning, but there it is. The Denver Post calling Bob Novak to the carpet,

It's time for Robert Novak to give a public accounting of what led up to his 2003 newspaper column in which he revealed the identity of a heretofore clandestine CIA operative, Valerie Plame...

...It's clear the 74-year-old Novak is tied up in knots. Last week he was put on leave by CNN after uttering a barnyard epithet during an exchange on an unrelated political matter. He stalked off the program just before host Ed Henry was to question him about the Plame leak.
Novak reportedly told Henry beforehand, "My lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon." Novak put his toe in the water Aug. 1 and should complete his public explanation now.

The good folks over at Colorado Pols have asked repeatedley throughout the Rove-scandal just how it would play in Colorado. Up until this point the scandal really hadn't taken on a local flavor; no one from our Congressional delegation had commented (save for Ken Salazar), none of the candidates had commented. While today's editorial is hardly earth shattering it does, for the first time, make the Rove scandal an issue in Colorado. It's still too early to say that the Rove-scandal will drag down the GOP ticket in 2006 in Colorado but the door may have just been opened.

Beauprez on C&D: All talking points, no substance..

2005-08-10T10:52:00.000-06:00

Peter Blake's column in this morning's Rocky Mountain News is quite the eye opener. It appears that Bob Beauprez is doing all that he can to prevent Marc Holtzman from staking out a claim as the Anti-C&D GOP Gubernatorial candidate.

In Blake's column Beauprez spews forth talking point after talking point, sounding more and more like the all talk no substance Holtzman every day.

Government has to respond just like private business when there's a downturn, he said: "Be more efficient, defer purchases and do without."
As for C and D, "If we need a fix, this isn't the fix."
Is it bad "if government has to do what families and businesses have to do?" he asked.

It will be interesting to see if Governor Owens reacts as voraciously to these latest comments from Beauprez as he did to similiar comments by Holtzman last week.Specifically,

And so I ask Holtzman and others who oppose Referendums C and D: Where in next year's budget will you cut $400 million? How will you fix the long-term fiscal problem we face? Tell us now before we vote on Nov. 1.

Colorado's budget problems cannot be solved by mere "belt-tightening." I understand belt-tightening. As governor, I have implemented more than $1 billion in budget cuts during my administration. But you can only go so far before you start to affect essential services.

The Governor has shown no inclination to retreat from a debate amongst his own party members on C&D, will he keep the pressure on and go after Beauprez?

Blogging Of The Institute...

2005-08-08T20:06:00.000-06:00

There is a campaign underway which began over at Soap Blox: Colorado which will be an expose of sorts on the right-wing Independence Institute.

This is part one of my Blogging Of The Institute (BOTI). I will focus on the trustees of the Independence Institute. Who they are, where they live, and how much they have given to political candidates since 1992. I will make an argument against the nonprofit façade of political neutrality. I will show that the Independence Institute is not “independent” at all. That it is in fact, very partisan and pro-big business.

EMRosa does a wonderful job in part one of examining the trustees of the II, their past campaign donations, their business interests, and where potential FEC violations may exist based upon those business relations and their work at the II.

Since 1992 the 7 trustees and 1 chair have cumulatively contributed $196,415 to Republican candidates, nothing to independents, $1,289 to Libertarian's, and $10,000 to Democrats

Fascinating.

So the scoreboard at the II reads, R: $190,825 to D: $10,000

that doesn't really strike me as particularly non-partisan.

Here is a link to an Excel Spreadsheet that em rosa put together, thanks again for all of the hard work em rosa.

Fantastic new Progressive Colorado blog

2005-08-08T19:27:00.000-06:00

Just found www.soapblox.net/colorado today, it's a new community based progressive blog focused on Colorado politics. It looks great so far, lots of good content. I'm looking forward to adding it to my daily reading. Best of luck to them!

Cindy Sheehan situation about to reach a tipping point?

2005-08-08T16:28:00.000-06:00

It sure looks as though we're about to see some fireworks in Crawford Texas over Cindy Sheehan and her ongoing protest outside Bush's ranch. Sheehan's son was killed in Iraq last year and she has since become a dedicated anti-war protestor. Sheehan tried to approach Bush's ranch on Saturday but was turned back by police and security. She has since setup camp outside of the ranch and vowed to stay until Bush himself talks to her or he leaves the ranch in a few weeks. Yesterday the administration tried to placate her by sending out Deputy Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin. Sheehan met with them but still says that she's not leaving until Bush speaks directly to her.

The New York Times had an interetsing article on the political problem that Sheehan is posing for Bush. She is a woman who lost her son in war which makes her very sympathetic in the eyes of the public and press, that precludes the White House from deploying their usual smear machine (though I did catch a few minutes of Drudge trying to smear her last night on the radio). Also the general public, as evidenced by recent polls, is sympathetic to her position. From the Times article,

Her success in drawing so much attention to her message - and leaving the White House in a face-off with an opponent who had to be treated very gently even as she aggressively attacked the president and his policies - seemed to stem from the confluence of several forces.

The deaths last week of 20 Marines from a single battalion has focused public attention on the unremitting pace of casualties in Iraq, providing her an opening to deliver her message that no more lives should be given to the war. At the same time, polls that show falling approval for Mr. Bush's handling of the war have left him open to challenge in a way that he was not when the nation appeared to be more strongly behind him.

It did not hurt her cause that she staged her protest, which she said was more or less spontaneous, at the doorstep of the White House press corps, which spends each August in Crawford with little to do, minimal access to Mr. Bush and his aides, and an eagerness for any new story.

So the problem is building and is about to get worse this Thursday and Friday,

It is not clear how the White House will handle Ms. Sheehan. Mr. Bush usually comes and goes from the ranch by helicopter, but he might have to drive by her on Friday, when he is scheduled to attend a Republican fund-raiser at a ranch just down the road from where Ms. Sheehan is camped out. She will no doubt get another wave of publicity on Thursday, when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice join Mr. Bush at the ranch to discuss the war.

Just this afternoon it appears that the White House has decided to avoid this potentially embarrassing situation, from DailyKos

Cindy Sheehan phoned me from Texas a few minutes ago to say that she's been informed that beginning Thursday, she and her companions will be considered a threat to national security and will be arrested. Coincidentally, Thursday is the day that Rice and Rumsfeld visit the ranch, and Friday is a fundraiser event for the haves and the have mores. Cindy said that she and others plan to be arrested.

It appears that the story is still developing but should be an interesting one to keep an eye on throughout this week

more on Roberts and privacy...

2005-08-08T10:12:00.000-06:00

I wrote last week that if it is true that Judge Roberts does not support a right to privacy he would be unfit to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Today the New York Times has an article on Roberts and the right to privacy,

The positions [on privacy] Judge Roberts sketched out do echo those of Robert H. Bork, whose nomination for the court was defeated in 1987.

"Robert Bork was blocked in large part because he said in his writings that there was no constitutional right to privacy," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke.

Judge Roberts could face serious trouble, liberal and conservative law professors agreed, if he were to embrace similar views at his confirmation hearings in the Senate next month.

plagiary at the Rocky...

2005-08-06T21:52:00.000-06:00

from Editor & Publisher

'Rocky Mountain News' Editorial Writer Resigns After Lifting Passages

By Joe Strupp

Published: August 05, 2005 2:02 PM ET
NEW YORK The deputy editorial page editor of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver has resigned following revelations that he used a phrase in an editorial that came from a Web site, as well as other elements from a Washington Post story.

In a note to readers published Friday, News Editor John Temple explained that Deputy Editorial Page Editor Thom Beal had left the paper. He stated that a July 16 editorial Beal wrote about former ambassador Joe Wilson included a passage "based on a [July 10] Washington Post story" and "a phrase that should have been attributed to The Daily Howler Web site."

here's a link to the offending article, and the note from Temple..

Owens speaks out on C&D

2005-08-06T19:25:00.000-06:00

In today's Rocky Mountain News Governor Owens wrote an article to "clear the air" on Referenda C&D. Owens writes,

Marc Holtzman, a candidate for the 2006 nomination for governor, recently voiced his opposition to this sound plan in these pages. I understand that he's running for office. But I don't understand how he expects to earn the confidence of voters by jeopardizing Colorado's long-term fiscal health.
Nowhere in his article does he suggest a solution. And so I ask Holtzman and others who oppose Referendums C and D: Where in next year's budget will you cut $400 million? How will you fix the long-term fiscal problem we face? Tell us now before we vote on Nov. 1.
Colorado's budget problems cannot be solved by mere "belt-tightening." I understand belt-tightening. As governor, I have implemented more than $1 billion in budget cuts during my administration. But you can only go so far before you start to affect essential services.

Owens voice will be crucial to the success of C&D. If he can hold moderate Republican's the two referenda will pass. The referenda are a reasonable and responsible reaction to Colorado's fiscal crisis which enjoys bi-partisan support throughout the community. Even RNC Chair Ken Mehlman acknowledges that we have a budget problem, if opponents to C&D have a plan for the future financial health of this state we'd love to hear it.

Unlike Holtzman, I'm not running for office. In this effort, my motivations are clear: I want what's best for Colorado. It has been my privilege to serve as governor since 1999 and I am proud of my record of tax-cutting and budgetary discipline. I am voting "yes" because a vote for Referendums C and D will allow our state to get back on a strong fiscal footing so that Colorado can continue to compete in a world economy. This is a time for leadership, not for politics.

go get 'em Gov!

Military Tribunals and the Denver Post...

2005-08-06T17:40:00.000-06:00

Denver deputy districy attorney Neal Richardson and Denver lawyer Spencer Crona penned a perspective in today's Denver Post praising military tribunals as somehow necessary and proper. The article focuses on the unanimous decision of the DC Circuit Court in July which affirmed the use of military tribunals for accused terrorists. I've read well reasoned pieces defending the use of tribunals, this piece was not one of them.

The case in question concerned Osama Bin Laden's driver (by the way, where is Osama?) who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. The two write,

Hamdan's defenders nevertheless portrayed him as a blameless household servant, as though his culpability was no greater than Hitler's German shepherd. Yet every first-year law student knows that the "wheel man" driving the getaway car in a bank robbery is liable for murder when the gang leader kills the guard on the way out.

Where to begin? If this analogy seems contrived and confused to you that's because it is. Certainly the wheel man may be liable for a murder committed in the commision of a robbery, but he may not depending on the jurisdiction - there is no per se felony murder law in the Model Penal Code. A small distinction for sure but one that two attorney's should recognize and own up to.

More importantly though I find it interesting that they say that a driver would only be "liable". Notice that they don't say that the driver would be "charged" or "tried in a court of law", only that he/she would be - generally speaking - "liable". Presumably a driver would be charged with a crime, tried in front of a jury, convicted and punished according to the laws of the United States and whatever specific jurisdiction the crime was committed, would he not? Of course he would, which is of course why Richardson and Crona use the broad phrase "laible". If one follows their analogy, that Osama Bin Laden's driver is as cupable as their "wheel man", to it's logical conclusion Osama Bin Laden's driver should have been charged with a crime and granted a jury trial - as our Constitution requires. Of course in the case of Handen the Constitution is inconvenient so Richardson and Crona continue on with their Constitutional-Relativism approach ignoring the enormous logical hole in their argument.

The two continue on,

Military commissions are a constitutionally appropriate manner of trial for enemy war criminals used throughout our history

Constitiutional they may be but the Clinton Depratment of Justice was able to charge, prosecute, and jail those terrorists responsible for the 1st World Trade Center bombing. Just last week this same Bush administration convicted the terrorist behind the thawarted Millenium Bombing at LA International Airport. Our friends in Great Britain have been rounding up and charging in their traditional justice system those connected with the recent attacks in London. Charging and trying terrorists within our criminal justice system is not some new and novel approach, rather it is a tried and true method which allows us to maintain our Constitutional integrity.

The two continue by attacking Henden's defense attorney's argument that the tribunals and GITMO are endangering the lives of American soldiers,

The second fallacy [in Katal's argument] is the transparent attempt to pitch the case toward the Supreme Court with a "security" spin on it rather that a "more rights for terrorists" spin. Hamdan's defense counsel implies that we should give terrorists rights they don't deserve under the Geneva Convention, in the hope that the enemy will reciprocate when our soldiers are captured. We all know that if our own troops are captured by al-Qaeda, they likely will be beheaded on camera after a five-minute, Internet "trial" (which begins, reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts in Alice and Wonderland, with the reading of the sentence).

This is a common argument put forward by those who support the Bush administration's policies. Their argument is essentialy that "the terrorists act this way so we can to", nevermind that we are not ourselves terrorists. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard than the religous-fascists we are fighting? When we stoop to the level of terrorists our image in the Middle East and around the world is damaged futher. We lose credibility when, on one hand, the Bush administration argues that we should be bringing democracy to the world and then on the other hand so blatantly subverts democratic processes. Quite simply when we begin to act like terrorists we lose all moral high ground.

Next they turn their ire on their fellow Democrats,

Senate Democrats should be cautious about how they appear if they chime in with civil libertarians who have criticized this ruling. As Democrats concerned about terrorists "going nuclear" (and as commentators who long have proposed military trials for terrorists), we take exception to the depiction of military commissions as creatures of the Bush administration.

How exactly should we be viewing these military tribunals given the revelations this week that the Pentagon was fixing the tribunals?

As the Pentagon was making its final preparations to begin war crimes trials against four detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, two senior prosecutors complained in confidential messages last year that the trial system had been secretly arranged to improve the chance of conviction and to deprive defendants of material that could prove their innocence.

The electronic messages, obtained by The New York Times, reveal a bitter dispute within the military legal community over the fairness of the system at a time when the Bush administration and the Pentagon were eager to have the military commissions, the first for the United States since the aftermath of World War II, be seen as just at home and abroad.

During the same time period, military defense lawyers were publicly criticizing the system, but senior officials dismissed their complaints and said they were contrived as part of the efforts to help their clients.

The defense lawyers' complaints and those of outside groups like the American Bar Association were, it is now clear, simultaneously being echoed in confidential messages by the two high-ranking prosecutors whose cases would, if anything, benefit from any slanting of the process.

In the face of such evidence Richardson and Crona's indignation at those of us who see the tribunals as little more than Kabuki-Theatre fails the laugh test. Their contention that these tribunals are somehow not "creatures of the Bush administratin" is simply not factually correct as evidenced by the Times article. It is clear to the entire world that these tribunals are a judicial farce and all American's, Republican or Democrat, should stand up against the practice. Richardson and Crona's defense of the tribunals is logically and factually flawed, we do not need these tribunals - instead we need to let our democratic processes fucntion as proscribed in the Constitution.

Holtzman is done...

2005-08-06T17:22:00.000-06:00

I know that Marc Holtzman is officially claiming that he is merely taking time off of his gubernatorial campaign to focues solely on defeating Referenda C&D but does anyone really believe that?

Bob Ewegen did a nice job in today's Denver Post for calling a spade a spade and a failing campaign a failing campaign,

Holtzman Friday asked Beauprez to suspend his own campaign, "setting aside our gubernatorial ambitions, so that together we can present a united front to oppose C and D."
Given their relative standings, Holtzman's call to Beauprez to join him in suspending the campaign sounded a lot like Napoleon, retreating from Moscow, writing to Czar Alexander I seeking a non-violent resolution of their differences.

Beauprez people meanwhile have siezed on this moment and come right after Holtzman.

The Beauprez campaign pounced on Holtzman's letter as a sign of weakness.
"Bob has found time to be an effective congressman, run for governor and oppose Referendum C," said Beauprez spokesman John Marshall.

Politically Beauprez people are playing this wonderfully, painting Holtzman as weak and unable to handle big issues except one at a time. Holtzman's ability to handle the rigors of the Governor's mansion is now squarely in question. I don't see how Holtzman can really believe that he can somehow get back into the Governor's race after something like this, not to mention what would happen to his political credibility if Referenda C or D pass. I realize that Holtzman later flip-flopped and claimed that he would continue to run for Governor full time but I think the damage is probably already done. It's early in the politcial season but given Holtzman's obvious flip-flop and Beauprez's excellent response the debate has been framed.

How quaint...

2005-08-05T17:03:00.000-06:00

How quaint... It appears that the UK is actually arresting terror suspects, prosecuting them, and then jailing them.

Apparently the Magna Carta is a greater guarantor of civil liberties than the Bill Of Rights.

I can't let this slide...

2005-08-05T15:33:00.000-06:00

From the wonderful piece in the National Journal about the liberal blogosphere...

Conversely, many centrists believe that the demands of the Internet Left influenced John Kerry's decision in 2003 to vote against Bush's $87 billion request to fund the war in Iraq. That vote became an albatross for Kerry in the general election when Bush used it as his prime example to accuse the Democrat, who had voted to authorize the war, of flip-flopping on issues. MoveOn had urged Democrats to oppose the funding, and Kerry cast his vote at a moment when Dean's presidential campaign, fueled largely by the torrent of online donations, was at its zenith.

That is just misleading. That vote was not in and of itself an albatros, what was an albatros was Kerry's spectacular bungling of the issue by making that absurd "I voted for it, before I voted against it" statement. The initial vote was not an albatross, the second vote was not really an issue until John Kerry made that statement. It was Kerry's own bungling and his staff's inability to craft a coherent message that cost him that issue. The vote was certainly not "an albatross" in and of itself as this article suggests.

a thesis on the liberal democratic blogosphere...

2005-08-05T14:02:00.000-06:00

Fantastic article on the rising liberal blogosphere... I can't say that I agree with a lot of the petty partisanship that goes on online but I really do think that we're going to be able to use the internet to further the party similiar to what the GOP did with talk radio etc.

I agree 100% with what "Armando" from dailykos wrote about this article, you can't be afraid of the fight... it's time to get our hands dirty and fight back. Paul Hackett lost by 4% in Ohio on thursday because he wasn't afraid to fight back, there's a backlash building and if candidates would just stoke that flame a little bit I think we can turn this mess around.

"Don't fear that fight"

I like that, I like that a lot.

here's the link to the post over at dailykos which has the entire article

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/5/15134/56717

Some of my favorite portions...

The Democratic Internet base cradling that trigger does not speak with one voice. But the emerging generation of online Democratic activists, many of them young and shaped by the bruising partisan conflicts of the past decade, seems united most by the belief that the quickest way for Democrats to regain power is to confront Bush more forcefully and to draw brighter lines of division between the Democratic Party and the GOP.

In strikingly similar language, Internet-generation Democratic activists from Moulitsas to Eli Pariser, the 24-year-old executive director of MoveOn's giant PAC, describe Clinton's effort to reorient the party toward capturing centrist voters as "obsolete" in a highly partisan era that demands, above all, united opposition against the GOP. Moulitsas and Pariser, like most other voices in the Internet activist base, want a Democratic Party focused more on increasing turnout among its partisans than on persuading moderate swing voters. Both, in other words, want a party that emulates Bush's political strategy more than Clinton's.

I consider myself largely a western democrat now and am certainly much more hawkish than most of my liberal friends...

Moulitsas [of DailyKos] is more eclectic. He served a three-year stint in the Army, and although he opposed the Iraq war, he supported the invasion of Afghanistan and calls himself a "military hawk." His favorite Democrats aren't Eastern cultural liberals like Kerry, but Westerners who combine economic populism with libertarian views on social issues like gun control. For the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Kos is currently touting Montana's new governor, Brian Schweitzer, a favorite of both the National Rifle Association and Democrats who yearn for an unabashed populist message.

this piece could very well be the thesis for democratic internet activism... talk about hitting the nail squarely on the head

Both men believe that the small-donor base developing on the Internet will allow Democrats to reduce their reliance on business for campaign financing. That, they argue, would allow the party to pursue a much more economically populist anti-corporate message that they believe could win back blue-collar voters who have trended Republican over the past generation primarily on issues relating to values, taxes, and national security...

...In all of this, Pariser and Moulitsas, like many of those they represent on the Internet, appear very much the product of the Democrats' fall from power. Almost everyone in the party's Washington hierarchy can remember a time when Democrats thought of themselves as the nation's natural majority party. Pariser and Moulitsas are children of the minority. For Democrats, they believe, the first step toward recovery is to acknowledge that revival requires more than tinkering. In their eyes, it will require Democrats to think of themselves not as a governing, but an opposition, party that bloodies the majority Republicans by any means necessary -- much as Republicans did under Newt Gingrich in the final years of their assault against the decades-old Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. "D.C. is still trapped in 1970s thinking," sighs Moulitsas. "It is hard for them to realize we really are a minority party. What they have to understand is that Republicans became a majority party only by being a really effective opposition party."

As we approach the coming Iraqi constitution...

2005-08-05T11:00:00.000-06:00

As we approach the coming Iraqi constitution we will soon be inundated with Bush administration officials patting themselves on the back for the grand accomplishment, much like they did this spring when the Iraqi elections occured. For Bush and his sycophants these mechanical successes of Democracy are a "victory". For the common Iraqi though they mean very, very little... there lives are still a mess, bombs continue to explode.

It is amazing just how perverted Bush and his sycophants perception of what real Democracy is. Irving Kristol wrote about this in his book Confessions Of A Neo-Conservative

Though the phrase "the quality of life" trips easily from so many lips these days, it tends to be one of those cliches with many trivial meanings and no large, serious one. Sometimes it refers to such externals as the enjoyment of cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner streets. At other times it refers to the merely private enjoyment of music, painting, or literature. Rarely does it have anything to do with the way the citizen in a democracy views himself - his obligations, his intentions, his ultimate self-definition.

Instead what I would call the "managerial" conception of democracy is the predominant opinion among political scientists, sociologists, and economists, and has, through the untiring effforst of these scholars, become the conventional journalistic opinion as well. The root idea behind this managerial conception is that democracy is a "political system" (as they say) which can be adequatley defined in terms of - can be fully reduced to - it's mechanical arrangements. Demoracy is then seen as a set of rules and procedures, and nothing but a set of rules and procedures, whereby majority rule and minority rights are reconciled into a state of equilibrium. If everyone follows these rules and procedures, then a democracy is in working order. I think this is a fair description of the democractic idea that currently prevails in academia. One can also fairly say that it is now the liberal idea of democracy par excellence.

I cannot help but feel that there is something ridiculous about being this kind of a democract, and I must confess to having a sneaking sympathy for those of our young radicals who also find it ridiculous. The absurdity is the absurdity of idoaltry - of taking the symbolic for the real, the means for the end. The purpose of democracy cannot possibly be the endless functioning of its own political machinery. The purpose of any political regime is to achive some version of the good life and the good society. It is not at all difficult to imagine a perfectly funcitioning democracy which answers all questions except one - namely, why should anyone of intelligence and spirit care a fig for it?

There is, however, an older idea of democracy - one which was fairly common until the beginning of this century - for which the conception of the quality of public life is absolutely crucial. The idea starts from the proposition that democracy is a form of self-government, and that if you want it to be a meritorious policy, you have to care about what kind of people govern it. Indeed, it puts the matter more strongly and delcares that if you want self-government, you are only entitled to it if that "self" is worthy of governing. There is no inherent right to self-government if it means that such government is vicious, mean, squalid, and debased. Only a dogmatist and a fanatic, an idolater of the democratic machinery, could approve of self-government under such conditions.

And because the desirability of self-government depends on the chracter of the people who govern, the older idea of democracy was very solicitous of the condition of this character. It was solicitous of the individual self, and felt an obligation to educate it into what used to be called "republican virtue". And it was solicitous of that collective sekf which we called public opinion and which, in a democracy, governs us collectively. Perhaps in some respects it was never oversolictitous - that would not be suprising. But the main thing is that it cared, cared not merely about the machibery of democracy but about the qaulity of life that this machinery might generate.

more plummeting poll numbers for Bush...

2005-08-05T10:53:00.000-06:00

Quack, quack...

Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent.

Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving.

The portion of people who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, when 53 percent described him that way while 45 percent did not. Now, people are just about evenly split on that issue — with 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not.

The drop in the number of people who see Bush as honest was strongest among middle-aged Americans as well as suburban women, a key voting group in the 2004 election. A further erosion of trust could make it tougher for Bush to win support for his policies in Congress and internationally.

New Yorker article on Bush's new GSAVE policy

2005-08-04T11:03:00.000-06:00

Funny how Republican's and the administration openly mocked John Kerry's assertion during the campaign that winning the War on Terror would take more than just military might. Now Bush has all but admitted that his adminstration's big stick approach has been a colossal failure.

The Administration is admitting that its strategy since September 11th has failed, without really admitting it. The single-minded emphasis on hunting down terrorists has failed (“Hearts and minds are more important than capturing and killing people,” Gregson said). The use of military force as the country’s primary and, at times, only response has failed, and has stretched the Army and the Marines to the breaking point. Unilateralism has failed. “It’s not a military project alone, and the United States cannot do it by itself alone,” Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy and a leading advocate of going it alone with military force, said on his way out the Pentagon door and into private life (good luck, fellas!). The overwhelmingly American character of the war has failed, isolating moderate Muslims—who, in the end, are the only hope for political change—or driving them closer to the radicals. Loading the entire burden of the war onto the backs of American soldiers, while telling the rest of the citizenry to go about its business, has failed, even as public relations: in a recent Gallup poll, only thirty-four per cent of Americans said that we are winning the war on terrorism. The phrase has outlived its enormous political usefulness.

Flippity-flop....

Roberts may not support a right to privacy...

2005-08-03T13:49:00.000-06:00

I have tried to remain objective about Judge Roberts and have tried to keep an open mind about him and refrain from the partisan screaching. Two things jumped out at me from an article's in today's Washington Post.

First this,

He said that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales interviewed him April 1, and that he met on May 3 with Bush confidants including Cheney, Gonzales, Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, White House counsel Harriet Miers and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. Roberts said he was interviewed separately by Miers on May 23. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced on July 1 her decision to retire. Roberts said he had a telephone interview with Miers and deputy counsel William K. Kelley on July 8 and was interviewed by Bush on July 15, with Miers present. He said none questioned him about his views on any case or legal issue.

Let me see if I understand this, the White House was interviewing a highly respected attorney and Judge for a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court and in the course of 5 meetings with, among others, Cheney, Card, Rove, Libby, and the President no one asked him about his views on ANY legal issue? Does anyone really believe that? What else were they talking about, baseball? That is just absurd.

Now, here's the first thing that has given me great pause about this nomination.

...new documents released by the National Archives from Roberts's tenure as a senior adviser to the attorney general during the Reagan administration make clear that he was deeply skeptical of the court's recognition of a citizen's fundamental "right to privacy" -- the legal concept that underpinned its historic 1973 decision upholding a right to abortion.

Abortion rights aside, a person who does not believe that the United States Constitution contains a right to privacy should not serve on the United States Supreme Court. The right to privacy is an inherent, if not explicit, right of all American's. No reasonable person on either side of the aisle believes that there isn't at least some right to privacy within the Constitution. Reasonable men may disagree to what extent that right extends but there is no argument, except by extremists, that NO right to privacy exists. Are there any Republican's in Congress who do not recognize a right to privacy? I would guess perhaps Santorum, any others? If Roberts really does not believe in a right to privacy he is unfit for the Court.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Congratulations Paul Hackett...

2005-08-02T21:29:00.000-06:00

Paul Hackett lost in Ohio's 2nd Congressional district tonight 52-48... really an incredible showing and a wonderful demonstration that Dean's 50 state strategy is viable. The RNC and the RNCC had to dump hundred's of thousand's of dollars into a "safe" republican district. Additionally, the DCCC paid considerably less attention to this race.

here are the past election results for that seat, remember that Bush won by over 30% last november too

2004 72% to 28%
2002 74% to 26%
2000 74% to 23%
1998 76% to 24%

tonight was 52-48.... winning the seat outright would obviously have been great but this shows that with the right candidate, running an aggresive campaign the Democrats really can be viable in just about any district in America.

David Sirota on Democratic Party discipline...

2005-08-02T11:46:00.000-06:00

Good piece from David Sirota on Democratic Party discipline - or lack thereof - in the aftermath of the CAFTA sellout by 15 Dems.

Here are some highlights but I encourage you to read the entire piece here...

...I ask you: do you think Newt Gingrich was nice to people within his party who undermined him in his quest to take back the majority? Do you think the current Republican leadership dislikes Grover Norquist's efforts to keep GOPers in line today? Do you think Karl Rove keeps winning elections by letting turncoats within his own party undermine the GOP?...

Let me be clear: the majority of Democrats in Congress are courageous and honest people. The problem is, they are being undermined on a daily basis. It is the loyal foot soldiers that a strengthened accountability infrastructure will help, because without consequences for turncoats, the party will be undermined forever.

Sirota wrote a scathing piece on the 15 CAFTA turncoats which pretty much echoes my thoughts on the situation,

Let's be clear - all of these people should never get a red cent from labor unions or the progressive community again, and that goes even for the ones who represent marginal districts. The idea that this was a "tough vote" for a Democrat who represents a swing district doesn't hold water - no one is getting voted out of office over voting against CAFTA, and voting for American workers. Remember, polls show that Americans are sick and tired of Congress passing these corporate-written "free" trade deals that sell out ordinary workers.

Bush administration's credibility gap on Iran's WMD's...

2005-08-02T11:29:00.000-06:00

Suprise, suprise, suprise! Who could have guessed that the Bush administration would be hyping intelligence about Iran's nuclear program? This administration really has no credibility left, Bush has become the boy who cried wolf.

From today's Washington Post,

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal.

Ken Mehlman acknowledges that Colorado has a budget crisis...

2005-08-02T11:19:00.000-06:00

While RNC Chair Ken Mehlman did not endorse Referenda C&D he did at least acknowledge that Colorado has budget issues - a point that most Colorado Republican's refuse to acknowledge themselves.

From yesterday's David Harsanyi article in the Denver Post,

After losing both the state House and Senate, the Colorado GOP has engaged in a nasty squabble over the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, pitting a popular governor against the rank-and-file fiscal conservative base.
Not surprisingly, Mehlman says he doesn't believe it will hurt Republicans.
But he does warn everyone to heed Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: "We must remain focused on what unites us, not what divides us. We ought not be attacking each other, but the fact that we're debating how to solve problems is a positive thing."

Going to the mat over Roberts?

2005-08-01T11:40:00.000-06:00

A few days ago I posted my thoughts on the Roberts nomination and what direction Democratic opposition should take. My conclusion was that Roberts was not worth wasting our "capital" on, that Bush will have at least 1 more nominee to the Court and we shouldn't squander the public's limited attention and tolerance for partisan battles on someone like Roberts.

Today the good people at the TPMCafe have taken up the same discussion...

Krugman hits a homerun again...

2005-08-01T11:20:00.000-06:00

I look forward to Paul Krugman's Op-Ed's in the New York Times, rarely does he dissapoint. His columns are always insightful, intellectual, well-reasoned, and rational. Today is no exception as Krugman looks at where the Bush Presidency is in regards to it's policies (failing miserably) and it's political goals (doing quite well).

"..is the Bush agenda stalled, or is it progressing?
The answer is that the administration is getting nowhere on its grand policy agenda. But it never took policy, as opposed to politics, very seriously anyway. The agenda it has always taken with utmost seriousness - consolidating one-party rule, and rewarding its friends - is moving forward quite nicely."

Absurd editorial in the Denver Post supporting CAFTA

2005-07-29T09:19:00.000-06:00

Who exactly do they think they are kidding?

"We welcome the removal of trade barriers between the U.S. and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua and hope that increasing trade will bolster fragile Central American democracies and improve the livelihood of impoverished families."

That would be lovely wouldn' it? Raising these poor countries up and out of poverty through free trade. Unfortunately we've already tried this once before with NAFTA and the standard of living in the Mexico has stayed stagnanat and the rela wages have actually fallen. We already know it doesn't work, NAFTA was launched in 1994 with promises of raisng up Mexico's standard of living, you can see for yourself that it hasn't done that and it has at the same time hurt American workers.

"I think it can only be positive that all the trade barriers ... are coming down," said Chuck Berry of the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.

Who exactly has been helped by NAFTA Mr. Berry? Mexican Workers? No. US Workers? No. US International Corporations? Yes, they've been able to further exploit our Mexican neighbors.

The Economic Policy Institute has a good piece on the possible effects of CAFTA.

Frist to support stem-cell research....

2005-07-29T09:08:00.000-06:00

This is a huge suprise, Senator Frist has broken ranks with the Religous Right and President Bush.

"In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure."

Can Bush really veto a bill which has strong (around 56%) public support? I could see him let the bill lie on his desk and pass into law without his signature.

CAFTA vote could prove costly to Musgrave

2005-07-28T15:03:00.000-06:00

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave cast a "Yes" vote for CAFTA last night, typical of Musgrave she put her loyalty to Republican leadership above the priorities of her district. The CD-4 is a rural district with many farmers - including sugar-beet farmers - who will be directly (and negatively) impacted by CAFTA. Their is concern that the entire US Sugar industry could collapse under CAFTA.

Thanks to Musgrave's vote Sugar Beet farmers now have to worry about making ends meet and feeding their families. If you polled her district where would same-sex marriage rate in relation to basic economic issues?

At some point her preoocupation with fringe social issues will cost her. The people of the 4th now have real economic worries because their own Representative sold them up the river.

In the 2004 election the suga-beet farmers let it be known that they opposed CAFTA.

Here's a cached Denver Post article from October 2004 on the issue,

"...others claim Musgrave's views on morality have always obscured other problems that need tending.
"I think she's dropped the ball, basically,'"said Sterling sugar beet farmer Darren Luft. "She's not paying attention to the issues that could be devastating to our industry."...

...Beet Farmers in the area, however, say Musgrave's reluctance to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement could ruin the Colorado sugar beet industry. They say the agreement could dump 100,000 tons of sugar in the U.S. every year and cost the last remaining family farms in eastern Colorado.

But Musgrav is not interested in intervening and keeping local sugar beet growers out of the pact, Luft said. "She's right in the heart of agriculture, and she's letting some of her main constituents down," he said.

Denver Post editorial on the AFL-CIO split

2005-07-28T13:05:00.000-06:00

I am not one who has thought that the recent split of the Teamsters and the SEIU from the AFL-CIO was reason to panic. In fact I think it may ultimately be beneficial to the labor movement. Both groups have different goals and different methods and it will be better for the overall health of labor if they split now and pursue those goals.

This morning the Denver Post chimmed in here are the highlights,

"It's possible instead that the split will give labor leaders the jolt they need to update their movement to the benefit of working Americans seeking a secure place in the global economy."

"Labor's last big breakup came in 1938, when member unions of the American Federation of Labor broke away to form the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The two federations competed and registered big gains before reuniting in 1955."

"The union split will be mended sooner or later. In the meantime, both sides will be motivated to seek creative solutions to the challenges that beset the movement.
Labor leaders like to say they work for all workers, not just union members, and non-unionized workers shouldn't forget that organized labor has made enormous contributions in areas such as safer workplaces, eight-hour days and fair vacations and benefits. We hope the sudden split will lead the movement to modernize, lest it continue to wither."

Republican's are trashing the service of another Vet

2005-07-28T12:40:00.000-06:00

First it was one of their own, Sen. McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary. Then they attacked a Vet who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam, Sen. Cleland, in 2002. In 2004 they smeared Sen. Kerry.

Now the Republican's in a desperate attempt to hold onto a Republican "safe" seat in Ohio's 2nd District are smearing the service of Paul Hackett (pictured at left with Sen. Cleland).

Swing State Project has all of the details.

Smearing America's veteran's, that is today's Republican Party... so drunk with power that they will do anything to maintain control. Despicable doesn't even begin to describe the actions of this Party when it comes to their treatment of America's veterans - from the previous campaigns, to their slashing of VA benefits, to underfunding our VA hospitals. This is supposed to be the Party of values and morals? Disgusting. A Party run by chicken-hawk cowards who never served a day in their lives, who callously sends our soldiers off to fight and die over weapons they knew didn't exist, a Party who ignores the veterans when they come home, this Party is attacking Veteran's and questioning their service? Outrageous, simply outrageous.

CAFTA passes the House 217-215

2005-07-28T12:08:00.000-06:00

A sad day for America's workers. You can view the roll call vote here

Here's how Colorado's Representative's voted

1. DeGette - No
2. Udall - No
3. Salazar - No
4. Musgrave - Yes
5. Hefley - Yes
6. Tancredo - No
7. Beauprez - Yes

I applaud Colorado's Dems for sticking together on this one and putting up a fight for American workers. Could someone explain to me how CAFTA will benefit the working people of Colorado's 4th, 5th, and 7th districts?

15 Democrats crossed over and supported CAFTA. The DNC and the DCCC need to cut them off at the legs, no national funding should go to these DINO's. If a Democrat isn't willing to fight for the American worker then he's not a Democrat.

Here are the traitors to the Democratic Party,
Bean, Cooper, Cuellar, Dicks, Hinojosa, Jefferson, Matheson, Meeks (NY), Moore (KS), Moran (VA), Ortiz, Skelton, Snyder, Tanner, and Towns.

I am absolutely serious about no longer funding these "Democrats", that's not just internet hyperbole. It's time the Party takes a stand and tells these DINO's that they either get in line with the Party in terms of economic policy or they take a hike. If Democrats cannot come together to stand up for America's workers then the Party is lost.

DeLay sneaks $1.5 Billion in pork into the energy bill

2005-07-27T18:05:00.000-06:00

This is just disgraceful. I thought that Republican's were supposed to be the party of fiscal
moderation? Thinkprogress.org has the details,

"Tom DeLay thinks the federal treasury is his personal piggy bank. DeLay slipped “a $1.5 billion giveaway to the oil industry, Halliburton, and Sugar Land, Texas” into the energy bill.
But this isn’t a normal case of government pork. DeLay has completely dispensed with the democratic process. From a letter Rep. Henry Waxman just sent Speaker Dennis Hastert:

The provision was inserted into the energy legislation after the conference was closed, so members of the conference committee had no opportunity to consider or reject this measure.

The $1.5 billion won’t be administered by the government by a private consortium in DeLay’s district:
The subtitle appears to steer the administration of 75% of the $1.5 billion fund to a private consortium located in the district of Majority Leader Tom DeLay."

Here in Colorado we Democrats need to be making a lot of noise everytime Rep.DeLay pulls a stunt like this. The man is a walking scandal and Bob Beauprez and Marily Musgrave both vote slavishly in line with Delay (94+% of the time). We need to be making the case to the American people that Republican's are corrupt and not to be trusted, every one of these ethical violations - from Delay's numerous violations, to Duke Cunningham's bribery, to Coin-Gate in Ohio, to the scandal in the Kentucky's Governor's office - needs to become an issue. Just as Congressional Dems in 1994 were rightfully run out on a rail for being lazy and corrupt so to do these 21st century Republican's. A backlash is already brewing, its time to stoke the fire and ride the wave..

My take on the DLC

2005-07-27T17:31:00.000-06:00

I can't say that I agree with most of what gets posted over www.dailykos.com but sometimes I find my views are completely in line with theirs. Those of you who have read a majority of what I have posted have probably come to see that I am a pro-labor, economically progressive, socially moderate Democrat; given that perspective it should come as little suprise to anyone that I hold a low opinion of the Democratic Leadership Council. I think Bill Clinton is probably the greatest politician of my 26 years and for me there are many reasons to like the man, but the way he and the DLC have completely discarded the working family and inparticuarly labor families leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In my opinion the DLC has really contributed mightily to the Democratic slide of the last 10+ years. They have ceded the economic high road and the pro-Corporate wing of the Party has been bungling elections at all levels. All of that said I sign onto this from Hunter at dailykos wholeheartededly,

"I come neither to bury the DLC, nor to praise them. And in truth, I am utterly opinionless on who should get the nomination for the next presidential election -- it's not that I'm uninformed; it's just that I really don't, six months into the current presidential term, give a tinker's damn, and I don't particularly think anyone else should either. In the next few years, I will personally come to support whoever accomplishes the most -- or, given the current climate, anything -- towards actual Democratic objectives. You want to be a leader? Then show me you can lead. It's that simple.
But the DLC has become really quite detested among many Democratic circles -- and by that I mean, by most Democrats not already aligned with the DLC. And I don't think the reasons are terribly complicated, and I know the reasons are nothing that can be solved by a call for cease-fire, rally 'round the flag, etc. The problems are these:

The more corporate-tailored elements of the DLC agenda are frequently at odds with Democratic "heartland" interests.

The DLC "framing" of candidates and issues is so forcefully homogenized as to render those candidates and issues politically and morally translucent.

The DLC has a remarkable track record of losing."

I encourage everyone else to read the entire post,
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/27/191753/611

Cook county Republican's offer $10,000 for conviction of Daley

2005-07-27T12:30:00.000-06:00

This is just bizarre, I've never heard of such a thing. Shouldn't the Cook County Republican's have more respect for the investigation process?

" The Cook County Republican Party is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to an indictment and conviction of Mayor Richard M. Daley, whose administration has been buffeted by scandal."

IRA to lay down their weapons...

2005-07-26T23:22:00.000-06:00

As an Irish-Catholic I found this story interesting,

"The Irish Republican Army has given up its armed struggle for a united Ireland, agreeing to turn solely to political methods, an American businessman said yesterday after being briefed on a statement expected from the guerrilla group later this week."

It is still just a first step but it is promising.

Taking the fight to the GOP, one district at a time...

2005-07-26T23:12:00.000-06:00

Great story in the NY Times about Paul Hackett who is running as a Democrat in a special election in the heavily Republican 2nd District of Ohio. Mr. Hackett just returned from Iraq and has gone so far as to refer to President Bush as a "chicken hawk" during campaign stops. Mr. Hackett's position on gun control is, I think very interesting, and is a position I am slowly coming around to supporting,

"The two [candidates], however, support broad gun rights. His opposition to banning assault weapons has gotten Mr. Hackett, who says he owns military-style rifles and has a permit to carry concealed weapons, into arguments with many Democrats.

'The Democratic Party is wrong on this,' he said. 'We don't want government dictating a woman's right to choose. How do I tell people it's O.K. to dictate their gun ownership?'"

Are Democrats prepared to be more inclusive on the issue of abortion?

2005-07-25T20:20:00.000-06:00

It appears as though there is a push to get the DNC to recognize the group Democrats For Life. I myself am Pro-Choice but abortion is just not an issue that gets me all worked up. Perhaps it's the 8 years of Catholic grade school and the 4 years of Jesuit high school but I think our efforts as a Party would be better spent pushing an economic-populist agenda and not being so closely tied to abortion. I have long felt that the Party should be more inclusive of Pro-Life party members, I really don't see any detrimental effect to the Party and I think it would help lure some voters who are fringe-Republican's.

The Hill has the story,

"Senate and House Democrats, with the support of Minority Leaders Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), are pressing party Chairman Howard Dean to establish an official relationship with Democrats for Life, an anti-abortion-rights group that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has previously shunned...

The efforts to build a relationship seem to be having an impact on Dean. A day after meeting with Democrats for Life, the Associated Press reported, he told a group of college Democrats: 'We do have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party...'

People attending the meeting between Dean and Democrats for Life said that he was very receptive and that he would look into building a stronger relationship with the group. "

Once again Howard Dean demonstrates that he is not the far left wingnut that the media, the DLC, and Republican's paint him as. The above quote from Dean demonstrates that he is actually a political moderate with vision and foresight, I have more confidence in his leadership everyday.

some thoughts on the Roberts nomination...

2005-07-25T17:32:00.000-06:00

I haven't blogged about Mr. Roberts at all other than immediately after his nomination and I haven't closely followed all of the various dust-ups in the last week or so about him. To me this battle over the Supreme Court was fought last November, the Republican's maintained control of Congress and the White House and so the Democrats lost the Supreme Court fight. If Roberts had a lengthy record of controversial opinions from his days on the D.C. Circuit perhaps this would be a nomination worth contesting. As it stands though today it appears that Roberts is a strong conservative with impeccable academic and professional credentials. When his confirmation hearings take place the Senators are free to ask him any question of their liking, even a specific question about Roe, Mr. Roberts is free to dodge and obfuscate. There will be at least one more Supreme Court nomination for this President and most likely two more. I think the Democrats and their activists would be better served to save the screaching for a nominee with more easily impeachable credentials than Mr. Roberts. Certainly they should not shy away from tough questions during his confirmation and if there is really something of merit in his personal or professional life that would make him unfit to serve let us hear it. In the meantime I don't care what Mrs. Roberts views on abortion are and I don't care if Mr. Roberts was a member of the Federalist Society. At this point the Democratic activists are flailing about wasting what "capital" they have with the American public. My advice would be to save it for a truly rainy day.

Ken Salazar signs onto letter demanding an investigation of Rove-Gate

2005-07-25T13:57:00.000-06:00

26 Democratic Senators signed on to this letter, which was sent to Tom Delay and Bill Frist. Interestingly 7 of these Dems (Rockefeller, Levine, Feinstein, Corzine, Wyden, Mikulski, and Bayh) sit on Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. According to the rules of the Committee it only takes 5 members to call a special meeting of the committee. It looks like we may see Congressional Republican's forced to officially address this growing scandal.

Here is the text of the letter,

Dear Mr. Speaker and Mr. Majority Leader:

The press has reported on information strongly suggesting that senior Administration officials, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, exposed the identity of American intelligence operative Valerie Plame, despite the repeated denial of the White House at the time.

The public revelation of Ms. Plame’s identity, whether it amounts to a crime or an irresponsible breach of security protocol that doesn’t meet the standard of criminal conduct, almost certainly compromised her intelligence networks and may have compromised the safety and welfare of anyone who had worked with her overseas. As a group of respected former intelligence officials wrote in 2004: “Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.”

The United States Congress has a constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch, whether a law has been broken or not. It is time for Congress to fulfill that constitutional responsibility in this matter by initiating a thorough investigation.

We recognize that a criminal investigation is underway and that a special prosecutor continues to present testimony before a grand jury. These actions in no way preclude Congress’ responsibility to provide oversight. We urge you to exercise your authority as Congressional leaders by requesting the appropriate committees to begin oversight hearings and an investigation immediately.

Sincerely,

Senators Kerry, Levin, Stabenow, Schumer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Reed, Feinstein, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Durbin, Carper, Salazar, Boxer, Inouye, Corzine, Wyden, Mikulski, Obama, Murray, Bayh, Johnson, Clinton, Sarbanes, and Landrieu.

Just returned from a trip to NYC...

2005-07-25T08:58:00.000-06:00

I took the red eye out last Wednesday evening and just returned yesterday afternoon, it was my first tripto New York in some 5 years. On Friday morning I made my way over to Ground Zero to pay my respects, to say that it was a moving experience would not do it justice.

One of the things that struck me about Ground Zero was the lack of street vendors, the lack of bills and advertising around the area, and the reverance and respect for the victims. I was struck at the amount of respect tourists and New Yorkers showed to the victims of 9/11, and thought about how Republican's and George W. Bush have selfishly exploited the victims of 9/11.

It has been almost 4 years now since those attacks, Osama Bin Laden is still free and the President says that he doesn't really think about him much anymore, after visitinf Ground Zero I find that comment by Bush to be even more absurd. Bin Laden of course escaped at Tora Bora because Bush out-sourced the mission, instead of sending our troops after him Bush Co. decided to hire Afghans. Funds and troops from Afghanistan were already being diverted away from finding the actual perpetrators of 9/11, to prepare for Bush's folly in Iraq.

Bush has gone to the 9/11 well time and time again when he needed a political boost. He exploited the death of 3,000 American's so he could have his war in Iraq. The Republican Party has exploited the death of 3,000 American's every time someone questions their poor handling of the budget and the economy. Indeed, the Republican Party has made it policy to exploit the mass murder of 3,000 American's every time someone questions any portion of the Republican's domestic or foreign policy.

It is truly appalling the way the Republican Party and George W. Bush have exploited the attacks of 9/11 for their personal political gain.

"Partisan hack"

2005-07-20T09:36:00.000-06:00

I've seen the phrase "partisan hack" used quite a bit in the last 12 hours to describe John Roberts and it really bothers me. I have to say I think calling someone who edited the Law Review at Harvard and argued 39 cases in front of the Supreme Court before the age of 48 a "hack" makes you look ridiculous, makes Democrats look ridiculous, and does nothing to advance the Democratic agenda. He may be partisan, but he is not Clarence Thomas, he is well repsected by everyone (Dems and Republican's) who have worked with him and opposed him. He is accomplished and bright, yes he is conservative but what did you expect? Bush was reelected, there's a Republican Senate, of course Bush nominated a hard conservative. It really could be much worse, he could have picked a Clarence Thomas type.

I'm open to specific critcisms of the man, but to call people "hacks" just makes the Dems looks petty.

Money quote from the 2003 confirmation hearing

2005-07-20T00:09:00.000-06:00

"There's no role for advocacy with respect to personal beliefs or views on the part of a judge. The judge is bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent, whether he agrees with it or disagrees with it, and bound to apply the rule of law in cases whether there's applicable Supreme Court precedent or not. Personal views, personal ideology, those have no role to play whatever."

Highlights from the 2003 confirmation hearing of Roberts - Part II

2005-07-19T22:19:00.000-06:00

Durbin questions Roberts views on racial profiling and mandatory minimums,

"It is an observation which was made several years ago, relative to the issue of racial profiling. I know if I asked you what your position is on racial profiling what you would say, what we would all say. We are opposed to it. It is not just, it is not fair. We certainly do not want it in America.

But I came across some statistics which trouble me, and I have asked virtually every nominee at all sorts of levels, Department of Justice and Judiciary, for a reaction and what they think we should do about the following. I want to make sure I get these numbers right as I give them to you. I am just trying to remember them off the top of my head.

But we have a situation in America today where 12 percent of our population are African-Americans. The Drug Enforcement Administration believes that 11 percent of the drug users in America are African-American, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug violations are African-American, 53 percent of those convicted in State Courts for drug felonies are African-American, and 58 percent of those currently incarcerated in State prison for drug felony are African-Americans.

I would like your reaction to that. You are asking for a major position in the administration of justice, and if we are honest about our opposition to racial profiling, what do these numbers mean in terms of our system of justice, in general terms, and in specific terms, the whole question of minimum mandatory sentencing."

Roberts response,

"I think that sort of statistical disparity ought to spark further inquiry. I mean, it sort of points out we may have a potential problem here, and I think you want to find out what is behind the numbers because any statistical grouping that shows that kind of disparity would suggest that there may be a problem not treating people as individuals, and that is sort of at the core of our constitutional liberties, that we don't group people according to characteristics and say, well, you share this characteristic, and so you must be like this, this and this. We treat people as individuals.

No matter how compelling the statistical evidence may be, it shows that whatever group it is, and 99-whatever percent here is, that's not what due process means, that's not what liberty means, that's not what the various protections of the Bill of Rights mean; that you're part of a group that more often than not is subject to this or does this, and therefore we're going to treat you as a member of a group, rather than an individual.

So that type of disparity, I think, is one that ought to concern people, and spark interest, and call people to look to see what's behind the numbers and why that's the case."

Senator Leahy asks Roberts about the holes in the strict-constructionist approach,

"And you have told NPR you support and originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, saying the reason that that is the way it was in 1789 is not a bad one when you are talking about construing the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution in 1789 did not have the Bill of Rights. To get it ratified--you couldn't have gotten it ratified, States wouldn't have ratified it without that. It allowed African-Americans to be enslaved back then. We had the Civil War amendments, like the 14th, which limited State power to make or enforce laws to deny equal protection to people. So the originalist concept can't be an exact one, can it?"

Roberts reply,

"Well, I think I'd have to say that I don't have an overarching, uniform philosophy. To take a very simple example to make the point, I think we're all literal textualists when it comes to a provision of the Constitution that says it takes a two-thirds vote to do something. You don't look at what was the intent behind that, and, you know, given that intent, one-half ought to be enough.

On the other hand, there are certain areas where literalism along those lines obviously doesn't work. If you are dealing with the Fourth Amendment, is something an unreasonable search and seizure, the text is only going to get you so far. And in those situations--"

Leahy briefly interrupts before Roberts continues,

"even basic concepts like commerce, didn't have to deal with air travel and things of that sort. That doesn't mean they're not covered by the Commerce Clause. Our Constitution is flexible enough to accommodate technological changes of that sort. And I think in some areas--for example, the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the jury trial right, I argued a case in favor of the jury trial right in the Supreme Court, and I learned more history than I thought I'd ever see again after being a history major in college, because what the Supreme Court has said is you look at what happened at common law at the point in time when the Seventh Amendment was adopted. And if it was on the equity side, you don't get the jury. If it was on the law side, you do. So you read a lot of old history. That doesn't mean that that same approach is going to make sense when you're dealing with other provisions of the Constitution.

So I think I'd have to say that I don't have an overarching, guiding way of reading the Constitution. I think different approaches are appropriate in different types of constitutional provisions."

And that's about it, none of the Senators really paid much attention to Roberts at the hearing, they seemed much more focused on his fellow nominee's. Nonetheless I think these excerpts give a nice overview of how the hearing went previously for Roberts. Obviously a Supreme Court confirmantion hearing will be much more probative and contentious.

Highlights from the 2003 confirmation hearing of Roberts - Part I

2005-07-19T21:21:00.000-06:00

From Senator Kennedy's opening remarks,

"I am concerned about Mr. Roberts' efforts to limit reproductive rights as a Government lawyer, his advocacy against affirmative action, and Federal Environmental Protection Laws in his efforts to shield states from individual suits, and to limit Congress's ability to pass legislation regulating state conduct in the name of the states' rights."

Senator Hatch opens the afternoon session of the hearing himself and goes right too Roberts and makes a few points that we will hear repeated quite frequently in the next few days about the positions attorneys take on behalf of clients. This is basically going to be the defense for Roberts position on Roe while he was working for the Solicitor General's office ,

"It seems to me that both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Sutton are being criticized for positions they have taken as attorneys representing clients. Now, this is patently unfair, and it is inappropriate because attorneys do represent clients, and they should not be judged by who our clients are. Any of us who have tried cases know that sometimes our clients may not be savory, but the case may be a good case, who knows?

Now, attorneys are required to represent their clients, and this is the case whether their client is the U.S. Government, a State Government, a private citizen or a corporation, and this fact is so fundamental that it should go beyond reproach. In any legal matter, the arguments a lawyer makes in the role of a zealous advocate on behalf of a client are no measure of how that lawyer would rule if he were handling the same matter as a neutral and detached judge, and I think it is very unfair to imply that the judgeship nominee would not follow the law.

Now, this is because lawyers have an ethical obligation to make all reasonable arguments that will advance their clients interests. According to Rule 3.1 of the ABA's model rules of professional conduct, a lawyer may make any argument if, ``there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.''

Now, lawyers would violate their ethical duties to their client if they made only arguments with which they would agree were they the judge or a judge.

Now, Mr. Roberts, although my Democratic colleagues are, and some in the Senate and elsewhere, have tried to paint you as an extremist, the truth is, is that you are a well-respected appellate lawyer, who has represented an extremely diverse group of clients before the courts. In fact, you have often represented clients and what is considered to be the so-called ``liberal'' position on issues. I would just like to ask you about a few of these cases."

Hatch goes on to highlight some of Roberts more liberal moments as an attorney, he mentions a few cases including his participation on behalf of the Clinton Justice Department's anti-trust case against Microsoft.

Senator Kohl asked about anti-trust,

"Last question. One of my priorities on this Committee is my role on the Antitrust Subcommittee. Strong antitrust enforcement is essential to ensuring that competitive flourishes throughout our country which benefits consumers through lower prices and better-quality products and services. Federal courts are essential to the firm enforcement of our antitrust laws and to ensuring that anti-competitive conduct is sanctioned.

Many antitrust questions are decided under what is known as the rule of reason in which the harm caused by the business conduct at issue is balanced against full competitive justifications. This document gives a great deal of discretion to the courts to determine whether or not the antitrust laws have been violated.

What would be your approach to deciding antitrust issues under the rule of reason? More generally, please give us your views regarding the role of the judiciary with respect to the enforcement of antitrust law."

and here is Roberts response (Kohl did not follow up),

"As a private lawyer, I have actually represented probably more plaintiffs and enforcement interests in antitrust actions than defendants. I represented the State Attorneys General in the Microsoft case and represented several private plaintiffs in antitrust appeals as well, handled some antitrust cases when I was in the Solicitor General's office.

I've also represented corporations accused of antitrust violations, and I think that balanced perspective is something that's valuable for a judge. I certainly think a lawyer coming into court, if I were to be confirmed, representing a plaintiff in an antitrust action should take some comfort in the fact that I've done that. And a lawyer representing a defendant should take some comfort in the fact that I have done that as well and I have the perspective of the issue from both sides.

So, again, obviously as judge, I'd follow the binding Supreme Court precedent and the precedent in my circuit. But I would hope that in doing so, I would have some added perspective from having been on both sides, both the plaintiff side and the defendant side, in antitrust enforcement actions."

The last portion about following Supreme Court precedent sounds nice but really means nothing now, as member of the Supreme Court he would no longer be required to follow Supreme Court precedent. Nonetheless I'm sure we'll see that quote and similiar quotes trotted out by the Republican's as some sort of demonstration to the left that Roberts as a moderate.

This comes from an exchange with Senator Sessions concerning criticism of nominees for the Judicial branch over their personal political beliefs. Sessions suggested that such attacks were unwarranted because ultimately the nominees are qualified and will uphold the rule of law. Roberts answer,

"if it all came down to just politics in the judicial branch, that would be very frustrating for lawyers who worked very hard to try to advocate their position and present the precedents and present the arguments. They expect the judges to work justified. And if the judge is going to rule one way or the other, regardless of the arguments, well, he could save everybody a lot of work, but the rule of law would suffer... And I know as an advocate, I never liked it when I had a political judge, when I was in front of a political judge, because, again, you put a lot of work into presenting the case, and you want to see that same work returned. And the theory is that that will help everybody reach the right result, and I think that's correct."

To be continued....

Leahy's opening remarks on Roberts in 2003

2005-07-19T21:14:00.000-06:00

They seem basically inconsecuential but I'll include them anyway,

"Today's nominees to the D.C. Circuit, John Roberts, worked in the Reagan Justice Department, in the Reagan White House, was an associate of former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr. It is obvious the Bush administration feels far more comfortable with him.

Also, home-State Senators I understand have not been consulted in these. We have certainly not received any ``blue slips'' back. What we are doing is we are appointing people to the highest courts in the land, with little more attention and scrutiny than we would pay to appoint these for a temporary Federal commission. It is a disservice to the American people.

The American people can be excused for sensing that there is the smell of an ink pad in the air, rubber stamps already out of the drawer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman."

Sen. Hatch at the 2003 hearings

2005-07-19T21:02:00.000-06:00

Allow me to quote at length, here are Senator Hatch's opening statements about John Roberts at his 2003 confirmation hearing,

"Our final circuit nominee today is Mr. John Roberts, who has been nominated for a seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He is widely considered to be one of the premier appellate litigators of his generation. Most lawyers are held in high esteem if they have the privilege of arguing even one case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Roberts has argued an astounding 39 cases before the Supreme Court. At least that as the last count I had. It is truly an honor to have such an accomplished litigator before this committee, and one of the most well-recognized and approved appellate litigators in history.

The high esteem in which Mr. Roberts is held is reflected in a letter the Committee recently received urging his confirmation. This letter, which I will submit for the record, was signed by more than 150 members of the D.C. Bar, including such well-respected attorneys as Lloyd Cutler, who was the White House Counsel to both Presidents Carter and Clinton; Boyden Gray, who was the White House Counsel for the first President Bush; and Seth Waxman, who was President Clinton's Solicitor General. The letter states, quote: ``Although as individuals we reflect a wide spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding Federal Court of Appeals Judge and should be confirmed by the United States Senate. He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the Nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague, both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.'' This is high praise from a group of lawyers, who themselves have clearly excelled in their profession, who are not easily impressed, and who would not recklessly put their reputations on the line by issuing such a sterling endorsement if they were not 100 percent convinced that John Roberts will be a fair judge who will follow the law regardless of his personal beliefs.

Let me just say a brief word about Mr. Roberts' background before turning to Senator Leahy. He graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude in 1976, and received his law degree magna cum laude in 1979 from the Harvard Law School, where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Following graduation he served as a law clerk for Second Circuit Judge Henry J. Friendly, and for then Justice William Rehnquist of the Supreme Court. From 1982 to 1986 Roberts served as associate counsel to the President in the White House Counsel's Office. From 1989 to 1993 he served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He now heads the appellate practice group at the prestigious D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, and he has received the ABA's highest rating of unanimously well qualified.

I have to say that this panel represents the best, and I commend President Bush for seeking out such nominees of the highest caliber."

I have to commend the President for picking someone of such intellectual prowess, what we see of the man's record right now it doesn't appear that there is anyway he will not be confirmed.

Roberts approved in 2001 by 16-3 vote

2005-07-19T19:32:00.000-06:00

I'll post more in depth thoughts on Justice Roberts later, in the meantime I found this article from a blog last May. Interesting reading in hinsight, the fact that he was previously confirmed 16-3 by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 for the D.C. Circuit. That's pretty impressive support.

Good article on Roberts...

2005-07-19T18:41:00.000-06:00

Good article from law.com, interesting that he worked for Hogan & Hartson...

I found this part to be particularly enlightening,

"...Roberts, with 20 months on the D.C. Circuit, has few opinions or other writings that have attracted enemies. As a result, some conservatives have made unflattering comparisons between Roberts and Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whose short stint on the 1st Circuit before being appointed in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush failed to reveal Souter's moderate-to-liberal leanings on some issues.

Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas. "

I am personally less concerned about abortion rollbacks than the possible rollback of New Deal era regulations. Remember though that conservatives referred to Justice Kennedy as a "Backdoor Bork" when he was nominated, they have been confident of the conservative credentials of their nominees in the past but without a thorough written record you just never know...

SCOTUS nomination to come tonight

2005-07-19T11:15:00.000-06:00

"President Bush has made his decision about whom he plans to nominate to take Sandra Day O'Connor's place on the Supreme Court and will announce his pick to the nation in a prime-time address Tuesday night."

Tancredo is sticking by his guns...

2005-07-19T10:47:00.000-06:00

Rep. Tancredo seems to lurch farther and farther out into the fringe with each passing day. Yesterday Tancredo's publicist tried to walk the nuking mecca story back a bit, but the Congressman refuses to back down. From today's Denver Post,

"'I'm not suggesting we do it. I have nothing to apologize for in that respect,' Tancredo said. 'I'm simply saying to have a good discussion on this issue, a thorough discussion on what is perhaps the most serious kind of possible situation we could face as a civilization, that you cannot simply take things off the table because they are uncomfortable to talk about.'"

Mr. Congressman people are not upset because this is "uncomfortable" to talk about. We're upset because it is irrational and illogical and it is unimaginable that someone in your position would even mention the possibility of bombing Mecca and Medina. If we were attacked by nuclear weapons I hope that the United States would move quickly and decisively to bring justice to those repsonsible. What you are suggesting is that we indiscriminately bomb the holiest sites in Islam which are located in the borders of a sovereign nation. Your statements embarass the state of Colorado and they embarass the nation.

Let's revist what Tancredo had to say in the wake of Dick Durbin's recent gulag comments,

"It is no wonder that the global 'hate-America' crowd continues to gain momentum around the world when people like Dick Durbin are shouting their half-baked hyperbole through megaphones on the floor of the U.S. Senate right here in Washington, DC."

Well sir, congratulations you have now contributed your own half-baked hyperbole.

Gonzalez is definitely out...

2005-07-18T19:17:00.000-06:00

Not really a suprise but it's the first time I have seen anything this concrete. From The Hill,

"White House officials have assured select conservative leaders that they will not nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, according to a conservative familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussions."

Bush's declining credibility...

2005-07-18T14:27:00.000-06:00

This new ABC News/Washington Post poll is pretty bad for Bush...

The administration has completely botched their handling of this scandal. They see these numbers, they see the American people are turning so why wouldn't they just come clean and provide some details that might diffuse this situation? I have to believe it's because the complete and unfettered truth would be more damaging than their spin has been...

"Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll."

"75 percent say Rove should lose his job if the investigation finds he leaked classified information. That includes sizable majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike — 71, 74 and 83 percent, respectively."

Tancredo embarrasses Colorado.... again

2005-07-18T10:20:00.000-06:00

The Congressman is now threatening to "take out" Islam's holy sites if the US is attacked with nuclear weapons.

"Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.
'Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites,' Tancredo answered.

'You're talking about bombing Mecca,' Campbell said.

'Yeah,' Tancredo responded."

Poll numbers out on C&D

2005-07-16T11:20:00.000-06:00

The Denver Post has an article today that has the first public polls numbers on Referenda C&D.

"If the election were held today, 43 percent of the 625 respondents said they would vote in favor of Referendum C, and 42 percent said they would not. Fifteen percent said they were undecided."

"On Referendum D, 45 percent of the poll's respondents said they would vote against it, compared with 39 percent in favor. Sixteen percent said they were undecided."

I was honestly expecting the numbers to be a bit worse. The proponents of C&D are going to have to run a better campaign than they have thus far if they want to succeed but it appears the public will be receptive to their message at least in regards to C.

"A majority of respondents opposed further cuts in public schools, state universities, community colleges, roads and bridges, prisons and Medicaid.
Sixty percent of respondents said they believe the state is experiencing a 'budget crisis.'
Nearly one-third of the respondents said they didn't vote in Colorado in 1992, the year voters approved TABOR, the constitutional amendment that sets limits on state spending."

No apparent shortage of anonymous sources...

2005-07-15T22:20:00.000-06:00

Wasn't the jailing of Judith Miller supposed to have a chilling effect on the ability of reporters to utilize anonymous sources? Take a look around at the news and you'll see that even in the immediate aftermath of Miller's imprisonment, a time when sources and journalists would seemingly be their most conscientious, anonymous sources are still in abundance. There's been a plethora of stories on the Rove scandal in recent days which rely on anonymous sources. Wouldn't you think that of all the news stories which might be feeling the shockwaves of Judith Miller's imprisonment it would the Rove scandal?

The Pete Wilson strategy

2005-07-15T18:57:00.000-06:00

A few weeks back Colorado Luis asserted that the "mexican time" comment by Bob Beauprez was not just an innocent slip of the tongue but really part of a GOP strategy to use immigration as the social wedge issue for the 2006 elections. Luis wrote,

"I think we need to consider the possibility that this so-called "gaffe" was part of a very intentional political strategy for 2006, which I'll call the Pete Wilson strategy after the governor of California who won re-election in 1994 in a campaign that was viewed as virulently anti-Latino and anti-Asian-American. That campaign was based on the idea that if Wilson could pick up 60% of the white vote, he would win no matter what. He picked up 61% and won. If you don't believe me, check out Pat Buchanan's argument praising Wilson's 1994 strategy and arguing that future GOP victories in California and nationally depend on mobilizing the white vote on the issue of immigration."

Some were dismissive of this assertion but I found it intriguing, it would be classic Rovian-GOP strategy - find a social wedge issue to bring your base out. Given the normal downturn in electoral turnout at mid-term elections as well as the President and Congress's low poll numbers the GOP has to find something to bring their base out to the polls in 2006.

Two days ago the Rocky ran a story on Rep. Tom Tancredo's recent Presidential campaign swings through Iowa,

"Despite all that, Tancredo created a buzz of his own. He got enough standing ovations from hard-core conservative Iowa voters that it should worry any top-tier presidential hopefuls who thought they could get through 2008 without touching the immigration hot-button."

Today I came across a Congressional Insiders Poll which contained some fascinating data. Question #2 was, "Which one issue is most on the minds of your constituents these days?" 37 congressional Republican's responded and 17 said immigration, the next highest was 10 - the economy. Look at some of the quotes from these Republican's that accompanied the poll,

"Immigration: Highest-octane issue in America"

"Concern and anger over illegal immigration continues to become a louder drumbeat..."

Last night in Denver Howard Dean expressed concern that immigration would be the social wedge issue in 2006,

"He charged that Republicans have prospered by stirring up fears about quotas and gays, and he predicted the next hot-button issue for the GOP would be immigration."

I think it's safe to say that Luis was certainly onto something. In all honesty in the short term I don't think the Republican's stand to lose much electoraly. The GOP's gains in Hispanic support have largely been discredited as the result of faulty exit polls. In addition only 1 in 5 eligible Hispanic voters actually votes and Hispanics make up a small percentage of the overall electorate, the folks at The Emerging Democratic Majority provide excellent analysis of these numbers here. Short term the strategy might work for them, long term they could lose the Hispanic vote for generations much like they lost the African-American vote thanks to the Southern Strategy.

Cutting Taxes, Fixing Roads, Funding Schools

2005-07-15T02:43:00.000-06:00

What is now known as Referendum C was introduced in the state House on January 27, 2005 as HB05-1194. The original language of that bill contained a tax cut, specifically it reduced the state income tax from the current 4.63% to 4.5%. The bill was assigned to the Finance and Appropriatons committees and repeteadly laid over while bi-partisan negotiations with Governor took place. Finally on March 9th the bill, in all of it's ammended glory, passed second reading in the House. Somewhere though in the 41 days between first reading and second reading the tax cut was removed, that decision may be what ultimatley keeps Referendum C from passing this November.

I was following 1194 quite closely, closer than most, and at the time I remember thinking that if you had to give up the tax cut to make a deal - so be it. The important thing, I thought, was getting something done to bring to the voters this November. The tax break was miniscule, we needed to focus on the broader issue. Now I see just how incredibly short-sighted that was.

It is still early in the C&D debate, but thus far debate seems to be focusing on the allegation that Referenda C&D are somehow akin to a tax hike. Now I certainly don't buy that, no new taxes are being created and no tax rates are going up... how can that be a tax hike? The problem for C&D proponents though is that just having a debate on the issue is damaging to their cause. Whether or not C&D are actually a tax hike is secondary, there will be constant debates from now until November on the issue. In everyone of those debates - whether they take place on a blog, at a barbecue, around the water coooler, or on the Aaron Harber show - the phrase "tax hike" will be uttered... repeatedly.

Wouldn't it be nice if Referendum C still contained that miniscule tax cut? The debate would be over 0 the bumper stickers write themselves, "Cutting taxes, fixing roads, funding schools". How do you vote against that? At the time the tax cut seemed so insignificant but now it appears it may have been the keystone to the C&D debate and it was given away.

I'd like to know where in the negotiations the tax cut was finally jettisoned and for what rationale. I'd like to know who's idea it was to sacrifice the tax cut.

Kudos to Speaker Romanoff for having the foresight to incorporate the tax cut into the original language of 1194. I don't know why we ever gave it up.

Fundraising numbers are in...

2005-07-15T00:49:00.000-06:00

Colorado Pols has done a nice job of putting together the fundraising numbers for the various candidates for CD-7 seat and Governor. I have a few thoughts...

CD7 race Democrats
Ed Perlmutter - $215,000
Peggy Lamm - ?
- Okay so technically the numbers are not due until today but considering that the fundraising numbers for every other major candidate have leaked out one must assume that Peggy Lamm has come up short. As Colorado Pols noted, if Lamm had any good news to report she would have gotten word out. I think most objective observers of this race felt that Perlmutter would hold a fundraising advantage over Peggy Lamm, it looks like they were right.

CD7 race Republican
Rick O'Donnell - $269,000
- O'Donnell is running unopposed and had a healthy fundraising quarter. Given the competetive nature of this district and the emphasis that the national parties have placed on the seat I would expect O'Donnell and his Democratic opponent to have little problems raising adequate funds for the 2006 election.

Gubernatorial race Democrats
Bill Ritter - $164,000
Rutt Bridges - $131,000
- I've written a bit about this race previously, to put it succintly I think that this advantage is a negligible one and I fully expect Bridges to be able to defeat Ritter in a primary.

Gubernatorial race Republican's
Bob Beauprez - $403,700
Marc Holtzman - $390,000
- These numbers are pretty staggering relative to the amounts raised by their Democratic counterparts, when you figure in Holtzman's 1st Quarter funds his total soars to over $800,000. This primary race is shaping up to be quite a dog fight and I'm looking forward to it heating up. The amount of money being thrown around shouldn't phase Dems though as Rutt Bridges can outspend any Republican candidate in the field if he should win the Democratic Party.

Hopefully we hear something out of Peggy Lamm soon...

Revisting the credibility gap, again...

2005-07-14T23:22:00.000-06:00

Thursday's Washington Post really went inside the recent WSJ/MSNBC poll which I referenced yesterday in my post, "Credibility part Deux. The numbers are actually worse than I thought for the President,

"A majority of those polled disapprove of how Bush is handling the economy, foreign policy -- and Iraq. A plurality -- 49 percent -- agree that "we should set a deadline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq." And asked "If the United States withdraws its troops from Iraq there will be more terrorist attacks in the United States," only 36 percent agree -- compared to 54 percent who disagree.
Finally, it's not just honesty where Bush is taking a hit. Only 50 percent of those polled gave him high ratings for being easygoing and likeable, down from 57 in January; 43 percent gave him high ratings for being smart, down from 50; 40 percent gave him high ratings for being compassionate enough to understand average people, down from 47; and only 29 percent gave him high ratings for being willing to work with people whose viewpoints are different from his own, down from 33."

Will there be a backlash against the Republican's 2006? The Democrats seem to have some momentum going for them at this early stage.

Just in time for the weekend NY Times breaks important Rove story

2005-07-14T22:58:00.000-06:00

I was thinking that Plame-Gate might have reached it's media apex, at least until Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald releases his findings and/or indictments, what with the White House stonewalling, the coming weekend, and the press and average American's relatively short attention span when it comes to these seemingly partisan battles - I was almost tired of this story, almost.

I really felt that the GOP had done a nice job over the last few days of muddying up the story, being aggressive, and really pushing back. Unfortunately for the GOP the facts really do seem to be against them at this point. Friday morning's NY Times breaks the news that Rove spoke about Valerie Plame with Bob Novak as he was preparing that now infamous column and three days before Mr. Rove spoke to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Mrs. Wilson.

I think Plamegate just got a breathe of life that will sustain it through the weekend.

Editor & Publisher has a nice story on the impact of the NY Times piece.

Feingold goes after the lobby...

2005-07-14T22:25:00.000-06:00

Democratic reformer Russ Feingold has apparently set his sites on the Washington Lobby. I guess this is a reaction by the Democrats to the Republican's "K-Street Plan" and the explosive growth of the Washington D.C. lobby corps. The Hill provides the details of Feingold's plan,

"Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) will introduce a bill today that would radically overhaul the ways in which lobbyists and lawmakers interact with one another.

Feingold's bill would require more disclosure of meetings between lawmakers and lobbyists, curb privately funded travel, slow the revolving door between government service and lobbying, and raise the cost of traveling on private jets, according to talking points released by Feingold's spokesman."

and the Republican's attack 527's, which of course leaned heavily Democratic in the 2004 election cycle. Again, The Hill provides the details,

"House Republicans plunged into the issue of 527 reform yesterday as conference leaders sought to bridge the gap between two competing pieces of legislation."

It sounds as though there is still some internal GOP strife over just how deeply this bill should cut into recent campaign finance reform but reform is coming.

On a local note,

"National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.)... warned that 527s were active in attacking Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) during the last campaign and could be more prominent this cycle."

Howard Dean event tonight...

2005-07-14T20:14:00.000-06:00

I was unable to attend tonight's Howard Dean event in Denver but had a good friend there who just called to fill me in on some of the details. As wonderful as it was to have Chairman Dean here in Colorado it appears that the event itself left a bit to be desired.

The list of big name attendees who were in attendance really pales in comparison the list of names who were not even invited, namely all of the Democratic state legislators. In fact the only State Rep in attendance was Anne McGihon, and no one from the Senate was present - though Joan Fitz-Gerald's husband was in attendance, apparently Joan was traveling. One has to wonder how an event like this was organized and no one thought to invite even the state Democratic leadership. Apparently the DNC, who organized the event, felt there was no need to include Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, House Majority Leader Alice Madden, or Speaker Andrew Romanoff. The abscence of any state Dems was noticeable and people were talking about it. You would think that the recent 2004 electoral success of the state Democratic Party would garner a little respect and recognition from the DNC, apparently not though.

While the state Democratic legislators were MIA some of prominent names were in attendance including Jared Polis, state party chairman Pat Waak, CD-7 candidates Ed Perlmutter and Herb Rubenstein, Gubernatorial candidate and Denver DA Bill Ritter, and Denver City Council President Elbra Wedgeworth.

In addition to the noticeable abscences the event apparently was poorly organized with complaints from some donors (all of whom had contributed $100-500 to attend) about a range of issues from inconvenient and poorly planned sign-in process (it wasn't at the main entrance to the hotel!) and the lack of any real publicity about the event (neither the Denver Dems nor the Colorado Dems website have anything on their websites about the Denver event). In addition there was some concern about how much of this money will be directed back into Colorado by the DNC, apparently no one knows for sure what percentage or amount Colorado campaigns might see.

No one word yet on exactly how much money was raised at the event.

One down...

2005-07-14T16:35:00.000-06:00

Rep. Duke Cunningham will not be seeking re-election in 2006. Probably worried a picture of the Feds rading his house might show up on campaign literature.

Rutt Bridges Q&A on Colorado Pols

2005-07-14T14:51:00.000-06:00

Rutt just finished up his Q&A over on Colorado Pols, my first impressions are that it was pretty uneventful. The questions from the public were not all that great, they're have certainly been better questions in past Q&A sessions. Rutt's answers did him no harm and no damage, so I guess no big screwups means that's a win for Rutt. Answering the questions live I thought was a nice touch, it shows that he has command of the issues and confidence in his positions.

I liked his answer to question #6 about abortion and his views on choice. His answer touched on several different policy initiatives he believes are tied into the abortion issue such as adoption and sex-ed. His answer seemed thoughtful and well reasoned and too often the abortion debate turns into a screeching partisan debate.

He handled the immigration question, #9, quite well too.

His handling of question #11 was excellent,

"11. The Bighorn Center was responsible for creating the “no-call list” in Colorado. If you could prevent each of your opponents from calling one person during the campaign, who would you add to their personal no-call lists?

I would add Rupert Murdoch to Marc Holtzman’s list, though that money horse may have already left the barn. For Bob Beauprez, it would be his mentor and soul mate, Tom DeLay."

Never too early to start in on your potential opponents, these jabs were subtle yet effective.

Some thoughts on Colorado politics...

2005-07-14T11:25:00.000-06:00

I haven't been focusing as much as I would like on Colorado politics, partially because the session is over and we are in a summer time lull awaiting the C&D campaigns to heat up. Partially too because there has been a lot of action on the national political scene as of late. I've made a few postings over at Colorado Pols on state politics in recent days but I have a few other things I'd like to get off of my chest...

1. Shouldn't we be hearing from Angie Paccione soon? Her polling was conducted last week, the numbers are in. Why haven't we heard anything? My guess is that the numbers were not overwhelming either way. Given the winning percentage of Congressional incumbents (near 95%) Angie has a tough decision to make, if the people are not clamoring to vote out Musgrave should she risk losing her relatively safe State House seat? Personally I'd love to see Angie run and I think she has a good shot at beating Musgrave if she runs a good campaign. It has to be tough to give up your seat though and roll the dice to run in what would surely be a close US House race, but at some point in his or her career a politician has to be a gambler and has to take a leap of faith if they want to rise in the political ranks. Run Angie Run!

2. For Governor, I think Rutt Bridges is my guy. I know he was out fundraised based on the numbers that came out yesterday but I think you cannot discount two things about those numbers. First, Ritter had a 2 week advantage, if you extrapolate the daily fundraising numbers for Rutt out you see that fundraising advantage evaporate. Second, and I think most importantly, Rutt doesn't need anyone else's money to run for Governor, so ultimately I think his fundrasing numbers are a bit inconsequential.

3. Money aside, can Bill Ritter really win a Democratic primary? Primary voters are the hardcore party loyalists, the party's base if you prefer. What about Bill Ritter appeals to the Democratic Party base? Not much from what I can see.

I look forward to the Q&A with Rutt Bridges this afternoon over at Colorado Pols, should be enlightening.

Nice Bloomberg piece on the Rove Scandal

2005-07-14T11:21:00.000-06:00

Bloomberg does a nice job of dispelling some of the absurd Republican talking points on the Rove scandal.

"Republicans are attempting to defend Rove by discrediting Wilson, saying the former ambassador misled the public about why he was sent to Niger and what he found there.
Bush supporters such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich contend that Wilson lied in claiming that Vice President Dick Cheney dispatched him on the mission to Niger. That echoes a Republican National Committee talking-points memo sent to party officials.

Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president's office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney's questions."

How do we counter the Rove spin?

2005-07-14T00:08:00.000-06:00

Josh Marshall has an excellent post this evening which discusses the growing spin from the right about the Rove scandal - that is they are smearing Joe Wilson (again) and Matthew Cooper. The pattern is old hat for obeserves of this administration and Josh summarizes it well,

"Now we can see in full view what we've seen again and again in recent years, the favored tactic: terror by grand moral inversion, the lie so total and audacious that it almost knocks opponents off their feet."

The question is, what are Democrats going to do about it? It seems too often that Dems are so taken aback at the sheer audacity of the spin that they fail to react, in part because they believe that no one could possibly believe the spin. Of course the spin sticks, the media becomes distracted, public opinion shifts and the Dems have, once again, lost the argument. I appreciate Josh's observations and I agree with him wholeheartedley but we need to take the next step - we need to counter punch. We need a strategy and we need to get organized, the GOP has issued their talking points, the GOP is organized and on message. Time for the Dems to stop flailing about, focus their attack and construct a coherent message to counter the effects of the GOP spin.

Credibility part deux: Revenge of the Polls

2005-07-13T21:36:00.000-06:00

You'll recall that I posted yesterday about the growing credibility gap that the administration is facing. Well there was a poll released today that I think further illustrates that the American people have turned, they no longer believe their President. Bush has gone to the well one too many times and now people simply do not trust him.

"Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being “honest and straightforward” — his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. That’s a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated that he was honest and straightforward. This finding comes at a time when the Bush administration is battling the perception that its rhetoric doesn’t match the realities in Iraq, and also allegations that chief political adviser Karl Rove leaked sensitive information about a CIA agent to a reporter. (The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)"

So as bad as these numbers are they potentially could get much worse for the President.

Karl Rove, evil genius?

2005-07-13T15:58:00.000-06:00

Craig Crawford seems to think so...

"...he's actually created a situation here where the federal courts can target leakers and reporters more than ever because the law is going to be blind to whether it's a good leaker or a bad leaker. I mean the principle is the same. The great damage has been done here to the ability of reporters to get information from leakers. So that fulfills his agenda to hamper the news media and that I think is going to be one of the most lasting consequences of this case unless he gets indicted. But there's nothing in Matt Cooper's email that could indict him. There'd have to be a lot more."

It's an interesting analysis, given Rove's track record this leak scandal does seem uncharacteristically sloppy. You don't often find Rove or one of his candidates doing the heavy lifting themselves when it comes to the dirty tricks. Then again the one other time time that Rove got into trouble with a press leak it was to Robert Novak and it got Rove fired from George H.W. Bush's 1992 re-election campaign. So perhaps it's not so uncharacteristic after all.

Rehnquist hospitalized

2005-07-13T13:20:00.000-06:00

"Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, ailing with cancer, is in the hospital with a fever, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Rehnquist was taken by ambulance to an Arlington, Va., hospital Tuesday night and was admitted for observation and tests, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said."

I wish the Chief well.

I was preparing to post my thoughts on what I see as the real Supreme Court issue facing liberals - the age of Justice John Paul Stevens - but I will refrain for a bit out of respect for the Chief.

GAO: Army Reserves desperatley need funds

2005-07-13T09:52:00.000-06:00

Would someone please remind me again who is supposed to be the party of national security and which party hates the military? For far too long the Dems have allowed the GOP to take the highground in any debate on the military and national security. I think it's high time that the Democratic Party employ the Rovian tactic of attacking the percieved strength of your opponent. The fact is the GOP abandons Veterans (as evidenced by the cuts to VA hospitals and the like), the GOP sent our troops into battle without proper equipment, the GOP has let the Coast Guard rot and failed to protect our shores and ports, the GOP has abused the national guard and reserves. Why aren't Democrats making these points?

Exhibit A of the GOP's incompetency, this GAO report from yesterday

“We found that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Army Reserve to continue to provide ready forces in the near term due to worsening personnel and equipment shortages”

Just as the Democratic Party needs a 50 state strategy to compete electorally we must confront all issues head on. We cannot concede a single state to the GOP and we sure as hell shouldn't be conceding any issues to the GOP.

Funny passage from today's Hill

2005-07-13T09:45:00.000-06:00

I was reading an article in today's edition of The Hill about Congressional Republican's standing by their man Karl Rove. When I got to the following passage I literally laughed out loud,

"Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told The Hill, “I’m not going to participate in a hit job on Karl Rove. I’m going to wait for the facts.”

DeLay prefaced his comments by saying that the media had demanded a special prosecutor and now must wait for the facts. Told that the media doesn’t have the power to convene a special prosecutor, DeLay brushed off the comment."

What I wouldn't give to witness a reporter give a civics lesson to Tom DeLay. The statement from DeLay about the media and special prosecutors is really classic GOP spin. They're not stupid, the idea is to obfuscate, obscure, and otherwise muddy up the issues... rarely though are they called out by the press on those obfuscations.

That paradigm of virtue Zell Miller? He's actually a thief...

2005-07-13T09:37:00.000-06:00

"Experts are voicing concerns about how and why former Gov. Zell Miller departed the Governor's Mansion with over $60,000 in taxpayer dollars.Every living Georgia governor, including Jimmy Carter, says they would not have kept the money or considered that it belongs to them."

The newly found moral relativism of the Right

2005-07-13T09:29:00.000-06:00

Nice post over at Bull Moose detailing the newly found moral relativism of the Republican Party. The party that was swept into power in 1994 on promises of reform has now been hopelessly corrupted by the power they have achieved.

"Of course, the right was not terribly concerned about the principles of federalism or opposing judicial activism in Bush v. Gore or in the recent Schiavo situation. The principle of limited government was cast aside long ago for pork barrel incumbent protection and for the benefit of their corporate cronies in the Medicare drug bill. Ultimately, it is all about power.

Conservatives are the new moral relativists. If you don't believe the Moose, just ask Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Tom DeLay, and yes, Karl Rove. They came to power in '94 promising to tame the power of government - now they are enamored by it.

Conservatives have made the ultimate faustian bargain. Can conservatism survive conservatives?"

One of Plame's classmates comes to her defense...

2005-07-13T09:08:00.000-06:00

Excellent post over at TPM Cafe today from one of Valerie Plame's classmates. Considering the outright lies coming from the GOP in regards to Plameand her husband I encourage everyone to read this account.

"A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her."

The sycophants have gone delusional...

2005-07-12T21:50:00.000-06:00

Read this and try to keep a straight face... I dare you

"Byron York has a vital detail in his must-read piece right now on the main part of the NRO website. Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, tells Byron that Time's Matt Cooper called Rove to talk about something else and that only secondarily did the subject of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame come up.

This is important, because it suggests Rove wasn't "retailing" the information about Wilson and Plame -- wasn't reporter-shopping to drop a dirty dime on those involved -- but was rather a passive source, answering a phone call at the reporter's behest and presumably changing topics to the sexier one at issue at the reporter's behest as well."

Does anyone really believe that Karl Rove operates this way? What in Mr. Rove's well documented past would make someone believe in this "Benevolent Karl" straw man that the sycophants on the right are concocting? This is a man with a 30 year history of dirty tricks, 30 years! Rove, while he was head of College Republicans was reprimanded in the mid 70's by the RNC and then chairman George H.W. Bush. In the midst of Watergate Rove was conducting meetings where he detailed dirty tricks tactics. In 1992 George H.W. Bush fired Rove from his campaign when Rove leaked information about a Bush family confidante to - get this - Bob Novak. This is a guy who painted an opponent in a judicial race - a man who had dedicated his life to helping neglected and abused children - as a pedophile through a wisper campaign. I could go on, but instead I recommend reading this piece which details Rove's history.

Somehow I don't think that the "Benevolent Rove" defense is going to stick...

Worse than Watergate, so says Ed Gillespie

2005-07-12T21:36:00.000-06:00

This is pretty damning...

Hardball (MSNBC - 9/30/03):
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?

RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?
GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics.

Has the administration lost all credibility?

2005-07-12T14:29:00.000-06:00

Are we finally seeing that the American public has turned on the Bush administration after being burned one too many times by the White House? Clearly Bush will always maintain popularity with the sycophants on the right, but the rest of the nation seems to finally have turned against the administration.

The focus on the afternoon political shows has been on the growing credibility gap of the White House in regards to the Rove scandal. But this administration is also facing a growing credibility gap with the war in Iraq, as evidenced by the desperate speech in North Carolina a few weeks back. The President recieved no bounce from that speech - and in fact even slipped a bit in one poll. Just prior to that the polls showed that the President's overall approval numbers plummeting, that 60% of American's believed Iraq wasn't worth it, that 40% favored impeachment if in fact the President misled us about WMD's.

The lead up to the Rove scandal was filled with bad news and signs of a growing credibility gap with the general public. This current scandal could very well be a catalyst for further backlash, it appears that the public has already turned and the Rove scandal is just more fuel for the fire.

speaking of corrupt Republican's, let's not forget our friends in...

2005-07-12T14:10:00.000-06:00

...Texas.

"State District Judge Bob Perkins today said he believes two officials with Texans for a Republican Majority should stand trial on felony charges of money laundering."

Is there any doubt that the current Republican Party leadership is just corrupt to the core?

Texans for a Republican Majority is a PAC setup by none other than Tom Delay.

Andrew Sullivan on the Rove scandal

2005-07-12T10:57:00.000-06:00

Andrew Sullivan is a conservative with a conscience, I often times wonder how a Republican like him can tolerate the shenanigans of this White House. Andrew has an excellent piece today on the Rove scandal, unlike many of his GOP counterparts Andrew is calling for Bush to fire Karl Rove as Bush promised to do to the leaker.

"An emailer puts it as well as I could:

Two points, briefly:
1. People need to stop hiding behind Clintonian semantics here and understand that even if no actual technical violation of the law is found in the Rove/Plame case it will still be true, based on what we know now from the Time emails, that White House actions compromised a CIA asset during a time of war. What would Hannity, Limbaugh, Scarborough and all the cable loudmouths be saying if it had been Sidney Blumenthal?

2. Scott McClellan once told the American people that Karl Rove was not involved in any way, and that the President would remove anyone found to be involved. During the Lewinsky scandal many people insisted that it was not the sex that bothered them, but it was the lying, spinning, parsing, and direct misleading of the American people that offended them, and that came to define the Clinton White House. What would the cable loudmouths be saying if instead of McClellan it had been McCurry?

This isn't about technical violations or a game of gotcha. It's about character, and George Bush needs to show some."

Dems are talking with their checkbooks

2005-07-12T10:37:00.000-06:00

From The Hill...

"Ethics allegations against two prominent House Republicans have boosted the fundraising efforts of their Democratic challengers.

Former Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) announced yesterday that he raised more than $500,000 during the first two months of his campaign to unseat House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)."

"With his announcement, Lampson joins California Democrat Francine Busby, who is challenging embattled Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.), as the beneficiary of negative news reports surrounding a Republican incumbent.

Busby’s campaign raised $64,000 of its $100,000 second quarter total in the last two weeks of June, said campaign spokesman Brennan Bilberry, after a string of stories broke about a federal investigation into the sale of Cunningham’s home to the owner of a Nevada-based defense contractor that received millions in federal appropriations."

Great to see!

Excellent Op/Edmpiece in this morning's LA Times on Rove

2005-07-12T10:12:00.000-06:00

Robert Scheer pulls no punches this morning in discussing the Rove-Plame scandal that is now starting to engulf the administration.

"In the end, though, what Rove's leak and Novak's column really exposed was the depravity of the administration's deliberate use of a false WMD threat and its willingness to go after anyone willing to tell the truth about it.

It's ironic that the expertise of this couple should be turned against them by a White House that has demonstrated nothing but incompetence in dealing with the WMD issue. But clearly truth and competence are virtues easily shed by the Bush administration in the pursuit of political advantage, even when this partisan game jeopardizes national security."

Excellent summation of the issues. The mainstream press seemed preoccupied with the 1st Amendment issues raised by Judith Miller's jailing. Now though it appears the tide has turned and they are now focusing on the criminal activities of the Rove. The White House press briefing yesterday was loads of fun, and this morning's newspapers pulled no punches, Americablog has a nice summation of the morning press. And of course if Tim Russert, King of the Inside the Beltway Media, has turned on you things are really not going well, from this morning's Today show,

"One Republican said to me last night, if this was a Democratic White House, we'd have Congressional hearings in a second."

that may be the most damning statement I've heard given that Russert is quoting a Republican, the Republican is pointing out the obvious double-standard they are applying to this serious situation, and Russert was saying it - Tim doesn't generally like to ruffle any feathers inside the Beltway, he must smell blood in the water.

speaking of corrupt Republican's, let's not forget our friends in Kentucky

2005-07-12T10:09:00.000-06:00

Looks like 3 indictments were brought down, 2 to officials in the Governor's office and 1 to the state GOP Chairman...

Took a few days off...

2005-07-12T09:58:00.000-06:00

I took a break for the weekend and it looks as though the Rove-Plame investigation has taken a turn. Marshall Wittman (currently of the DLC, former staffer to McCain and Bush I) though doesn't think we should get our hopes too high.

"Democrats should not get too excited about the presumed crisis confronting Rove. Short of a criminal indictment, Rove is not going anywhere. As I wrote in my blog this morning, for Bush to get rid of Rove, would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen."

Tort reform? How about some insurance reform...

2005-07-08T14:55:00.000-06:00

I have been arguing for quite sometime that f one steps back and looks at the data on Medical Malpractive insurance it becomes quite obvious that the real reason for skyrcoketing rates are greedy insurance companies. Juries really aren't handing out bigger awards, they aren't ruling for plaintiff's more frequently. In short our civil justice system isn't the lottery that Republican's would like you to believe that it is, by all objective standards our civil justice system is quite fair.

A study from Missouri was just released today which found that insurance companies were indeed bilking their customers. If only the doctors would stand up to the real insurance companies instead of grandstanding against lawyers perhaps they could get something done.

Some highlights,

"His study found that medical malpractice insurers paid out just 30 cents of every dollar that doctors paid in premiums last year."

"He found that insurers paid out just 40 cents of every dollar they expected to pay out in the future."

"Collectively, the 15 insurers increased their earned premiums by 9.3 percent, although the amount they estimated they would pay out in the future declined by more than 21 percent."

"The study used financial statements the insurers filed under oath with state regulators."