Colorado GOP in-fighting and Immigration
The Denver Post takes a look at the Colorado GOP and the widening chasm over ideology in today's edition [January 5, 2006, "Is rebublican rift fixable?"]. From the article, "A cultural war that has been brewing within the Republican Party for years is threatening to split the state GOP at a time when it needs unity to retain the governorship and take back the statehouse. The divide between social conservatives and moderates in the party - exacerbated by infighting over Referendums C and D - appears ready to widen as the two factions fight over who should set the agenda...perhaps it'll hamstring the party's ability to get things done during the upcoming legislative session. With such issues as intelligent design, immigration and gay marriage hovering, an inability to compromise could cause big problems for the party as a whole."
Meanwhile SoapBlox Colorado is pointing to this article from the Weekly Standard on the subject of the Republican suburban strategy. From the article, "Mark Kirk is a worried Republican who represents a House district in the suburbs north of Chicago. In the 1960s, the seat was held by a young Republican named Donald Rumsfeld, now defense secretary. Once safely Republican, the district has been drifting Democratic for years. The last Republican presidential candidate to win the district was George Bush Senior in 1992. George W. Bush lost there by four percentage points in 2000, by six in 2004. In races for state and local offices as well, Democrats now dominate. Kirk, a 46--year--old moderate, has had little trouble holding his congressional seat. He got 64 percent of the district's vote in 2004 compared with Bush's 47 percent. But all around him, Kirk sees the Republican party crumbling. And it's a pattern in the Midwest and East (not the Deep South or Plains)."
Coyote Gulch salutes all the players (Owens, Larson, Andrews, Caldara, Martinez, Stengel, Anderson ...) for stirring up interest in this year's election cycle. 
Here's a report about the proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution that will bar illegal immigrants from receiving state services (except where mandated by federal statute) [January 5, 2006, "Illegal-immigrant issue closer to ballot"]. From the article, "A proposed constitutional amendment barring illegal immigrants from receiving most state services made it one step closer to the November ballot Wednesday, with the wording of its title receiving state approval. Activists with the Defend Colorado Now campaign next will seek a green light for their petition form so they can begin collecting signatures. If they get the required 67,829 valid signatures, they then will face a political fight with their waiting opponents. The opposition coalition has a campaign committee of its own called Keep Colorado Safe."
David Harsanyi weighs in on immigration in his column in today's Denver Post [January 5, 2006, "Party politics borders on the absurd"]. He writes, "For a landlocked state with the closest foreign border approximately 700 miles from Denver, it seems odd that we're so preoccupied with the issue of illegal immigration. And Wednesday was a big day. To start, there was word that Andrew Romanoff, the crafty Democratic speaker of the House, has launched a pre-emptive strike, announcing that his party may introduce a bill requiring all Colorado high school students to show proficiency in English before they graduate. A law requiring English teachers to teach English? On a practical level, it's useless, of course. But on a political level ... nice job. Next, I head to a news conference at the state Capitol put on by Defend Colorado Now. They're here to introduce an anti-illegal-immigration initiative that will probably be on the ballot in 2006."
The Denver Post editorial staff thinks that it's high-time for the state (and the nation) to take on the issue of immigration reform [January 5, 2006, "Time is right for immigration review"]. They write, "It's a sensitive subject that needs to be dealt with in a reasoned manner. Unfortunately, immigration discussions, whether in the halls of Congress or over a kitchen table in Park Hill, too often end up laced with ugly racial overtones. As legislation progresses through the statehouse and Congress, we hope a political filtering process will choke off the extreme measures, tamping down some of the fears of xenophobia or racism."
Here's a story from today's Rocky about the statehouse immigration reform efforts [January 5, 2006, "Bevy of bills targets immigration issues"]. From the article, "The bills, expected to be filed by the start of the legislative session next week, would: Require local law enforcement agencies to train officers to check the immigration status of people they encounter in normal police work, such as traffic stops, and to turn over illegal immigrants to federal immigration officials. Schultheis, the sponsor, said local governments would pay for training and extra work. He said he has not discussed his bill with federal authorities; Prohibit illegal immigrants from getting workers compensation benefits. It is sponsored by Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray; Deny state funds to 'sanctuary' cities that have written policies prohibiting government employees from checking a person's immigration status. It is sponsored by Rep. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch; Prohibit a state agency from contracting with a company that employs illegal immigrants and require contractors to prove that all workers have legal status. It is also sponsored by Harvey; Revoke state-issued licenses to firms that knowingly employ illegal workers. It is sponsored by Rep. Bill Crane, R-Arvada; Require school districts to collect student citizenship data and report to the legislature and the state Board of Education. It is sponsored by Rep. Jim Welker, R-Loveland."
Mike Littwin bashes the Defend Colorado Now kids in his column in today's Rocky [January 5, 2006, "Littwin: Do-nothing initiative just a polling device"]. He writes, "The proposal does - say it along with me - absolutely nothing. And yet, the group called Defend Colorado Now (which should be renamed Wasting Colorado's Time Now) will be collecting signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. They'll be taking up great amounts of time on talk radio. The newspapers will cover the issue with great intensity. The proposed amendment will no doubt become a major factor in the coming governor's race...Guess what - and I can't say this any more plainly - that already is the law in Colorado [denying services not mandated by federal law]. If the amendment passes, nothing changes - except the size of the state constitution, which grows even more unwieldy. (Oh, and there is Section 2, which says that any citizen can sue any jurisdiction for not enforcing laws against illegal immigrants. File that under frivolous lawsuits in the making.)"
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
5:43:09 AM 
|
|
