| |
|
Sunday, September 17, 2006
|
|
Mike Littwin skewers U.S. Representative Bob Beauprez's campaign in his column in yesterday's Rocky Mountain News. He writes, "You don't have to ask what he's doing wrong. The short answer is: everything. Yes, he comes out for raising college tuition - after the governor fought to keep it in check. Yes, he comes out for replacing the state gas tax with a higher sales tax - so little old ladies can generously help pay for those Lincoln Navigators. And - yes, yes, my God, yes - then there's his idea to 'train elk' to walk around oil and gas sites. You can't make this up. Some are now calling him the 'elk whisperer.' When will Ritter supporters start showing up at Beauprez rallies in elk hats, asking Beauprez, 'Which way, Bob?'"
Meanwhile in Friday's Rocky, Mike Rosen endorses the congressman, at the end of a rant on Democrats. He writes, "Although Republican candidates, nationally, may be swimming against the tide this year, Colorado isn't condemned to a Democrat as governor. Beauprez is a businessman by background. He understands the world of commerce. He's a levelheaded, mainstream conservative, with an impeccable voting record as a congressman. I've known Beauprez for many years. He's bright and a good, honest, sincere person. He gave up his seat in the U.S. House at the urging of Republican leaders who thought he'd be their strongest candidate for governor. Especially this election year, if politically naive 'business' persons help to defeat him and usher in an era of unchecked Democratic government in Colorado, they'll come to deeply regret it."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
8:39:32 AM 
|
|
Rocky Mountain News: "Colorado voters are in a 'blue' mood over the war in Iraq, the economy and a host of other issues, and that's putting a serious scare into candidates with 'Republican' associated with their names. A new Rocky Mountain News/CBS 4 poll shows Coloradans are mirroring a national trend that gives Democrats a serious head start going into the seven-week sprint to November's mid-term elections. With President Bush's popularity sinking in Colorado, Republicans have a steep uphill climb, said pollster Lori Weigel. At the same time, the state's key unaffiliated voters are leaning Democratic, said political consultant David Kenney...
"The survey found that 61 percent of the respondents feel that the country is on the wrong track - even as 51 percent said the state of Colorado is going in the right direction. Bush comfortably won Colorado in 2000 and 2004, but in the latest survey only 37 percent of those polled said they approved of his performance as president. That's down from 61 percent who approved in December 2003 and a 45 percent approval rate in October 2005. One big reason is the war in Iraq. The survey showed a sharp drop in those who said they have always believed going to war was the right thing to do (from 55 percent in 2003 to 33 percent this month) and a sharp increase (from 30 percent to 41 percent) in the number who claim they have 'always believed' that going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the cabinet member most closely associated with the war in Iraq, has a 29 percent approval rating in the Colorado survey, down from 47 percent in the months following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks...
"Beyond the basic numbers are some demographic trends working against Republicans. Traditionally, Republicans score higher among men and Democrats score higher among women. In Colorado, Democrats like gubernatorial hopeful Bill Ritter have virtually eliminated the gender gap among men, while women - particularly career women - are giving the Republican Party low marks. Men over age 55, who tend to be more independent-minded, give Republicans some of their lowest marks, according to the survey. Unaffiliated voters, who made up 21 percent of the respondents, were almost as likely as Democrats to say the country was on the 'wrong track.' Only 20 percent of independents approve of the job Bush is doing. To avoid getting caught in any national tidal wave, Colorado Republicans have to prove their independence from the Washington establishment, Weigel said."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
8:22:43 AM
|
|
Ed Quillen has an opinion piece up about Amendment 44 and drug laws in general. From the article, "Among the many items on our ballot this year is Amendment 44. If it passes, it will legalize the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana by people 21 years of age or older. Currently, such possession is a Class 2 misdemeanor and can result in a fine of up to $100. It does not change any other portions of Colorado's marijuana laws. There are the medical exceptions that we approved in 1998. Outside those, though, it will still be illegal to cultivate marijuana, to consume it in public, to drive under its influence, to buy and sell it, to provide it to minors, etc. Nor does it affect any of the federal government's stupid marijuana laws. Nor does it affect marijuana laws passed by Colorado home-rule cities, which would still be free to waste police time and public money. All Amendment 44 does is legalize possession of less than an ounce, as is already the case in Denver since city voters approved an initiative last year. But it didn't really change much, since the cops can just charge offenders under state law instead of city ordinance...
"Our legal system uses drug laws to oppress minorities. The history of American drug laws makes this clear. Colorado was one of the first states to outlaw marijuana early in the 20th century. The argument then was that it made Mexican immigrants either shiftless and lazy, or else hopped-up and violent, depending on which sensational newspaper of the time you were reading...
"Our drug laws have no discernible connection with the risk of the drug. Thousands of people die every year from tobacco-related diseases, and an alcohol overdose can kill. Yet those drugs are legal. In all of history, there is not one recorded death from a marijuana overdose. That drug is illegal...
"Government in the United States is not responsive to the public. Even if voters of a state approve medical marijuana, the feds continue enforcement after running a propaganda campaign. If voters of a city eliminate penalties, the police still pursue possession cases under state law. No matter how clearly the public makes its voice known, the authorities persist."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
8:15:48 AM
|
|
John Andrews weighs in on the fall ballot issues in his column from Friday's Denver Post. He writes, "Coloradans this year face another ballot crowded with amendments and referendums. Some believe we have too much of this voter participation in changing the constitution and laws, whether proposed by the legislature or by citizens' petition. Not me. Distrusting political insiders and centralized power means welcoming a brake (or accelerator) on the process from we the people - and I do. No matter which candidate you like for governor, or which party you want running the legislature, these ballot issues are your chance to alter the playing field on which November's winning candidates will suit up next January. 'All political power is vested in and derived from the people,' proclaims the Colorado Constitution. Never let the insiders talk you out of exercising your share...
"As for the statewide ballot, 15 measures large and small await our action. Much like Senate bills in the past, my vote is an easy call on some of them, a tougher decision on others. Here's my scorecard so far:
"Strengthening consent of the governed: Yes on Amendment 38, safeguarding your petition rights and restraining legislative overreach. Yes on Amendment 40, putting term limits on high-ranking judges.
"Making illegal immigrants less welcome: The state Supreme Court robbed us of voting on the main issue here. But I'll vote yes on Referendum H, a tax hammer over employers who cheat, and yes on Referendum K, a state lawsuit demanding tougher federal enforcement.
"Affirming traditional marriage: Yes on Amendment 43, putting into the constitution a one-man-one-woman statute we passed in 2000.
"Maximizing education dollars in the classroom: Yes on Amendment 39, so at least 65 cents on the dollar gets spent where teachers face kids. No on Referendum J, a bogus alternative from teacher unions.
"Easing the property-tax burden on disabled veterans: Yes on Referendum E, absolutely.
"Protecting jobs for minorities and youth: No on Amendment 42, a minimum-wage hike that would lessen entry-level opportunities by boosting labor costs 30 percent.
"Nixing nutty ideas: No on Amendment 41, unless you want to chill normal dialogue between public officials and the public. No on Amendment 44, unless you want to make Colorado a marijuana mecca."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
8:09:31 AM
|
|
Here's a column about Amendment 39 from Dan Haley in the Denver Post. He writes, "Thousands of Colorado schoolchildren headed back to classrooms last month, and hundreds of teachers promptly headed to Wal-Mart to buy school supplies with cash from their own pockets. That, proponents of Amendment 39 say, is just one of the reasons why school districts need to pour at least 65 percent of their budgets into classrooms. Of course, the start of school also means filling up those yellow school buses with high-priced fuel. For a district like Jefferson County, whose fleet of buses traverse 25,000 miles a day - essentially the circumference of the Earth - that's a lot of dough. (Jeffco spent $1.5 million on fuel in 2004, before last year's big gas hike forced them to bump their budget another $160,000.) That, opponents of Amendment 39 say, is just one of the reasons why districts need flexibility in how they budget their money.
"Opponents say Amendment 39 strips budget control away from local districts. Supporters say it gives locals complete control over how they want to spend the 65 percent, saying the extra money could go toward bring arts and music back into classrooms or funding merit pay for teachers. Voters will also see a Referendum J on their ballots, referred by state lawmakers. It also requires 65 percent of money be spent in classrooms, but has a much broader definition of instructional support expenses. If both measures pass, some experts say Amendment 39's provisions would take precedence since it amends the state constitution. However, other observers say if both pass, the issue likely will be decided by the courts."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
8:04:24 AM
|
|
Denver Post: "Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, two reform-minded groups that almost always agree politically, have parted ways over Amendment 41, an initiative on Colorado's November ballot. They worked together on the 1972 'sunshine law,' on legislative reform in 1988 and campaign finance reform in 2002 - all successful citizen initiatives. But the Colorado League of Women Voters, regretfully but forcefully, draws the line at Amendment 41.
"The 'ethics in government' amendment would put too much detail into the constitution and too much power into the hands of a five-member commission, says Flodie Anderson, president of the state league. Pete Maysmith, national director of state campaigns for Common Cause, says it's best to amend the constitution because a statutory change is 'inviting mischief,' giving the legislature an opening to weaken the law's provisions."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
7:58:16 AM
|
|
U.S. Congressman Bob Beauprez and Bill Ritter are both trying to solidify support from pro-gun groups, according to the Denver Post. From the article, "Colorado's leading candidates for governor are aiming for rural voters and hunters with a pitch that they support gun rights. But while Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez would oppose most efforts to restrict access to guns, Democrat Bill Ritter supports some controls. That difference has made guns a central issue in the 2006 election. Ritter has testified for tougher gun-control laws so often that he's already a familiar face at the state Capitol. Year after year, Ritter appeared as the Denver district attorney before the state legislature to support tougher regulations - a position targeted by Beauprez and gun-advocacy groups...
"Meanwhile, in Congress, Beauprez has sided with the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby. On vote after vote, Beauprez has opposed efforts that would expose the gun industry to liability or impose restrictions on access to guns...
"Each candidate claims to be standing on principle. Beauprez believes he is protecting a constitutional right to bear arms; Ritter says his approach is common sense that protects legitimate owners while promoting public safety. Ritter has consistently supported efforts to provide some limits on gun ownership. In 2003, Ritter opposed a bill that would take away Denver's power to adopt gun ordinances that were tougher than state law. In 2002, he testified against a bill that failed to include a mental-health check for concealed-weapons permits. In 2000, Ritter backed a bill that increased the penalty on people who buy firearms for others who would otherwise be ineligible to purchase a weapon - a post-Columbine measure that was supported by statehouse Republicans and Democrats. Ritter said his approach to guns is to promote public safety. He said he doesn't support a ban on their possession, but that there should be appropriate limits and enforcement...
"Ritter said he supports the right for local communities to adopt ordinances that are more restrictive than state law, noting Denver has gang problems that officials in Walden don't face. He said he backs local efforts to ensure guns are properly stored when they are carried through their community. Ritter also said he supports some additional limits on issuing gun permits. Specifically, he would require a review of the applicant's mental health. Ritter's positions have prompted Beauprez to launch a series of attacks in news releases titled 'Ritter Loves Gun Control.' The Beauprez campaign claims Ritter's positions are proof that he wants to take away citizens' right to bear arms...
"The Colorado State Shooting Association, the NRA's state affiliate, has awarded Ritter an 'F' grade and Beauprez an 'A.' Marshall said Beauprez supports the state-required background checks for gun buyers, but he wouldn't add the mental-health check. 'I don't think the congressman is going to be supportive of any more limits on the Second Amendment,' Marshall said. Throughout his four years in Congress, Beauprez has been a reliable vote for positions supported by the NRA. In October 2005, he voted for an NRA-supported bill that gave the gun industry broad immunity against lawsuits based on the illegal use of firearms. In June, he voted against mandatory safety locks on handguns. And he has opposed efforts to extend a ban on assault weapons."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
7:49:04 AM
|
|
Denver Post: "Small-donor political groups that have already pumped more than $1.5 million into this campaign season are ready to dump hundreds of thousands more into state races in the final weeks before the November election, thanks to a new court ruling. Many of those committees have been stuck in a holding pattern in Colorado since Aug. 2, when Secretary of State Gigi Dennis issued rules requiring them to get written permission from their members before using any of their dues for political activities. That was a tall order for some of the larger groups, which have thousands of members. But Denver District Judge John McMullen ruled Friday that Dennis exceeded her authority. He kept the rules in effect through Tuesday in case Dennis' attorneys - who had not decided their next step Friday - want to appeal. Barring any other court rulings, politically active groups could resume pumping money into campaigns after that."
Category: Denver November 2006 Election
7:41:44 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 John Orr.
Last update: 10/1/06; 8:45:38 AM.
|
|
|
