Cult of violence headed our way

"We need three things: one, guns; two, guns, and three, again and again, guns! Do you think we can defeat the Czar with bare hands? Never." In these words Joseph Stalin as a youthful radical once incited a crowd, according to Michael Weiss's review of the new biography, Young Stalin. (Weekly Standard, March 10, subscription required.)

Uncle Joe, as Franklin Roosevelt flippantly called the tyrant, apparently had a real-estate man's (location, location, location) instinct for emphasis through repetition. When he was Soviet dictator, his instructions for KGB interrogation of suspected traitors used the same triple rhythm: "Beat, beat, and once again, beat!"

If all this seems long ago and far away, consider how the glorification of violence and "direct action" lives on in the hoodlum swagger of Denver's own Re-create '68 group, the movement to disrupt this summer's Democratic National Convention.

Although a recent Rocky profile of their leader, Glenn Spagnuolo, has him claiming that any trouble will start with the police, not with his followers, that's hardly the import of his threat about "a very dangerous situation" ensuing from the group's failure to draw their desired protest site in a city-run lottery. Why evoke the Chicago riots of 1968, except with the cynical intent of provoking official backlash -- creating a powder keg and then blaming others when it ignites?

Michael Weiss likens the young Stalin to Zarqawi, the late Al Qaeda terrorist leader in Iraq. Not to say that Spagnuolo and his ilk are devoted to a global caliphate or to the imposition of Leninism by any means necessary -- but all were or are infected in varying degrees by the same bacillus of fanatical self-righteousness, cold hate, and political judo wherewith to use the regime's humane scruples against itself.

Our American system of free government, in Spagnuolo's words, "needs to be completely eliminated and replaced," and he believes (in the words of that Rocky profile) that "revolutionary politics are the best way" to accomplish that. Be careful, Glenn -- you are playing with fire.

And be careful, Denver -- it is but a short distance from those lofty generalities of Re-create '68 to the practical conclusions voiced by Uncle Joe: "Guns, guns, guns. Beat, beat, beat."

Hope springs eternal for GOP in 2010

(Denver Post, Apr. 6) Sports mementos line the Denver Athletic Club, old photos recalling bygone glories. It was a good setting for the Republican gathering of eagles on March 27, when presidential nominee John McCain swept into town with former rival Mitt Romney at his side. Many of us at the fundraiser had bygone glories on our mind. We were gauging not only the prospects for a White House victory in 2008, but also the personnel for a Colorado comeback by the GOP in 2010 after years in the wilderness. What I saw was a roomful of intriguing possibilities. At a press conference earlier, US Sen. Wayne Allard and the candidate running to succeed him, former Rep. Bob Schaffer, stood flanking McCain. Hopes for electing both are buoyed by Schaffer’s resilience in the polls against Democrat Mark Udall and by the Obama-Clinton bloodbath to McCain’s benefit.

Such a double win could build Republican momentum for 2010, when all state offices are up. Should my party lose one or both races, on the other hand, dominance by Democrats in the state and in Washington might whet voters’ appetite for divided government next time. Either way, we’ll have a shot at denying reelection to Gov. Bill Ritter and US Sen. Ken Salazar.

But who, the athletic club crowd wondered, might be our starting team for these contests? Take the governor’s race first. Ritter has shown weak leadership, accomplished little, and alienated business with his labor moves. He can be had. Allard, former Sen. Hank Brown, former Rep. Scott McInnis, former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, businessman Pete Coors, or state Senate stars like Mark Hillman and Josh Penry could all run.

Challenging Salazar may be tougher, but his chameleon voting record spells vulnerability. Former Gov. Bill Owens, his 65% popularity intact and marital troubles behind him, might grab the brass ring this time after passing in 2004. Done with Congress, battle-tested from the presidential primaries, Tom Tancredo admits a Senate run in ’10 appeals to him. Former Rep. Bob Beauprez may have the itch as well.

For wild cards in either race, think about Attorney General John Suthers, assistant Senate leader Nancy Spence, radio host Dan Caplis, Colorado Springs kingmaker Steve Schuck, Bruce Benson after a couple of years running CU, education reformers Alex Cranberg and Ed McVaney, or restaurateur John Elway. (Yes, No. 7 does fantasize about recreating the Drive with voters.)

Now consider the GOP depth chart for down-ballot contests. Democratic Reps. John Salazar out west and Ed Perlmutter in the suburbs aren’t endangered this year but could be in 2010. Likewise Lt. Gov. Barbara O’Brien, State Treasurer Cary Kennedy, and Ritter’s potential appointee at Secretary of State – if Mike Coffman succeeds Tancredo. Who might take them on?

For Congress, think Penry or state Rep. Ellen Roberts against Salazar, district attorney Carol Chambers (if she’d move a few miles north) or state Rep. Rob Witwer against Perlmutter. Statewide candidates might include the House minority leader, bulldog Mike May, and some of his fellow legislators such as Reps. Cory Gardner, David Balmer, and Amy Stephens, or Sens. Shawn Mitchell and Mike Kopp.

Republican bench strength is great overall. Three of the four vying for 6th congressional – Coffman, Sens. Ted Harvey and Steve Ward, and entrepreneur Wil Armstrong – will figure in future elections somewhere. The 5th congressional insurgents, Jeff Crank and Bentley Rayburn, likely losers against Rep. Doug Lamborn this summer, might resurface later. Even Mark Holtzman and Rick O’Donnell, who left Colorado after their 2006 defeats, could dramatically return like Foote and Forsberg.

Elephant Republicans taking the hustings against donkey Democrats: there’s a timeless beauty to it, like National League meeting American League on the diamond. After 2008 comes the 2009 off-season, then 2010 and a whole new ballgame. Hope springs eternal.

Nottingham impeachment should proceed

"During good behavior" is the constitutional standard for a federal judge to continue serving. Sen. Ken Salazar has wondered publicly whether Judge Edward Nottingham of the US District Court in Denver measures up. It certainly appears he does not, and I hope the senator takes action. We think of the federal judiciary as serving for life, only because a mere 13 judges have ever been impeached, and only seven of those have actually been convicted and removed from office. But the congressional power of removal is right there in Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution.

The allegations against Nottingham, a George H.W. Bush appointee and former law-firm associate of Salazar's, were characterized by the senator in a Denver Post story on Mar. 28 as suggesting the judge has failed to "serve in an exemplary manner, both on and off the court." He is accused of drunken carousing at strip clubs, surfing porn sites in his chambers, patronizing an escort service, and behaving abusively toward a wheelchair-bound woman in a parking dispute.

The case highlights a definitional gap between the Article II language about "impeachment for... treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and the Article III clause about good behavior. While being a sleaze, a lush, and a boor may not be a firing offense in some jobs, let alone a crime or misdemeanor, it surely violates the behavior expected of federal judges, as Salazar's words indicate. "Bringing disrepute on the federal judiciary and betraying the public's trust" were two of the three offenses for which Judge Harry Claiborne of Nevada was impeached and convicted in 1986, according to the Justice at Stake campaign. Sounds like Judge Nottingham to me.

The Justice at Stake backgrounder linked above quotes the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist as saying that removal of judges by Congress over policy disputes was forever put off limits by the 1806 acquittal of Samuel Chase, the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached. This is no more than one man's opinion, however, since the judicial branch (and the executive) explicitly have no role whatsover in, and no judgment over, the legislative branch's impeachment power. Indeed the institutionally self-serving bias of Rehnquist's opinion could not be more obvious.

Of course he wouldn't want any countervailing authority from Congress against the Supreme Court's potential overreaching and abuse of judicial power. But so what? It remains for Congress to do what its members have the constitutional fidelity and political courage to go ahead and do.

Though I as a Republican seldom agree with Salazar as a Democrat, in this case I salute his fidelity and courage for threatening the ultimate sanction against a seemingly out-of-control Judge Nottingham. The concern here is obviously not policy, but morality, ethics, decorum, and demeanor (NB: the opposite of misdemeanor). Regardless, I argue we need more -- much more -- recourse to impeachment of judges, and as the legislative branch begins finding its nerve on the personal-conduct front, perhaps congressmen and senators will start picking the right fights on the power-abuse front as well.

Justice at Stake, as you will see from their website, is a coalition of the judicial and legal establishment which seems to want just the opposite of what I and other judicial reformers do. They note worriedly that three of the seven successful removals of wayward federal judges have occurred in the past two decades -- that of Claiborne in 1986, followed by those of Judge Alcee Hastings in Florida for perjury and bribery and Judge Walter Nixon in Mississippi for lying to a grand jury, both in 1989. They also note that threats of impeachment to state judges have recently almost doubled, from 27 in the four years before 2001 to 51 in the four years after.

This they attribute to a "growing 'outrage industry' seeking to intimidate and fire judges." That's one view. Another view would be that judicial activism on policy -- and the accompanying God complex leading to personal recklessness such as Colorado has seen in the recent Nottingham, Manzanares, and Biddle episodes -- has pushed citizens and political actors to the breaking point, with consequent willingness to treat the impeachment provisions of our federal and state constitutions as less of a dead letter.

One of the most dramatic moments of my six years in the Colorado Senate (and one of my keenest personal regrets for not having supported it) came in the spring of 2004 when then-state Rep. Greg Brophy and other House Republicans filed House Resolution 1007 as a bill of impeachment against state Judge John Coughlin on two counts of "malfeasance in office for denying the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 4 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution" and one count of disregarding the Colorado Revised Statutes, stemming from his ruling in a two-mommies adoption case.

That measure, sadly, died in the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, with Speaker Lola Spradley offering little encouragement and with Gov. Bill Owens -- along with Senate President John Andrews -- on record against it.

But Brophy was right and I was wrong. If I had it to do again, I would support the Coughlin impeachment. Ken Salazar is right about the Nottingham impeachment today. It should proceed.

Memo to my libertarian friends

“Conservative gathering, liberal dose of pessimism,” was the headline over a Mar. 28 story on the previous night's panel hosted by Face the State, America's Future Foundation, and the Independence Institute. The Rocky's reporter, who was sitting to my right, not laughing while feverously jotting notes, did a passable job describing the occasion. The article, however, didn’t quite capture the feel of the event. The venue was elegant, the food and wine quite tasty. The speakers, of which four (including the moderator) were libertarian and one lone conservative, bantered about the libertarian-social conservative rift and its toll on the party.

One of the libertarians, Independence Institute’s Jon Caldara, identified Republican disintegration along with liberal Democrats' solidarity, cash, and smarts, as the reasons the West was lost. Even more insightful was his observation that big-government Republicans -- be they of the blueblooded country club variety, the big spending, entitlement expanding “compassionate” variety, or the give me taxpayer money for my business/chamber of commerce/organization/pet project variety -- are the real enemy of conservatism, not social conservatives. I hope other libertarians were listening.

I think what surprised me about the event is just how much antipathy libertarians have for social conservatives. That might be too strong of a characterization but there seemed to be an unkind edge in some of the humor. As a person who is both a fiscal and social conservative I felt a little battered. Nevertheless, I want to help heal the breach. And so here’s a little food for thought for my libertarian friends.

Stereotypes: not helpful. Evoking Jerry Falwell as a typical social conservative is not useful. A) He’s deceased. B) Though a player two decades ago, he’s been largely irrelevant since. A disheveled, government-phobic, dental-challenged libertarian from a fortified bunker in Montana probably has little in common with you, so I won’t conjure that image in every single speech and debate.

Secondly, on our differences (gay marriage and drug legalization just to pick two), I actually have some logical reasons for my beliefs. We could discuss them and possibly find common ground or at least an appreciation for each other's reasons.

Calling me a bigot who wants to deprive people of civil rights isn’t exactly a thoughtful response to my concerns about the impact of gay marriage. My primary objection to same-sex marriage is a libertarian one – it suppresses dissenting views. The state of Massachusetts shut down a Catholic adoption agency because it did not adopt to same-sex couples (the agency does not even receive government money). The same thing has happened in England. In Colorado, gay couples are free to call themselves "married," live together, have children, etc. Their status is recognized by those who agree with their lifestyle. State intervention in favor of these unions would force anyone who does not agree to shut down their business or organization. That doesn’t sound like freedom to me.

On drug legalization, I sympathize with cancer victims and believe strongly that if marijuana helps them they should have as much of it as they need. Let’s not be naïve. The average pot smoker is not a terminally ill cancer patient or a responsible yuppie couple who smoke occasionally in the privacy of their own home after the kids are tucked in. It’s the guy who is unemployed or underemployed who uses me, the taxpayer, as his health insurance provider. Even though he might be able to handle working behind the 7-Eleven counter, his counterpart on meth is probably a little too wired and wild-eyed for customer service. This guy would rather break into my house and steal my stuff to pay for his habit.

How much of my taxpayer money goes to health care, food, housing, treatment programs, and other services for potheads, meth addicts, junkies and crackheads? We sure need more of these guys, and legalization would guarantee it. I’m happy to have a civil debate about the impact of legalization of drugs or vice generally on civilization if you promise not to drag cancer patients and hemp farmers (hemp is used to make rope, by the way) into it.

Yes, I’m being cheeky but the point is that people in this coalition are going to have differences based on real concerns. Conceit, stereotyping, and bitterness are not productive. We need each other. If we only want to work with people with whom we agree 100% of the time, it’s going to be a small crowd, powerless against the proponents of big government control.

The Cato Institute speaker that night predicted a mass of libertarians going over to Obama. Great idea if you want to work with people who are diametrically opposed to everything you’ve worked for all your life. National health care, high taxes, adding a gazillion more government programs to an already behemoth federal government – yep, that’s compatible with libertarian thought.

If you want to jump ship out of spite, you might end up in the water with the sharks. Or, we can work together. Your call.

Editor: See also Jessica Corry's followup report from the same evening.

Barack spins for survival

Obama on the campaign trail isn't practicing what he preached (pun intended) in last week's widely praised speech where he sought a more open, honest dialogue about race in America. Barack Obama was in North Carolina yesterday, giving a new version of his stump speech. The senator has apparently found the Lord, and wants to share with his audiences just how pure and mainstream a religious man he is. He's on a new strategy to downplay his 20+ year association with Reverend Wright of the Trinity United Church in Chicago. The four-part spin goes something like this:

(1) Minimize it: In comments to one crowd, Obama called this whole issue of Wright an unnecessary "distraction" from the real problems people face in this country. "We can't lose sight of America's real issues -- like the War in Iraq -- every time someone says something stupid".

Now, calling Wright's sermons simply "stupid" is, in my view, a significant back-track from the major speech he gave last week on the issue of race, when he rejected Wright's views and condemned them.

Obama also stressed that Wright has given three sermons a week for 30 years and that those opposed to his candidacy had found "five or six of his most offensive statements" and "boiled" them down to play over and over. "I hope people don't get distracted by that."

Why should people get distracted by the fact that the spiritual adviser to the presumptive Democrat candidate for President of the United States should blame white America for 9/11, the Palestinian problem and all the problems of blacks in this country?

(2) Mainstream it: Yesterday, Obama spoke of the Trinity United Church as if it were the most tolerant, open congregation in the country. "Everybody is welcome to come to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street. It is a wonderful, welcoming church," he said. "If you were there on any given Sunday, folks would be doing the same things in church at Trinity as they do everywhere else. They're praising Jesus. They've got a choir singing. It's a very good choir. And the pastor is trying to teach a lesson to connect scripture to our everyday lives."

Unfortunately, Obama stopped short of citing the specific scriptures that tells us that the U.S. government created AIDS to destroy the black community, or that introduced drugs into black neighborhoods.

(3) Backtrack from it: Though in his widely reviewed speech on Race last week Obama admitted to having attended some of the Wright sermons that were universally found offensive, yesterday he backtracked, saying that Wright had said some "very objectionable things when I wasn't in church on those particular days."

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "in" is...if it means "in church" as actually sitting in the pews, or if it means "in church" as in standing in the parking lot where he couldn't really hear the sermon going on inside. Bill Clinton would be proud of such practiced dissembling.

(4) If You Can't Beat 'em, Join 'em: In Greensboro, Obama's campaign staff has found the Lord as well, now using prayer before his events, something that began since the controversy over Wright and his remarks. "Thank you for this time of excitement and enthusiasm," a local reverend prayed. "I pray a special blessing, oh God, a special blessing, on Barack Obama." The audience was then led in the Pledge of Allegiance. And if there was any question that Obama is a religious and patriotic American, he ended his speech with a "God bless America."

So, the candidate who wouldn't wear an American flag on his lapel pin is now cloaking himself in both the bible and the flag at his campaign events. Does this not strike you as a cold and calculating way of actually avoiding that real discussion of race that he says he so desperately wants in America?

This strikes me as disingenuous, and I hope most of America will not buy what Obama is selling now: a "slick Willie" style attempt to triangulate his position and his beliefs, with an obvious hope that the public will eventually be so confused by the ever-changing position that they will simply remember the last thing that the candidate says.

We've had enough dissembling in the White House. It is time for some straight talk!