Those unbelievable Democrats

Editor: "Because it is unbelievable, I believe it," a mystic said. That's OK for spiritual things, but for politics and economics we'd prefer a little more common sense. Yet the mystical approach endlessly captivates Dems in the legislature and their friends in the media, observes former Sen. Mark Hillman in his latest Capitol Review column. Here's the piece with 15 examples, concluding with his invitation for you to extend the list. Any takers? You must be a Colorado Democrat if ...

(Note: A couple of months ago, I started this list after reading about the silliness that passes for seriousness at the State Capitol. Thought you might enjoy a little levity for a change.)

1. If you think taxing marriage will reduce child abuse, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

2. If you plan to pay for new programs with revenues from the oil and gas boom but hammer oil and gas companies with higher taxes and ridiculous regulations, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

3. If you believe illegal aliens should get a break on college tuition but decorated veterans should not, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

4. If you believe it's OK to require a photo ID to buy beer or cigarettes but not to vote, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

5. If you believe businessmen and women are motivated by greed but labor union bosses are not, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

6. If you think making someone pay higher taxes is a "freeze," you must be a Colorado Democrat.

7. If you believe trial lawyers want to sue for more money to help their clients, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

8. If you think there's really a difference between a tax and a fee, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

9. If you really believe in governmental efficiency or bureaucratic flexibility, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

10. If you believe an unemployed trial lawyer is a bad thing, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

11. If you think freedom of religion doesn't apply to churches, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

12. If you believe good education comes from relaxing academic standards but getting tough on soft drink sales, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

13. If you think we should raise taxes on working families to hire more college professors, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

14. If you worry more about the cost of keeping criminals behind bars than the cost of putting them back on the streets, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

15. If you think its wrong for government to legislate morality - except when it pays for that legislation with other people's money, you must be a Colorado Democrat.

Feel free to reply with suggested additions to the list.

Dems' 2006 storyline collapses

April has been a cruel month for Bill Ritter. The Kolomitz financial scandal engulfing his campaign deals one more blow to the Democrats' storyline of the 2006 governor's race as a morality play. Ritter was supposed to be the Boy Scout, righteously triumphing over the shady cheater, Republican Bob Beauprez. Wrong. That political myth, like the policy myth of Ritter as a centrist, pro-business and pro-life, has lost all credibility in recent days.

First, a jury didn't buy the charge that ICE agent Cory Voorhis broke the law when he outed former DA Ritter's lax treatment of illegal alien criminals, removing the cloud over former congressman Beauprez and leaving the Boy Scout's own laxity as a focus of outrage.

Next, in case anyone missed that little embarrassment for Colorado's chief executive, a constitutional amendment to ban such plea bargains in the future was introduced by state Sen. Ted Harvey.

And now the improper diversion of some $300,000 from Gov. Ritter's inaugural fund to pay off some 2006 campaign debts and enrich manager Greg Kolomitz suggests that it may be the simon-pure Democrat's turn in court.

What did the governor know about the 300K that went astray, and when did he know it? Has Kolomitz been unjustly scapegoated? Getting answers to questions like these, where the state's highest elected official, is exactly the reason we have prosecutors, grand juries, judges, and trail juries. Perhaps even, if necessary, a special prosecutor.

Bill Ritter now has his very own Cory Voorhis.

DU: No comment on anti-police event

"Cops lie: Don't trust cops!" was the theme for an hour-long training session for would-be protesters at the Democratic National Convention, held in Denver on April 14 by hard-left activist groups, according to a Denver Post story.   The event took place at the University of Denver law school, under arrangements made by individual DU students and with no official sponsorship by the university.  It included simulations of protesters being "bullied by... nightstick-bearing police officers," and outlined a plan for "hundreds of 'legal observers'... who bring video cameras to document any disruption." 

"I don't think it's helpful to portray the police in that light," said Denver city attorney David Fine. "Frankly, that's not the reality, so... it will give the participant a false sense of what their relationship will be like with police during the convention." 

After repeated calls to the DU office of news and public affairs this morning, I spoke with staffer David Brendsel, asking whether Chancellor Robert Coombs, Law School Dean Jose Juarez, or any other DU official wanted to go on the record as Fine had done, specifically dissociating the university from the event's unhelpful, unreal, and false portrayal of police ethics and methods. 

His answer: "We have no statement to make in response to that."  The studied pose of moral neutrality reminded me of those MSM news anchors (not to mention Barack Obama) who have made a point of not wearing American flag lapel pins in these wartime years.  Wouldn't want to take sides, you know.  Wouldn't want to compromise our objectivity. How pathetic. 

Yes or No on Centennial charter?

Nine weeks ahead of Centennial's home-rule election, opponents have begun to organize. Bold red "NOCC" flyers circulated at the Arapahoe Republican breakfast on April 9, and a rudimentary No on Centennial Charter website is up at www.nocc2008.com. Ron Phelps, a city council candidate last year, is one of the organizers. He was quoted in the Centennial Citizen last week as warning: "The more government grows, the more government seems to want to impose itself on all of us. A home-rule city would have the authority to reach into all our lives. That's not my paradigm of government."

To the contrary, said incumbent councilman Ron Weidmann in the same story: "The charter actually has more limits than leaving things as is." Well, let's see how the facts shake out in coming weeks. Which view is right? That's why they have election.

Interesting, though, Weidmann also asserted this: "It is important to understand those that opposed the city originally are those opposing the charter - no matter what it says."

That's not true in my own case. As a new state senator in January 1999, the first legislation I helped pass was a bill facilitating Centennial's petition and referendum for incorporation as a new city. I supported that successful vote the following September, and campaigned accordingly in my own reelection that November.

So shooting the messenger, which the councilman is clumsily attempting to do, won't work with this early pro-city guy. And I doubt it will work with many of those who are now expressing concerns similar to mine -- concerns not about having a city at all, but about whether the city's political maturity and leadership cadre are as yet ready for the additional powers that Phelps pointed to.

Slurs upon the motives of charter opponents, ala Weidmann, or inside power plays to marginalize the clerk and treasurer prior to declaring them unnecessary, as Linda Gawlik describes in the foregoing post, would seem to suggest they are not ready.

But the campaign leading up to election day, June 10, is just beginning. Let's hope the Yes or No debate can be conducted on the merits, not with such juvenile tactics as these.

Centennial needs checks & balances

The Mayor, the Treasurer and the City Clerk are the only officials elected city wide, to protect the interests of everyone. Do we really want to eliminate two out of three? Editor: So writes Linda Gawlik, the elected clerk of Centennial, and potentially the last person who will ever hold that post, if voters approve the city's proposed home rule charter in a June 10 election. She was replying to a story in the Centennial Citizen, March 27, entitled "The Case of the Missing Clerk and Treasurer." Here is her letter in full:

In your article, I found two quotes by Cathy Noon, chair of the Centennial charter commission that I would like to address. One quote stated, “The city clerk doesn’t run elections. The county clerk does that.”

I would like to clarify that the June 10, 2008 special election to vote on the proposed city charter is being handled by the Deputy City Clerk of Centennial, Brenda Castle, an employee of the city. Mayor Randy Pye named Castle the “Designated Election Official” in the fall of 2007. As I was not sworn in as City Clerk until January of this year, I do not know what precipitated that appointment. I do know that Arapahoe County Clerk Nancy Doty has had no input in the preparations for the city election. Doty was unable to handle a third election this year because her office is fully engaged with the August primaries and the November elections. I am sure Mayor Pye or City Attorney Robert Widner could clarify why Centennial’s proposed charter election could not be included in the August or November elections.

I would liked to have been more involved in the city’s upcoming election, but Castle told me it is a “one person” job right now, but she would be willing to name me as one of the three Election Judges she will be appointing. After giving this more thought, I believe I must recuse myself from the city’s election process because the proposed charter eliminates both the elected Treasurer and City Clerk positions. I believe these positions should be elected and therefore I have a vested interest in the outcome of the election, as does Castle.

The second quote from Noon was in reference to both the City Clerk and Treasurer positions. She stated, “No particular training is required for either job—…” I believe Noon has missed the point of having elected officials who report to the voters, not the Mayor, City Council or the City Manager.

I would like to point out that no elected official is required to submit a resume to run for political office. However, voters find out about all of their candidates through campaign literature, campaign speeches, the media, gatherings to “meet the candidates,” and word of mouth. The voters decide the person that they want to represent them for every office. The fact that the Mayor and previous members of the City council saw fit to eliminate any “real power” from these positions, as Noon pointed out, should highlight to the citizens of Centennial the need to continue to have elected officials who can remain independent of city control.

All elected officials represent the voters and should be respected and valued because they represent their constituents. The Mayor, the Treasurer and the City Clerk are the only officials elected city wide and they are expected to protect the interests of everyone in the city by being the eyes and ears of the voters. Do we really want to eliminate two out of three? Transparency is essential to good government if we want to regain the trust of the voters.