by: NEWSMAN
Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial
STATE RACISM DOESN'T WORK - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON THE ROPES
Remove all the political pettifoggery, obfuscation and claptrap, and one thing becomes clear: decisions based on race and gender are racist and sexist. Period.
That's why a recent poll regarding the November ballot issue that would end racial and gender preferences by the state indicates the measure will win by a landslide.
A Qunnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal poll surveyed 1,300 likely Colorado voters and found that 65 percent support the proposed state constitutional amendment to end preferences. Only 15 percent plan to vote against it. For opponents to the measure, the odds are almost insurmountable.
The initiative will appear on the ballot as Amendment 46. If approved, the amendment would read: "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting, or public education."
The overwhelming support of the measure perplexes some academics and political pundits. Rather than accept the fact that Coloradans object to racism and sexism, some have decided that supporters of the measure are simply confused. They have argued that people who signed the petition, which contained a few simple words, were misled.
The Rocky Mountain News quoted Colorado State University political science professor John Straayer explaining that voters don't know a lot about the amendment, so they tend to "automatically say, 'Oh, you don't want to have preferences. Fair is fair, equal is equal' ... When people focus on it a little more, look at the ads, more people will become cognizant of why those preferences were put in in the first place."
In other words, they might come to a conclusion other than "fair is fair, equal is equal." They might come to a conclusion that "fair is fair," but sometimes an unfair policy unfairly benefits me. Or they might conclude that "equal is equal," and sometimes unequal benefits me.
The instinctive reaction - the one in which Coloradans are repulsed by the idea of race or gender-based preference by the state - is the moral and intelligent reaction.
Racism is the simple act of basing behaviors and words on race; sexism is the act of basing behaviors and words on sex. An enlightened society bases behaviors and words on more relevant considerations, such as intelligence, character, experience, education and achievement. Race and gender don't enter the equation.
When the state bases college admission - or hiring decisions, or anything else - on skin color and sex, the state engages in racism and sexism. It really is that simple.
When racism and sexism somehow become justified, as people rationalize them with circumstances and needs and the desire to counter historical bias, it doesn't change the basic fact that's apparent when people read the simple wording of the proposed amendment. Their reaction: racism and sexism are wrong.
Racial and ethnic minorities don't need favorable treatment, as if they're somehow less capable than others. Women don't need favorable treatment to compete with men. On merit alone they will reverse conventions and ignorant prejudicial practices of the past. Racism and sexism have always been wrong. They cannot be made right by counter efforts at racism and sexism on the part of the state.
Colorado voters are on the verge of institutionalizing genuine civil rights, with an amendment that forbids state officials from basing decisions on sex and race. They support it instinctively and overwhelmingly.
That's because racism and sexism have no place in this modern world. They're the remnants of a bygone era, when good ol' boy networks, cliques and conformity could survive in markets limited by primitive communication, low-end technology and barriers to entry that no longer exist
In today's highly technical, well-connected, decentralized and intelligent markets, only merit, innovation, intellect and prosperity compete.
Today, nobody can afford decisions based on gender or race. That's why Coloradans instinctively cringe at the thought of state decisions based on gender and race - decisions that are sexist and racist.
There oughta be a law, and it looks like there will be one soon.
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/ropes_37745___article.html/state_action.html
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Crank-Rayburn Poll = Lamborn up by 20+ %
by: NEWSMAN
Controversial Crank and Rayburn Poll gives Lamborn a 20 point lead over his opponents.
According to the June 20 issue of the Colorado Statesman, Leslie Jorgensen reports that the controversial Crank/Rayburn poll of 525 republican voters found that incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn has a 20 point lead over his closest opponent.
"The poll consisted of more than 30 questions. In the first round, before respondents heard information about the candidates, 51 percent of the voters said they intended to vote for Lamborn. Of the remaining 49 percent, 27 percent favored Crank, 13 percent favored Rayburn, and 9 percent remained undecided."
"On positive name recognition, Lamborn received a 68 percent, Crank 46 percent, and Rayburn 33 percent. The poll revealed that Rayburn and Crank have to overcome a lack of name recognition. About 28 percent of the polled respondents said they did not recognize Crank's name; 37 percent had never heard of Rayburn."
Even after some information of questionable objectivity was provided about franked mail and earmarks, Lamborn was still 20 points in the lead.
"When respondents were asked again whom they would vote for, Lamborn's support slipped to 46 percent. Of the remaining 54 percent, 26 percent said they would vote for Crank, 15 percent for Rayburn and 13 percent remained undecided."
Controversial Crank and Rayburn Poll gives Lamborn a 20 point lead over his opponents.
According to the June 20 issue of the Colorado Statesman, Leslie Jorgensen reports that the controversial Crank/Rayburn poll of 525 republican voters found that incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn has a 20 point lead over his closest opponent.
"The poll consisted of more than 30 questions. In the first round, before respondents heard information about the candidates, 51 percent of the voters said they intended to vote for Lamborn. Of the remaining 49 percent, 27 percent favored Crank, 13 percent favored Rayburn, and 9 percent remained undecided."
"On positive name recognition, Lamborn received a 68 percent, Crank 46 percent, and Rayburn 33 percent. The poll revealed that Rayburn and Crank have to overcome a lack of name recognition. About 28 percent of the polled respondents said they did not recognize Crank's name; 37 percent had never heard of Rayburn."
Even after some information of questionable objectivity was provided about franked mail and earmarks, Lamborn was still 20 points in the lead.
"When respondents were asked again whom they would vote for, Lamborn's support slipped to 46 percent. Of the remaining 54 percent, 26 percent said they would vote for Crank, 15 percent for Rayburn and 13 percent remained undecided."
Friday, June 20, 2008
Promoting play could stop liberals moving here
On June 17 The Gazette had an editorial criticizing the anti-Colorado Springs play, "This Beautiful City," in which the Springs is depicted as populated by religious zealots who want to conquer the world.
This is an unbelievable opportunity for the city.
Think of the liberals we can stop from moving here.
We should find some way to subsidize this play.
We should have a Web site with a cowboy chewing on a cigar and packing a .45 on his hip.
The caption could say: Welcome to Colorado Springs; we hang hoss thieves. Onward Christian soldiers.
Dennis Mercadal, Colorado Springs
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/don_37495___article.html/letters_families.html
This is an unbelievable opportunity for the city.
Think of the liberals we can stop from moving here.
We should find some way to subsidize this play.
We should have a Web site with a cowboy chewing on a cigar and packing a .45 on his hip.
The caption could say: Welcome to Colorado Springs; we hang hoss thieves. Onward Christian soldiers.
Dennis Mercadal, Colorado Springs
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/don_37495___article.html/letters_families.html
Monday, June 16, 2008
Modern-day Paul Revere sounds alarm on spending
OPINION
JOHN STOSSEL Syndicated columnist
Congress is spending us into a hole. We hear about the cost of earmarks and the Iraq war. But what about “entitlements”? That’s the government’s ironic term for programs that transfer money from people who earned it to people who didn’t.
Entitlement? How can you be entitled to someone else’s money?
To finance “entitlement” programs, the government threatens force against the taxpayers who provide the money.
Why are people who favor compulsion called humanitarians, while those who favor freedom are stigmatized as greedy? But I digress.
Today’s big problem with entitlements is that their growth will soon eat everything in the federal budget. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the growth of government spending and deficits for Rep. Paul Ryan, R.-Wis., ranking member of the Budget Committee. The report estimated that spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which in 2007 represented about 8 percent of GDP, would balloon to 14.5 percent in 2030 and 25.7 percent in 2082. There is no way that can fly.
If you add in all other spending, including interest on the debt, federal spending under the CBO’s scenario would eat up an astounding 75.4 percent of GDP in 2084. If taxes don’t keep pace, the CBO says the “additional spending will eventually cause future budget deficits to become unsustainable . . . .” And if taxes were to keep pace? The CBO says, “[T]ax rates would have to more than double.” One alternative to raising taxes would be to cut other spending. But at current spendinggrowth rates for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all other spending would have to be reduced to zero in 2045. How likely is that?
Ryan is understandably alarmed. In the May 21 Wall Street Journal, he wrote about a bill he’s proposing that would: give individuals tax credits with which to buy their own health insurance in a competitive national marketplace, let the states have flexibility in running Medicaid, give workers under 55 money to buy insurance rather than rely on Medicare when they retire, permit younger workers to invest up to a third of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, increase the retirement age and temper the growth in Social Security benefits.
I don’t know if that would be enough. What we really need is a top-to-bottom freeing of the economy, including the health care industry, and massive cuts in government both spending and taxes. This would leave us wealthy enough to take care of ourselves, with private charity assisting those who can’t manage. But Ryan’s heart is in the right place. At least he’s trying to get the public and his colleagues to focus on what’s important. He told me he hopes to play the role of “Paul Revere, sounding the alarm about the government’s unsustainable fiscal path.” Sadly, his proposal has been largely ignored.
The Wall Street Journal didn’t even publish any letters about it. At least Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle said, “I am encouraged by Congressman Ryan’s leadership in his efforts to address this serious problem that continues to swallow the budget and swamp our economy.” And the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget agreed: “It shows tremendous courage and leadership on Congressman Ryan’s part that he is willing to lay out a comprehensive and detailed plan.”
Pleasantly surprising is the lefty home-state Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s reaction, praising Ryan for “putting a plan forward” while the presidential candidates are “skirting the issue.” But for the most part, Ryan’s plan is being ignored. That’s too bad, because this budget problem is the big one.
The longer we wait to address it, the uglier it gets.
Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News’ “20/20” and the author of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know is Wrong.”
JOHN STOSSEL Syndicated columnist
Congress is spending us into a hole. We hear about the cost of earmarks and the Iraq war. But what about “entitlements”? That’s the government’s ironic term for programs that transfer money from people who earned it to people who didn’t.
Entitlement? How can you be entitled to someone else’s money?
To finance “entitlement” programs, the government threatens force against the taxpayers who provide the money.
Why are people who favor compulsion called humanitarians, while those who favor freedom are stigmatized as greedy? But I digress.
Today’s big problem with entitlements is that their growth will soon eat everything in the federal budget. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the growth of government spending and deficits for Rep. Paul Ryan, R.-Wis., ranking member of the Budget Committee. The report estimated that spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which in 2007 represented about 8 percent of GDP, would balloon to 14.5 percent in 2030 and 25.7 percent in 2082. There is no way that can fly.
If you add in all other spending, including interest on the debt, federal spending under the CBO’s scenario would eat up an astounding 75.4 percent of GDP in 2084. If taxes don’t keep pace, the CBO says the “additional spending will eventually cause future budget deficits to become unsustainable . . . .” And if taxes were to keep pace? The CBO says, “[T]ax rates would have to more than double.” One alternative to raising taxes would be to cut other spending. But at current spendinggrowth rates for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all other spending would have to be reduced to zero in 2045. How likely is that?
Ryan is understandably alarmed. In the May 21 Wall Street Journal, he wrote about a bill he’s proposing that would: give individuals tax credits with which to buy their own health insurance in a competitive national marketplace, let the states have flexibility in running Medicaid, give workers under 55 money to buy insurance rather than rely on Medicare when they retire, permit younger workers to invest up to a third of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, increase the retirement age and temper the growth in Social Security benefits.
I don’t know if that would be enough. What we really need is a top-to-bottom freeing of the economy, including the health care industry, and massive cuts in government both spending and taxes. This would leave us wealthy enough to take care of ourselves, with private charity assisting those who can’t manage. But Ryan’s heart is in the right place. At least he’s trying to get the public and his colleagues to focus on what’s important. He told me he hopes to play the role of “Paul Revere, sounding the alarm about the government’s unsustainable fiscal path.” Sadly, his proposal has been largely ignored.
The Wall Street Journal didn’t even publish any letters about it. At least Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle said, “I am encouraged by Congressman Ryan’s leadership in his efforts to address this serious problem that continues to swallow the budget and swamp our economy.” And the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget agreed: “It shows tremendous courage and leadership on Congressman Ryan’s part that he is willing to lay out a comprehensive and detailed plan.”
Pleasantly surprising is the lefty home-state Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s reaction, praising Ryan for “putting a plan forward” while the presidential candidates are “skirting the issue.” But for the most part, Ryan’s plan is being ignored. That’s too bad, because this budget problem is the big one.
The longer we wait to address it, the uglier it gets.
Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News’ “20/20” and the author of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know is Wrong.”
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Why I must vote for John McCain
I want to start this off from the beginning. I had never planned on voting for John McCain.
Matter of fact I told many friends that if John McCain won the nomination I would switch to the Independent party. Now that was quite shock for my friends considering one of my favorite sayings is, "An Independent is someone who can't make a decision."I started with supporting Mike Huckabee. Later I realized that his views and mine weren't quite inline, but I was willing to overlook it since there was no other candidate that came as close. I ended my Primary journey supporting Alan Keyes. To this day I believe he is the best candidate for America.
Then the bad news struck. John McCain won the Primary. I was extremely disappointed and decided I was going to vote for Alan Keyes anyway. However, I decided I would pull a Benjamin Franklin and get a piece of paper and write down the pros and cons for voting for John McCain.
The cons filled up fast, but there was one glaring pro that caught my eye and made me think. Supreme Court Judges!Most likely, over the next four years, a handful of liberal judges will be retiring. Who will take their place?
Well, if Obama gets elected I have a pretty good idea, liberal judges. If John McCain wins, at least there is would be a chance for more constructionist judges.Most people today think that the war on terror is the main issue. Perhaps that issue is neck-and-neck with the economy. Some people believe that gay marriage is at the top of the list.
I believe that Supreme Court Judges are the main issue. Why? Since the start of our country, but even more in the last 40 years, Supreme Court Judges have been writing law with their decisions. Over the next four years (and most likely even longer) a judge will determine whether we even fight the war on terror, how we will fight the war on terror and to some degree when we fight.
A judge will determine whether the states are separate governments or simply a map point made available so google maps will work easier. Now don't get me wrong, I do not think judges should have that kind of power, but since the American people have allowed them to have it, I want judges who will use that power sparingly.
For those who plan on sitting out this election out or who just can't seem to bring themselves to vote for McCain I completely understand, but I would like to plea with you to think about this.
Can we really afford 30 more years of liberal Supreme Court Judges?
-- Shawn Mullen http://www.shawnmullen.com
Matter of fact I told many friends that if John McCain won the nomination I would switch to the Independent party. Now that was quite shock for my friends considering one of my favorite sayings is, "An Independent is someone who can't make a decision."I started with supporting Mike Huckabee. Later I realized that his views and mine weren't quite inline, but I was willing to overlook it since there was no other candidate that came as close. I ended my Primary journey supporting Alan Keyes. To this day I believe he is the best candidate for America.
Then the bad news struck. John McCain won the Primary. I was extremely disappointed and decided I was going to vote for Alan Keyes anyway. However, I decided I would pull a Benjamin Franklin and get a piece of paper and write down the pros and cons for voting for John McCain.
The cons filled up fast, but there was one glaring pro that caught my eye and made me think. Supreme Court Judges!Most likely, over the next four years, a handful of liberal judges will be retiring. Who will take their place?
Well, if Obama gets elected I have a pretty good idea, liberal judges. If John McCain wins, at least there is would be a chance for more constructionist judges.Most people today think that the war on terror is the main issue. Perhaps that issue is neck-and-neck with the economy. Some people believe that gay marriage is at the top of the list.
I believe that Supreme Court Judges are the main issue. Why? Since the start of our country, but even more in the last 40 years, Supreme Court Judges have been writing law with their decisions. Over the next four years (and most likely even longer) a judge will determine whether we even fight the war on terror, how we will fight the war on terror and to some degree when we fight.
A judge will determine whether the states are separate governments or simply a map point made available so google maps will work easier. Now don't get me wrong, I do not think judges should have that kind of power, but since the American people have allowed them to have it, I want judges who will use that power sparingly.
For those who plan on sitting out this election out or who just can't seem to bring themselves to vote for McCain I completely understand, but I would like to plea with you to think about this.
Can we really afford 30 more years of liberal Supreme Court Judges?
-- Shawn Mullen http://www.shawnmullen.com
Rayburn no guarantee of more local military jobs
So, Mayor Lionel Rivera has endorsed Bentley Rayburn for the 5th Congressional District in opposition to our incumbent Republican, Doug Lamborn ("Rivera endorses Rayburn for House," Metro, June 5). He cites Rayburn's status as a retired military officer as his reason. Theoretically, Rayburn will be able to convince the military to move more operations here and thus create more civilian military contractor business and more jobs and commerce in Colorado Springs. I disagree with the mayor.
It is not the constitutional responsibility of a congressman to develop jobs and commerce for a city. That is the duty of the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Corp. I have heard this argument about retired military folks serving in public office as a draw for military business for more than 20 years here in Colorado Springs.
This is more myth than reality. They have no more clout and influence than anyone else, particularly as a freshman congressman. Lamborn already serves on the Armed Forces Committee and there is no guarantee a new freshman would be appointed to that committee, even if he is a retired officer. Lastly, according to reports, the military comprises about a third of our local economy. I don't think it's prudent to try to boost that to 40 percent or 50 percent. What the government gives, the government can take away.
That is a very precarious marriage. I would rather see our chamber and EDC work on developing other types of commerce such as light manufacturing (appliances, furniture, etc.) rather than putting all of our eggs in the military basket. We have a solid conservative congressman in Lamborn.
Let's send him back to Washington.
Kyle C. Akers, Colorado Springs
Posted at Gazette.com
It is not the constitutional responsibility of a congressman to develop jobs and commerce for a city. That is the duty of the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Corp. I have heard this argument about retired military folks serving in public office as a draw for military business for more than 20 years here in Colorado Springs.
This is more myth than reality. They have no more clout and influence than anyone else, particularly as a freshman congressman. Lamborn already serves on the Armed Forces Committee and there is no guarantee a new freshman would be appointed to that committee, even if he is a retired officer. Lastly, according to reports, the military comprises about a third of our local economy. I don't think it's prudent to try to boost that to 40 percent or 50 percent. What the government gives, the government can take away.
That is a very precarious marriage. I would rather see our chamber and EDC work on developing other types of commerce such as light manufacturing (appliances, furniture, etc.) rather than putting all of our eggs in the military basket. We have a solid conservative congressman in Lamborn.
Let's send him back to Washington.
Kyle C. Akers, Colorado Springs
Posted at Gazette.com
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Lamborn is trying to Lower the Price of your Gas
I am tired of hearing from CRANKy Republicans, that Congressman Lamborn is doing nothing in Washington. One asked me a few days ago, "So what is Lamborn doing about the high price of gas?"
I was not sure that Congress was even attempting to do anything constructive, except oppose the anti-energy agenda of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat's.
But I was wrong. Republicans are and have been trying to improve the domestic energy picture for some time.
I am sharing an update about what Congressman Lamborn is doing to help lower the price of gas. As you know, the high cost of gas, diesel, and energy in general is causing huge problems for American families.
Congressman Lamborn supports tapping into the vast supply of domestic energy resources we have in the United States. If we increase our own production, we can drive prices down.
In addition to his work on the Natural Resource Committee, below is a brief description of some the bills he is co-sponsoring. This is not an exhaustive list, but some good examples of how to help lower the price of gas.
H.R. 3089, No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007
Reduces the price of gasoline by opening new American oil refineries; investing in diverse energy sources such as wind, nuclear, and clean coal-to-liquid technology; and making available more homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's Deep-Sea Energy Reserves.
H.R. 2279, Expand American Refining Capacity at Closed Military Bases
Reduces the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries.
H.R. 5656, To Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels
Reduces the price of gasoline by allowing the federal government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.
H.R. 2208, Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act
Reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuel.
H.R. 2493, Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007
Reduces the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unaffordable gas prices.
H.R. 6107, American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act
Reduces the price of gasoline by opening the Arctic Energy Slope to environmentally sensitive American energy exploration. Exploration would be limited to 0.01% of the Refuge, and revenue received from the new leases would be invested in a long-term alternative energy trust fund.
H.R. 6108, Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008
Reduces the price of gasoline by enabling the United States to responsibly explore its own deep ocean to produce American energy. The bill would grant coastal states the authority to keep exploration 100 miles from their coastlines and it would also allow states to share in the revenues received.
NEWSMAN
I was not sure that Congress was even attempting to do anything constructive, except oppose the anti-energy agenda of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat's.
But I was wrong. Republicans are and have been trying to improve the domestic energy picture for some time.
I am sharing an update about what Congressman Lamborn is doing to help lower the price of gas. As you know, the high cost of gas, diesel, and energy in general is causing huge problems for American families.
Congressman Lamborn supports tapping into the vast supply of domestic energy resources we have in the United States. If we increase our own production, we can drive prices down.
In addition to his work on the Natural Resource Committee, below is a brief description of some the bills he is co-sponsoring. This is not an exhaustive list, but some good examples of how to help lower the price of gas.
H.R. 3089, No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007
Reduces the price of gasoline by opening new American oil refineries; investing in diverse energy sources such as wind, nuclear, and clean coal-to-liquid technology; and making available more homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's Deep-Sea Energy Reserves.
H.R. 2279, Expand American Refining Capacity at Closed Military Bases
Reduces the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries.
H.R. 5656, To Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels
Reduces the price of gasoline by allowing the federal government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.
H.R. 2208, Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act
Reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuel.
H.R. 2493, Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007
Reduces the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unaffordable gas prices.
H.R. 6107, American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act
Reduces the price of gasoline by opening the Arctic Energy Slope to environmentally sensitive American energy exploration. Exploration would be limited to 0.01% of the Refuge, and revenue received from the new leases would be invested in a long-term alternative energy trust fund.
H.R. 6108, Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008
Reduces the price of gasoline by enabling the United States to responsibly explore its own deep ocean to produce American energy. The bill would grant coastal states the authority to keep exploration 100 miles from their coastlines and it would also allow states to share in the revenues received.
NEWSMAN
Monday, June 9, 2008
Defend Doug
by Dave Crater
June 8th, 2008
"If You Care About Taxes, Spending, and Earmarks, Defend Doug"by Dave Crater
It's Republican primary time, when ambitions, conservative promises, and Reagan invocations are in full flower. And the only way to tell real conservative defenders from perennial conservative pretenders is to examine their records..
Let's start with the record of incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado's Fifth Congressional District. Mr. Lamborn is finishing his first term in Congress and in that time, according to Congressional Quarterly, he voted against the Democrat agenda in Congress more than any other Republican ("CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch," Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007). This includes social, economic, and fiscal votes.
Mr. Lamborn was also one of five members of Congress – that's five out of 535, and only three of the 435 members of the U.S. House – that the nation's leading fiscal conservative group, Club for Growth, has given a rating of 100% for 2007. Club for Growth tracked votes on a range of tax, fiscal, and regulatory issues in the last Congress and determined that Mr. Lamborn voted correctly every time. See the entire 2007 Club for Growth scorecard here:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca.php
This is no new pattern. Over the twelve years he was a member of the Colorado legis
lature, Mr. Lamborn consistently led both the Colorado House and the Colorado Senate with his record of opposition to big-government spending, pork projects (these days fashionably referred to as "earmarks"), and tax increases.
With this kind of record, it is striking that Mr. Lamborn has a Republican primary opponent, Jeff Crank, attempting to criticize him on his fiscal record. It is well-known that, in justifying his own candidacy against a man who for a decade and a half has consistently defended all the things Mr. Crank claims to believe in, Mr. Crank has settled on one fundamental, earth-moving issue that gets the blood boiling of every principled Republican everywhere: franking expenditures.
That's right, franking expenditures.
The franking privilege dates to the founding of the United States and covers expenses members of Congress incur in sending mail to their constituents. The purpose is obvious: communication between congresspeople and their constituents is a good thing. Clearly, this privilege like any legitimate privilege can be abused, so there are processes in place in Congress by which all franked mailings must be approved. Mr. Lamborn is a first-term congressman whose constituents need to get to know him and what he is doing on their behalf – again, this is not empty campaign-speak, but a rationale endorsed by the framers of American government – and all his mailings have been approved by congressional leadership. All such mail, moreover, is paid for out of a congressman's official budget; what he does not spend on constituent communications he is fully authorized to spend on other things, and what he spends on constituent communications is not available for other things.
The use of this kind of issue against someone with the fiscal record of Mr. Lamborn says more about Mr. Crank than it does about the Congressman: from the standpoint of conservative policy, there simply is nothing more substantial on which Mr. Lamborn can be criticized.
Mr. Crank raised the franking issue most recently in a May 30 opinion column in the Colorado Springs Gazette, where he also offered glowing promises to, if elected, "rock the boat" of the Washington establishment, eliminate earmarks, eliminate the federal departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy, and cut federal spending by 20%.
Aside from the fact that even Ronald Reagan was not able to accomplish such heroic feats, if Mr. Crank were sincere in these convictions, he would be supporting Mr. Lamborn for Congress rather than running against him.
No Republican in the last two years, and very few Republicans in Colorado in the last half century, have more consistently, philosophically, and courageously opposed Washington (and Denver) excesses than has Doug Lamborn. It is the lack of people in Washington like Mr. Lamborn, and the interest of too many self-proclaimed conservatives in running against them, that is at the heart of the very Washington excess Mr. Crank now decries. It is also at the heart of the national Republican malaise that is quickly heading the GOP toward an electoral cataclysm in November.
Mr. Crank waxes poetic against earmarks. Again, if this conviction were superior to his personal ambition, Mr. Crank would be supporting Mr. Lamborn. Here are all Mr. Lamborn's funding requests for fiscal year 2009, a list the Lamborn office has made public. All directly relate to defense spending, a core purpose of government, all Mr. Lamborn has offset in the budget by equivalent cuts in other programs so that there is no net increase in the federal budget, and all ironically recall Mr. Crank's criticism of Mr. Lamborn during the 2006 campaign for allegedly not being as strong as Mr. Crank on defense:
Land Acquisition for Peterson Air Force BaseMissile Defense Integration and Operations CenterACES 5 Ejection SeatExpeditionary Alternative Power GeneratorRadiation-Hardened Memory TechnologyDigital Engine TechnologyMilitary Information Management SoftwareSpace and Electronic Warfare Analysis ToolsHigh Altitude, Long Endurance Communications and Surveillance SystemImproved Ground Access to Peterson AFBImprovements to Ft. Carson Gates 5 & 6
With requests like these, and with Mr. Lamborn now occupying a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, it is no wonder the defense criticisms have given way in Mr. Crank's rhetoric to complaints about franking. As with his fiscal record, Mr. Lamborn's history at the state level on issues of national security and defense was as impeccable as his federal record has now become.
As a side note, if Mr. Crank should criticize Mr. Lamborn for the above funding requests and call them "earmarks" as if they were pet pork projects, Mr. Crank should explain why as a lobbyist on behalf of a defense company in 2005 he requested, according to public lobbying records, "increased spending for the HH-6OL program" in defense authorization bills. The name of Mr. Crank's lobbying company was Rocky Mountain Government Relations, and the HH-6OL is the Blackhawk medical evacuation helicopter now in use in the Army and National Guard. Earmark, or legitimate modernization of the armed forces that defend us and that are such central issues in the Fifth Congressional District?
In addition to franking, Mr. Crank can regularly be heard calling for better "leadership" in Washington, presumably implying that Mr. Lamborn's leadership is somehow defective. For starters, here is a short summary of Mr. Lamborn's legislative resume, a kind of resume of which Mr. Crank has not the beginning: Colorado House of Representatives, 1995; House Republican Whip, 1997; Colorado Senate, 1998; Senate President Pro-Tem, 1999; U.S. Congress, 2006; U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 2007. Mr. Lamborn is also a member of two other U.S. House committees.
Moreover, here is a quotation from a letter written to Mr. Lamborn last week by the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Crank's former employer, concerning Mr. Lamborn's funding requests. The letter is dated May 28, 2008 and is signed by the Chamber's CEO.
"Your policy of only making requests that promote our nation's defense, as well as providing full disclosure on these projects reflects not only their legitimacy, but also their important role in improving our nation's defenses…It is with great pleasure that we offer our support, on behalf of the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, for not only the appropriations you've requested, but also the manner in which you have done so. In a time where real transparency is lacking in Washington, your actions provide a refreshing change of pace."
Sound suspiciously like leadership?
It should be noted clearly what many noted during the 2006 primary contest between Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Crank. Nobody doubts that Mr. Crank maintains a coherent conservative philosophy of government and a genuine desire to serve his country. Given Mr. Lamborn's stellar record at both the state and federal levels, what is in doubt is Mr. Crank's ability to subordinate his ambition to his desire to see the things he believes implemented in government. There simply is no improvement he could possibly make to the record of Mr. Lamborn, and plenty of ways he would not likely match Mr. Lamborn; indeed, at least according to the Club for Growth, there are only a handful even among current members of Congress who are in Mr. Lamborn's league.
There is only one wise route for Fifth Congressional District Republicans on the ground to follow this August: ignore empty criticisms and empty promises, and say a prayer of thanks that in this age of messianic Democrats and the empty-headed crowds who love them, Colorado and Colorado Springs have a congressman with the kind of real wisdom, real mettle, and real leadership that will far outlast the latest political fad and the latest self-promoting Republican challenger.
Dave Crater
June 8th, 2008
"If You Care About Taxes, Spending, and Earmarks, Defend Doug"by Dave Crater
It's Republican primary time, when ambitions, conservative promises, and Reagan invocations are in full flower. And the only way to tell real conservative defenders from perennial conservative pretenders is to examine their records..
Let's start with the record of incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado's Fifth Congressional District. Mr. Lamborn is finishing his first term in Congress and in that time, according to Congressional Quarterly, he voted against the Democrat agenda in Congress more than any other Republican ("CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch," Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007). This includes social, economic, and fiscal votes.
Mr. Lamborn was also one of five members of Congress – that's five out of 535, and only three of the 435 members of the U.S. House – that the nation's leading fiscal conservative group, Club for Growth, has given a rating of 100% for 2007. Club for Growth tracked votes on a range of tax, fiscal, and regulatory issues in the last Congress and determined that Mr. Lamborn voted correctly every time. See the entire 2007 Club for Growth scorecard here:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca.php
This is no new pattern. Over the twelve years he was a member of the Colorado legis
lature, Mr. Lamborn consistently led both the Colorado House and the Colorado Senate with his record of opposition to big-government spending, pork projects (these days fashionably referred to as "earmarks"), and tax increases.
With this kind of record, it is striking that Mr. Lamborn has a Republican primary opponent, Jeff Crank, attempting to criticize him on his fiscal record. It is well-known that, in justifying his own candidacy against a man who for a decade and a half has consistently defended all the things Mr. Crank claims to believe in, Mr. Crank has settled on one fundamental, earth-moving issue that gets the blood boiling of every principled Republican everywhere: franking expenditures.
That's right, franking expenditures.
The franking privilege dates to the founding of the United States and covers expenses members of Congress incur in sending mail to their constituents. The purpose is obvious: communication between congresspeople and their constituents is a good thing. Clearly, this privilege like any legitimate privilege can be abused, so there are processes in place in Congress by which all franked mailings must be approved. Mr. Lamborn is a first-term congressman whose constituents need to get to know him and what he is doing on their behalf – again, this is not empty campaign-speak, but a rationale endorsed by the framers of American government – and all his mailings have been approved by congressional leadership. All such mail, moreover, is paid for out of a congressman's official budget; what he does not spend on constituent communications he is fully authorized to spend on other things, and what he spends on constituent communications is not available for other things.
The use of this kind of issue against someone with the fiscal record of Mr. Lamborn says more about Mr. Crank than it does about the Congressman: from the standpoint of conservative policy, there simply is nothing more substantial on which Mr. Lamborn can be criticized.
Mr. Crank raised the franking issue most recently in a May 30 opinion column in the Colorado Springs Gazette, where he also offered glowing promises to, if elected, "rock the boat" of the Washington establishment, eliminate earmarks, eliminate the federal departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy, and cut federal spending by 20%.
Aside from the fact that even Ronald Reagan was not able to accomplish such heroic feats, if Mr. Crank were sincere in these convictions, he would be supporting Mr. Lamborn for Congress rather than running against him.
No Republican in the last two years, and very few Republicans in Colorado in the last half century, have more consistently, philosophically, and courageously opposed Washington (and Denver) excesses than has Doug Lamborn. It is the lack of people in Washington like Mr. Lamborn, and the interest of too many self-proclaimed conservatives in running against them, that is at the heart of the very Washington excess Mr. Crank now decries. It is also at the heart of the national Republican malaise that is quickly heading the GOP toward an electoral cataclysm in November.
Mr. Crank waxes poetic against earmarks. Again, if this conviction were superior to his personal ambition, Mr. Crank would be supporting Mr. Lamborn. Here are all Mr. Lamborn's funding requests for fiscal year 2009, a list the Lamborn office has made public. All directly relate to defense spending, a core purpose of government, all Mr. Lamborn has offset in the budget by equivalent cuts in other programs so that there is no net increase in the federal budget, and all ironically recall Mr. Crank's criticism of Mr. Lamborn during the 2006 campaign for allegedly not being as strong as Mr. Crank on defense:
Land Acquisition for Peterson Air Force BaseMissile Defense Integration and Operations CenterACES 5 Ejection SeatExpeditionary Alternative Power GeneratorRadiation-Hardened Memory TechnologyDigital Engine TechnologyMilitary Information Management SoftwareSpace and Electronic Warfare Analysis ToolsHigh Altitude, Long Endurance Communications and Surveillance SystemImproved Ground Access to Peterson AFBImprovements to Ft. Carson Gates 5 & 6
With requests like these, and with Mr. Lamborn now occupying a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, it is no wonder the defense criticisms have given way in Mr. Crank's rhetoric to complaints about franking. As with his fiscal record, Mr. Lamborn's history at the state level on issues of national security and defense was as impeccable as his federal record has now become.
As a side note, if Mr. Crank should criticize Mr. Lamborn for the above funding requests and call them "earmarks" as if they were pet pork projects, Mr. Crank should explain why as a lobbyist on behalf of a defense company in 2005 he requested, according to public lobbying records, "increased spending for the HH-6OL program" in defense authorization bills. The name of Mr. Crank's lobbying company was Rocky Mountain Government Relations, and the HH-6OL is the Blackhawk medical evacuation helicopter now in use in the Army and National Guard. Earmark, or legitimate modernization of the armed forces that defend us and that are such central issues in the Fifth Congressional District?
In addition to franking, Mr. Crank can regularly be heard calling for better "leadership" in Washington, presumably implying that Mr. Lamborn's leadership is somehow defective. For starters, here is a short summary of Mr. Lamborn's legislative resume, a kind of resume of which Mr. Crank has not the beginning: Colorado House of Representatives, 1995; House Republican Whip, 1997; Colorado Senate, 1998; Senate President Pro-Tem, 1999; U.S. Congress, 2006; U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 2007. Mr. Lamborn is also a member of two other U.S. House committees.
Moreover, here is a quotation from a letter written to Mr. Lamborn last week by the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Crank's former employer, concerning Mr. Lamborn's funding requests. The letter is dated May 28, 2008 and is signed by the Chamber's CEO.
"Your policy of only making requests that promote our nation's defense, as well as providing full disclosure on these projects reflects not only their legitimacy, but also their important role in improving our nation's defenses…It is with great pleasure that we offer our support, on behalf of the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, for not only the appropriations you've requested, but also the manner in which you have done so. In a time where real transparency is lacking in Washington, your actions provide a refreshing change of pace."
Sound suspiciously like leadership?
It should be noted clearly what many noted during the 2006 primary contest between Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Crank. Nobody doubts that Mr. Crank maintains a coherent conservative philosophy of government and a genuine desire to serve his country. Given Mr. Lamborn's stellar record at both the state and federal levels, what is in doubt is Mr. Crank's ability to subordinate his ambition to his desire to see the things he believes implemented in government. There simply is no improvement he could possibly make to the record of Mr. Lamborn, and plenty of ways he would not likely match Mr. Lamborn; indeed, at least according to the Club for Growth, there are only a handful even among current members of Congress who are in Mr. Lamborn's league.
There is only one wise route for Fifth Congressional District Republicans on the ground to follow this August: ignore empty criticisms and empty promises, and say a prayer of thanks that in this age of messianic Democrats and the empty-headed crowds who love them, Colorado and Colorado Springs have a congressman with the kind of real wisdom, real mettle, and real leadership that will far outlast the latest political fad and the latest self-promoting Republican challenger.
Dave Crater
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Doug Lamborn says NO to secret Earmarks
Washington’s wasteful spending problem needs to be corrected. I am proud of the high marks I’ve received from the National Taxpayers Union and Club for Growth on my Congressional record of cutting waste and defending taxpayers. Unlike the traditional understanding of “earmarks,” my funding requests are offset by cutting poor performing and other programs. By doing this, the overall spending in the budget does not increase.
My defense-related transportation requests improve access for Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson. I support funding offsets for these requests as well. These requests are for legitimate national purposes and not for “pork projects” such as the Woodstock museum ($1,000,000). Instead, my priorities for project funding promote the defense needs of Colorado’s military assets and our national security. Moreover, the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce supports these funding requests.
In the interest of transparency, I am sharing with you the complete list of funding requests I have made for Fiscal Year 2009.
You will find the amount, request details, and local support behind each request. I have taken a similar approach in the legislative process by making these funding requests subject to debate and amendment. Now, as you take a moment to review the details of my funding requests, I am confident you will agree that these projects protect our men and women in uniform and strengthen our national defense.23-Acre Land Acquisition for Peterson AFB - Amount Requested: $4.9M Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Prevents encroachment and allows future mission expansion by allowing the Department of the Air Force to acquire from a willing seller a 23 acre parcel in the State of Colorado To Learn More, Click Here
Missile Defense Integration and Operations Center - Amount Requested: $10M Schriever AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Provides funding for the Missile Defense Agency’s modeling and simulation center for ballistic missile defense applications • MDIOC, located at Schriever AFB, Colorado, is the proving ground for current and future missile defense programs and bridges the gap between developmental systems and the operational community To Learn More, Click Here
ACES 5 Ejection Seat - Amount Requested: $12M Colorado Springs, CO • Funds development and testing of the ACES 5 ejection seat to enable insertion into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the protection of our pilots in emergencies • Ensures preservation of the domestic manufacturing capability to produce vital life-saving ejection seat systems To Learn More, Click Here
Expeditionary 200 kW+ Alternative Power Generator -Phase 1 - Amount Requested: $6MPeterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Demonstrates and qualifies in a cold climate an innovative, energy efficient, alternative power technology for an energy intense Air Force installation• Utilizing tactical or readily available fuel for a next generation power generator capable of providing power within various settingsTo Learn More, Click Here
Radiation Hardened Non-Volatile Memory Technology - Amount Requested: $6.25M Colorado Springs, CO • Improves satellite payload operations by developing advanced memory components and subsystem capabilities, hardening them for protection in hostile settings.• Enhances satellite data storage capabilities to fit continually expanding future requirements To Learn More, Click Here
Digital Engine/Hydraulic Valve Actuation Technology - Amount Requested: $3.5M Woodland Park, CO • Develops technology to increase truck engine fuel efficiency up 50% for existing multi-fuel (JP8, biodiesel, E85, DME, gasoline, diesel) engines, and cleaner emissionsTo Learn More, Click Here
Webster Agent Case Expert - Amount Requested: $6.5M Colorado Springs, CO • Improves software designed to gather, assess, and manage military information operations from specified databases and open source material To Learn More, Click Here
Deployable Space and Electronic Warfare Analysis Tools - Amount Requested: $4M Colorado Springs, CO • Creates a common operation environment for Army support teams by incorporating space object data, improving navigation accuracy prediction, and integrating electronic warfare analysis • Provides mission planners with a near real-time assessment platform to support operation centers worldwide To Learn More, Click Here
High Altitude Long Endurance Development Program - Amount Requested: $5.5M Colorado Springs, CO • Corrects force capability gaps by providing the High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) stratospheric operating regime with “Space-like” communications and surveillance for battlefield situational awareness and over-the horizon communication To Learn More, Click Here
Full Access to Peterson AFB from Powers Boulevard - Amount Requested: $4M Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Addresses mobility and future congestion at the Powers Boulevard intersection by providing an interchange To Learn More, Click Here
Improvements at Fort Carson Gates 5 & 6 - Amount Requested: $687,000 Fort Carson, CO • Accelerates intersection improvements at Fort Carson Gates 5 and 6 and safety improvements along SH 115 located between these gates To Learn More, Click Here
Sincerely,Congressman Doug Lamborn
Contact Congressman Doug Lamborn
WASHINGTON OFFICE 437 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4422 Fax: (202) 226-2638
DISTRICT OFFICE 3730 Sinton Road, Suite 150 Colorado Springs, CO 80907 Phone: (719) 520-0055 Fax: (719) 52
My defense-related transportation requests improve access for Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson. I support funding offsets for these requests as well. These requests are for legitimate national purposes and not for “pork projects” such as the Woodstock museum ($1,000,000). Instead, my priorities for project funding promote the defense needs of Colorado’s military assets and our national security. Moreover, the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce supports these funding requests.
In the interest of transparency, I am sharing with you the complete list of funding requests I have made for Fiscal Year 2009.
You will find the amount, request details, and local support behind each request. I have taken a similar approach in the legislative process by making these funding requests subject to debate and amendment. Now, as you take a moment to review the details of my funding requests, I am confident you will agree that these projects protect our men and women in uniform and strengthen our national defense.23-Acre Land Acquisition for Peterson AFB - Amount Requested: $4.9M Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Prevents encroachment and allows future mission expansion by allowing the Department of the Air Force to acquire from a willing seller a 23 acre parcel in the State of Colorado To Learn More, Click Here
Missile Defense Integration and Operations Center - Amount Requested: $10M Schriever AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Provides funding for the Missile Defense Agency’s modeling and simulation center for ballistic missile defense applications • MDIOC, located at Schriever AFB, Colorado, is the proving ground for current and future missile defense programs and bridges the gap between developmental systems and the operational community To Learn More, Click Here
ACES 5 Ejection Seat - Amount Requested: $12M Colorado Springs, CO • Funds development and testing of the ACES 5 ejection seat to enable insertion into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the protection of our pilots in emergencies • Ensures preservation of the domestic manufacturing capability to produce vital life-saving ejection seat systems To Learn More, Click Here
Expeditionary 200 kW+ Alternative Power Generator -Phase 1 - Amount Requested: $6MPeterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Demonstrates and qualifies in a cold climate an innovative, energy efficient, alternative power technology for an energy intense Air Force installation• Utilizing tactical or readily available fuel for a next generation power generator capable of providing power within various settingsTo Learn More, Click Here
Radiation Hardened Non-Volatile Memory Technology - Amount Requested: $6.25M Colorado Springs, CO • Improves satellite payload operations by developing advanced memory components and subsystem capabilities, hardening them for protection in hostile settings.• Enhances satellite data storage capabilities to fit continually expanding future requirements To Learn More, Click Here
Digital Engine/Hydraulic Valve Actuation Technology - Amount Requested: $3.5M Woodland Park, CO • Develops technology to increase truck engine fuel efficiency up 50% for existing multi-fuel (JP8, biodiesel, E85, DME, gasoline, diesel) engines, and cleaner emissionsTo Learn More, Click Here
Webster Agent Case Expert - Amount Requested: $6.5M Colorado Springs, CO • Improves software designed to gather, assess, and manage military information operations from specified databases and open source material To Learn More, Click Here
Deployable Space and Electronic Warfare Analysis Tools - Amount Requested: $4M Colorado Springs, CO • Creates a common operation environment for Army support teams by incorporating space object data, improving navigation accuracy prediction, and integrating electronic warfare analysis • Provides mission planners with a near real-time assessment platform to support operation centers worldwide To Learn More, Click Here
High Altitude Long Endurance Development Program - Amount Requested: $5.5M Colorado Springs, CO • Corrects force capability gaps by providing the High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) stratospheric operating regime with “Space-like” communications and surveillance for battlefield situational awareness and over-the horizon communication To Learn More, Click Here
Full Access to Peterson AFB from Powers Boulevard - Amount Requested: $4M Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Addresses mobility and future congestion at the Powers Boulevard intersection by providing an interchange To Learn More, Click Here
Improvements at Fort Carson Gates 5 & 6 - Amount Requested: $687,000 Fort Carson, CO • Accelerates intersection improvements at Fort Carson Gates 5 and 6 and safety improvements along SH 115 located between these gates To Learn More, Click Here
Sincerely,Congressman Doug Lamborn
Contact Congressman Doug Lamborn
WASHINGTON OFFICE 437 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4422 Fax: (202) 226-2638
DISTRICT OFFICE 3730 Sinton Road, Suite 150 Colorado Springs, CO 80907 Phone: (719) 520-0055 Fax: (719) 52
Monday, June 2, 2008
We need more Lamborns & Schaffers
by Dave CraterJune 2nd, 2008
The GOP picture in Colorado’s 5th congressional district is a picture of soulless politics and in microcosm of a national GOP headed for a November electoral disaster.
Editor: So warns Dave Crater, Air Force veteran, CU law student, and founder of the Wilberforce Center for Colorado Statesmanship. Here’s the article developing his logic for that somber verdict:
Loser GOP is Short on Doug Lamborns
“ ‘Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth…’ Just what does that mean? Not simply that they introduced something onto this continent. If so, where was it before they brought it in? And how could it be called a new nation if merely transferred? No, ‘bring forth’ cannot mean anything like ‘introduce from abroad.’ Lincoln is talking about generation on the spot.
The nation is rightly called new because it is brought forth maieutically, by midwifery; it is not only new, but newborn. The suggested image is, throughout, of a hieros gamos, a marriage of male heaven (‘our fathers’) and female earth (‘this continent’). And it is a miraculous conception, a virgin birth. The nation is conceived by a mental act, in the spirit of liberty, and dedicated (as Jesus was in the temple) to a proposition. The proposition to which it is dedicated forms the bridge back from Lincoln to Jefferson, from the Address to the Declaration…” — Garry Wills, Inventing America (Doubleday, 1978)
This is unfashionable language. So earthy; so full of male, female, procreation, and midwifery; all a very messy and laborious and old-fashioned business.
It is not even fashionable among many who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and the hieros gamos that produced it. A growing number of such, at least among educated elites, get nervous any time biblical language is used to describe the American founding or the continuing presence and spiritual power of American influence in the world. “Politicizing the gospel,” the accusation goes, or as the misguided authors of the recently published Evangelical Manifesto put it (www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com), the gospel should not be “confused with or reduced to political categories such as ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’”
Translation: we want Christian engagement with culture and politics, but we are tired of evangelicals being so widely identified as political conservatives. This compromises the gospel. We want civility. We want political choices to be more separate from theological choices so that more political liberals feel more comfortable being around us.
We want a definition of “Evangelical,” which should be spelled with a capital “E” like every other religious option is, that is politically bigger-tent. We want to be more inclusive. We are tired of controversy.
Nice stuff, not unlike the “reach across the aisle” language and strategy on which GOP presidential candidate John McCain has built a lucrative national career. Who doesn’t want unity? Who doesn’t want the two sides of the aisle to come together once and for all? Who doesn’t want to be credited with having helped make the group hug happen? Why trouble ourselves with the laborious midwifery of an unfashionably conservative political heritage when an easier, more comfortable route is, at this hour as at every hour, so readily crafted and so ripe for the taking?
If Christ had followed this sure-winner public relations strategy, he might not have gotten himself crucified.
I’m not the only one with a better idea. GOP candidate for U.S. Senate and all-around Republican good guy Bob Schaffer captured it nicely on Saturday in the best applause line of a highlight-laden speech to the Colorado GOP state assembly: “Now, if we’re going to compete successfully against Democrats, we need to have a little bit of introspection and look at our own party as well. We could sustain a little bit of reform within the Republican Party, too. I’ve always believed that principles matter most, and I believe that it’s important even to take on leaders in our own party who have a tendency to drift from those principles that have defined our country.”
Ouch. The normal Schaffer grace, but a shot between the eyes to Republican leaders, all the way up to President Bush, whom Schaffer went on to tell the delegates he had publicly opposed on legislative disasters like No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold, which (my comment here, not Schaffer’s) is now hurting McCain’s campaign as badly as it is hurting free speech across the fruited plain. Note this is not any vague Scott McClellan sellout to the left; it is principled criticism from the right.
Schaffer’s simple truth was red meat for a leadership-starved Republican grassroots. Other ringers from Schaffer included a more-sincere-than-usual-from-Republicans-these-days appeal to the “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” of the Declaration – which went nicely with Mrs. Schaffer and the five Schaffer children, three of whom are training to become military officers, standing next to him – as well as a refreshing acknowledgement of the Almighty as the source of all good political things. It was a reference, given it is a piece of political theology almost always heard from conservatives and not liberals and which is the foundation of conservative political philosophy, that might have been a bit too flag-wavey to keep the signers of the Evangelical Manifesto smiling.
Watch Schaffer’s entire speech here.
But this is prologue. I imagine Schaffer would agree that good speeches are nice in their place and discomfitingly rare in today’s soul-starved GOP, but the energy and heart of the Grand Old Party and the larger American conservative movement are forged and proved on the ground, when and where nobody’s watching and applauding, and when the principles we claim to espouse are given flesh and blood by backbone in the trenches.
The real question is not whether we can find someone with the combination of guts and talent to give the speech Schaffer gave. The question is whether and where we can find a few more with the spinal stiffness to argue and vote to implement these sentiments in public policy, to do so even when nobody’s applauding and flattering, and to offer no weak, self-doubting apologies or excuses in the process.
Tough stuff. Not nearly as nice as big-tent John McCain Evangelical Manifesto inclusiveness. But as one of the nation’s – indeed, the world’s – favorite evangelical preachers, one who didn’t sign the Evangelical Manifesto and probably wasn’t invited to, is fond of saying, “Hard preaching makes soft people.” Converse: soft preaching may make for good media, but it makes for exceedingly hard hearts. Both may win you an election and get you out of short-term controversy; both will, whether you are an individual or a political party, eventually cost you your soul and your long-term political influence.
Fortunately for restless Colorado conservatives everywhere who don’t just say they agree with Schaffer that principles matter most, but so believe in their heart of soft hearts, Schaffer is not alone in holding high and proud the banner of principled political conservatism. Amidst the back-stabbing, ambition-soaked, slander-drenched, platitude-heavy, hard-hearted Republican atmosphere in El Paso County is an honest and sincere man with real convictions who happens to be a U.S. Congressman.
Name, Douglas L. Lamborn. Born 1954, Leavenworth, Kansas. Schaffer-like, has both a wife and five children. Bachelor’s in Journalism, National Merit Scholar, Juris Doctor, University of Kansas. Colorado House of Representatives, 1995. House Republican Whip, 1997. Colorado Senate, 1998. President Pro-tem, 1999. Impeccable conservative voting record at the state level. U.S. Congress, 2006. House Armed Services Committee, 2007.
According to Congressional Quarterly, through the August 2007 recess, Mr. Lamborn actually did what every Republican candidate for office tells party regulars he/she will do if elected: he voted against the Democratic agenda in the U.S. House more than any other Republican (“CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch,” Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007).
One of five members of Congress – that’s 5 out of 535 – to receive a 100% rating in 2008 from the Club for Growth, perhaps the nation’s leading free-market think tank and political advocacy group. “True Blue” rating from the Family Research Council for a 100% voting record on issues of social conservatism. That means a) men get to be completely and joyously satisfied with women as their only marital option, b) women not only get acknowledged as fully equal to this high calling but enjoy the same reciprocal satisfaction in their marital options, and c) cute babies get to be safe in the womb again.
In short, here’s a politico with soul and a soft heart. For his labors, he has two GOP primary challengers, both claiming to believe in all the same things Mr. Lamborn has now spent a decade and a half advancing in public policy via the messy and laborious midwifery always required so to advance. Their reasons for running? Lamborn spends too much money communicating by mail with his constituents. We therefore need to elect his opponents to “show real leadership” and “take our Colorado common sense values to Washington” and “reach across the aisle to get things done” and .
Other vague condemnations and abandonments of Lamborn, both explicit and surreptitious, have been common and ugly throughout the Fifth Congressional and Colorado GOP hierarchies. Lamborn’s resulting distrust of the local GOP structure led him to petition on to the August primary ballot instead of going through the normal caucus process.
Bob Schaffer experienced something of the same royal treatment in 2004, when he ran for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate against moderate beer magnate Pete Coors and was opposed by many of the courageous state Republican leaders who, with no alternative candidate and thus no reason this time to have the proverbial finger in the proverbial wind, are now supporting him.
Yet somehow, even according to Mr. Lamborn’s opponent, Lamborn leads his competitors by at least ten percentage points in current polling. Read more here.
Perhaps the grassroots is not as unhappy with Lamborn-style, Schaffer-style principled political conservatism as media pundits and GOP leaders and self-serving challengers would have us believe.
The GOP picture in Colorado’s Fifth Congressional District is a picture of soulless politics and in microcosm of a national GOP headed for a November electoral disaster: persecute and marginalize family-man conservative heroes and celebrate cocktail-party mediocrities. Downplay decades of proven commitment and up-play glowing promises and smooth talk. Talk at campaign stops about what a great conservative and loyal Republican and fan of Ronald Reagan you are; talk on the phone about how useless Doug Lamborns are and how we’ll never be a winner party again until we are rid of them.
The nation was born maieutically, by midwifery, by men like Bob Schaffer and Doug Lamborn. Men like their critics may have won a few short-term victories in government, but their brief time passed and they ended their average lives as outsiders. The Grand Old Party was similarly born in the crucible of antebellum anti-slavery politics, where Abe Lincoln got scalded just as viscerally and irrationally and faithlessly as genuine Lincoln-style conservatives are getting scalded in today’s version of the party Lincoln founded.
Let us not dissemble: the GOP, both nationally and in Colorado, is far enough along its leftward path that only a stark electoral drubbing will awaken the collective party senses and once again create the political and cultural atmosphere where a new Reagan can rise to prominence and conservatives can re-take the party hierarchy, where a party and a nation once again remember the virgin birth – both the one in Bethlehem and the one in Philadelphia – and where both pledge anew, for the defense of a great set of eternal propositions about God, man, and government, not only their words during election season, but their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
Dave Crater
The author can be reached at crater@wilberforcecenter.org
The GOP picture in Colorado’s 5th congressional district is a picture of soulless politics and in microcosm of a national GOP headed for a November electoral disaster.
Editor: So warns Dave Crater, Air Force veteran, CU law student, and founder of the Wilberforce Center for Colorado Statesmanship. Here’s the article developing his logic for that somber verdict:
Loser GOP is Short on Doug Lamborns
“ ‘Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth…’ Just what does that mean? Not simply that they introduced something onto this continent. If so, where was it before they brought it in? And how could it be called a new nation if merely transferred? No, ‘bring forth’ cannot mean anything like ‘introduce from abroad.’ Lincoln is talking about generation on the spot.
The nation is rightly called new because it is brought forth maieutically, by midwifery; it is not only new, but newborn. The suggested image is, throughout, of a hieros gamos, a marriage of male heaven (‘our fathers’) and female earth (‘this continent’). And it is a miraculous conception, a virgin birth. The nation is conceived by a mental act, in the spirit of liberty, and dedicated (as Jesus was in the temple) to a proposition. The proposition to which it is dedicated forms the bridge back from Lincoln to Jefferson, from the Address to the Declaration…” — Garry Wills, Inventing America (Doubleday, 1978)
This is unfashionable language. So earthy; so full of male, female, procreation, and midwifery; all a very messy and laborious and old-fashioned business.
It is not even fashionable among many who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and the hieros gamos that produced it. A growing number of such, at least among educated elites, get nervous any time biblical language is used to describe the American founding or the continuing presence and spiritual power of American influence in the world. “Politicizing the gospel,” the accusation goes, or as the misguided authors of the recently published Evangelical Manifesto put it (www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com), the gospel should not be “confused with or reduced to political categories such as ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’”
Translation: we want Christian engagement with culture and politics, but we are tired of evangelicals being so widely identified as political conservatives. This compromises the gospel. We want civility. We want political choices to be more separate from theological choices so that more political liberals feel more comfortable being around us.
We want a definition of “Evangelical,” which should be spelled with a capital “E” like every other religious option is, that is politically bigger-tent. We want to be more inclusive. We are tired of controversy.
Nice stuff, not unlike the “reach across the aisle” language and strategy on which GOP presidential candidate John McCain has built a lucrative national career. Who doesn’t want unity? Who doesn’t want the two sides of the aisle to come together once and for all? Who doesn’t want to be credited with having helped make the group hug happen? Why trouble ourselves with the laborious midwifery of an unfashionably conservative political heritage when an easier, more comfortable route is, at this hour as at every hour, so readily crafted and so ripe for the taking?
If Christ had followed this sure-winner public relations strategy, he might not have gotten himself crucified.
I’m not the only one with a better idea. GOP candidate for U.S. Senate and all-around Republican good guy Bob Schaffer captured it nicely on Saturday in the best applause line of a highlight-laden speech to the Colorado GOP state assembly: “Now, if we’re going to compete successfully against Democrats, we need to have a little bit of introspection and look at our own party as well. We could sustain a little bit of reform within the Republican Party, too. I’ve always believed that principles matter most, and I believe that it’s important even to take on leaders in our own party who have a tendency to drift from those principles that have defined our country.”
Ouch. The normal Schaffer grace, but a shot between the eyes to Republican leaders, all the way up to President Bush, whom Schaffer went on to tell the delegates he had publicly opposed on legislative disasters like No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold, which (my comment here, not Schaffer’s) is now hurting McCain’s campaign as badly as it is hurting free speech across the fruited plain. Note this is not any vague Scott McClellan sellout to the left; it is principled criticism from the right.
Schaffer’s simple truth was red meat for a leadership-starved Republican grassroots. Other ringers from Schaffer included a more-sincere-than-usual-from-Republicans-these-days appeal to the “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” of the Declaration – which went nicely with Mrs. Schaffer and the five Schaffer children, three of whom are training to become military officers, standing next to him – as well as a refreshing acknowledgement of the Almighty as the source of all good political things. It was a reference, given it is a piece of political theology almost always heard from conservatives and not liberals and which is the foundation of conservative political philosophy, that might have been a bit too flag-wavey to keep the signers of the Evangelical Manifesto smiling.
Watch Schaffer’s entire speech here.
But this is prologue. I imagine Schaffer would agree that good speeches are nice in their place and discomfitingly rare in today’s soul-starved GOP, but the energy and heart of the Grand Old Party and the larger American conservative movement are forged and proved on the ground, when and where nobody’s watching and applauding, and when the principles we claim to espouse are given flesh and blood by backbone in the trenches.
The real question is not whether we can find someone with the combination of guts and talent to give the speech Schaffer gave. The question is whether and where we can find a few more with the spinal stiffness to argue and vote to implement these sentiments in public policy, to do so even when nobody’s applauding and flattering, and to offer no weak, self-doubting apologies or excuses in the process.
Tough stuff. Not nearly as nice as big-tent John McCain Evangelical Manifesto inclusiveness. But as one of the nation’s – indeed, the world’s – favorite evangelical preachers, one who didn’t sign the Evangelical Manifesto and probably wasn’t invited to, is fond of saying, “Hard preaching makes soft people.” Converse: soft preaching may make for good media, but it makes for exceedingly hard hearts. Both may win you an election and get you out of short-term controversy; both will, whether you are an individual or a political party, eventually cost you your soul and your long-term political influence.
Fortunately for restless Colorado conservatives everywhere who don’t just say they agree with Schaffer that principles matter most, but so believe in their heart of soft hearts, Schaffer is not alone in holding high and proud the banner of principled political conservatism. Amidst the back-stabbing, ambition-soaked, slander-drenched, platitude-heavy, hard-hearted Republican atmosphere in El Paso County is an honest and sincere man with real convictions who happens to be a U.S. Congressman.
Name, Douglas L. Lamborn. Born 1954, Leavenworth, Kansas. Schaffer-like, has both a wife and five children. Bachelor’s in Journalism, National Merit Scholar, Juris Doctor, University of Kansas. Colorado House of Representatives, 1995. House Republican Whip, 1997. Colorado Senate, 1998. President Pro-tem, 1999. Impeccable conservative voting record at the state level. U.S. Congress, 2006. House Armed Services Committee, 2007.
According to Congressional Quarterly, through the August 2007 recess, Mr. Lamborn actually did what every Republican candidate for office tells party regulars he/she will do if elected: he voted against the Democratic agenda in the U.S. House more than any other Republican (“CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch,” Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007).
One of five members of Congress – that’s 5 out of 535 – to receive a 100% rating in 2008 from the Club for Growth, perhaps the nation’s leading free-market think tank and political advocacy group. “True Blue” rating from the Family Research Council for a 100% voting record on issues of social conservatism. That means a) men get to be completely and joyously satisfied with women as their only marital option, b) women not only get acknowledged as fully equal to this high calling but enjoy the same reciprocal satisfaction in their marital options, and c) cute babies get to be safe in the womb again.
In short, here’s a politico with soul and a soft heart. For his labors, he has two GOP primary challengers, both claiming to believe in all the same things Mr. Lamborn has now spent a decade and a half advancing in public policy via the messy and laborious midwifery always required so to advance. Their reasons for running? Lamborn spends too much money communicating by mail with his constituents. We therefore need to elect his opponents to “show real leadership” and “take our Colorado common sense values to Washington” and “reach across the aisle to get things done” and .
Other vague condemnations and abandonments of Lamborn, both explicit and surreptitious, have been common and ugly throughout the Fifth Congressional and Colorado GOP hierarchies. Lamborn’s resulting distrust of the local GOP structure led him to petition on to the August primary ballot instead of going through the normal caucus process.
Bob Schaffer experienced something of the same royal treatment in 2004, when he ran for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate against moderate beer magnate Pete Coors and was opposed by many of the courageous state Republican leaders who, with no alternative candidate and thus no reason this time to have the proverbial finger in the proverbial wind, are now supporting him.
Yet somehow, even according to Mr. Lamborn’s opponent, Lamborn leads his competitors by at least ten percentage points in current polling. Read more here.
Perhaps the grassroots is not as unhappy with Lamborn-style, Schaffer-style principled political conservatism as media pundits and GOP leaders and self-serving challengers would have us believe.
The GOP picture in Colorado’s Fifth Congressional District is a picture of soulless politics and in microcosm of a national GOP headed for a November electoral disaster: persecute and marginalize family-man conservative heroes and celebrate cocktail-party mediocrities. Downplay decades of proven commitment and up-play glowing promises and smooth talk. Talk at campaign stops about what a great conservative and loyal Republican and fan of Ronald Reagan you are; talk on the phone about how useless Doug Lamborns are and how we’ll never be a winner party again until we are rid of them.
The nation was born maieutically, by midwifery, by men like Bob Schaffer and Doug Lamborn. Men like their critics may have won a few short-term victories in government, but their brief time passed and they ended their average lives as outsiders. The Grand Old Party was similarly born in the crucible of antebellum anti-slavery politics, where Abe Lincoln got scalded just as viscerally and irrationally and faithlessly as genuine Lincoln-style conservatives are getting scalded in today’s version of the party Lincoln founded.
Let us not dissemble: the GOP, both nationally and in Colorado, is far enough along its leftward path that only a stark electoral drubbing will awaken the collective party senses and once again create the political and cultural atmosphere where a new Reagan can rise to prominence and conservatives can re-take the party hierarchy, where a party and a nation once again remember the virgin birth – both the one in Bethlehem and the one in Philadelphia – and where both pledge anew, for the defense of a great set of eternal propositions about God, man, and government, not only their words during election season, but their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
Dave Crater
The author can be reached at crater@wilberforcecenter.org
Report from the Republican State Convention
by: NEWSMAN
(Finally, someone with a report from the convention - promoted by David/ Colorado Pols.com)
This years convention in Broomfield was a treat. It got off to a good start, and stayed on schedule most of the day, until, the end when we were a few minutes ahead of schedule.
The keynote speaker Mitt Romney, hammered home the differences and contrasts between Barack and John McCain. Barrack would sit down and hold talks with the worlds largest sponsors of terror, John McCain would sit down with Americas allies, the best chance for a safe and stable world is a strong United States.
Mitt got the longest loudest standing ovation of the day, just slightly more than Bob Schaffer, who gave a rousing flawless speech.
The more I see and hear Bob Schaffer, the more I like him. He will not be a Senator that can be criticized for supporting a war he or his family is not willing to fight. Three of Bob's five children have chosen to enter Military service in a time of war. All of Bob's adult children are currently officers-in-training. Two participate in ROTC while attending college and another daughter is attending the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
The best presentation of the day had to be the college Republicans, "ten reasons why Hillary supports the College Republicans". (Because they both know how it feels to support unpopular ideas in a hostile environment.)
There was one lone protester with an anti war sign, who was quietly and politely removed, and one guy in an uncle SAM costume who was ruled out of order, ranting about some issue in his home district who was not so gently removed.
The real surprise were the Ron Paulies. Boy are they passionate. Talked to several who were very friendly and polite. The loudest costumes, most tattoos and wildest colored hair award definitely goes to the "Paulies".
At one point a Ron Paul supporter asked the chair for a chance for a Ron Paul representative to speak. The chair, Dick Waddams, put it to a standing vote, and it was overwhelmingly defeated. They politely withdrew after getting their vote.
The feeling in the hall was positive, upbeat, and inspiring. No one downplayed the big job ahead, or what must be accomplished to take back the US House, Senate, and the State of Colorado.
But we know where we went wrong, and what we need to do to correct it.
Now it's time to go to work.
NEWSMAN
Cross Posted at: http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6293
(Finally, someone with a report from the convention - promoted by David/ Colorado Pols.com)
This years convention in Broomfield was a treat. It got off to a good start, and stayed on schedule most of the day, until, the end when we were a few minutes ahead of schedule.
The keynote speaker Mitt Romney, hammered home the differences and contrasts between Barack and John McCain. Barrack would sit down and hold talks with the worlds largest sponsors of terror, John McCain would sit down with Americas allies, the best chance for a safe and stable world is a strong United States.
Mitt got the longest loudest standing ovation of the day, just slightly more than Bob Schaffer, who gave a rousing flawless speech.
The more I see and hear Bob Schaffer, the more I like him. He will not be a Senator that can be criticized for supporting a war he or his family is not willing to fight. Three of Bob's five children have chosen to enter Military service in a time of war. All of Bob's adult children are currently officers-in-training. Two participate in ROTC while attending college and another daughter is attending the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
The best presentation of the day had to be the college Republicans, "ten reasons why Hillary supports the College Republicans". (Because they both know how it feels to support unpopular ideas in a hostile environment.)
There was one lone protester with an anti war sign, who was quietly and politely removed, and one guy in an uncle SAM costume who was ruled out of order, ranting about some issue in his home district who was not so gently removed.
The real surprise were the Ron Paulies. Boy are they passionate. Talked to several who were very friendly and polite. The loudest costumes, most tattoos and wildest colored hair award definitely goes to the "Paulies".
At one point a Ron Paul supporter asked the chair for a chance for a Ron Paul representative to speak. The chair, Dick Waddams, put it to a standing vote, and it was overwhelmingly defeated. They politely withdrew after getting their vote.
The feeling in the hall was positive, upbeat, and inspiring. No one downplayed the big job ahead, or what must be accomplished to take back the US House, Senate, and the State of Colorado.
But we know where we went wrong, and what we need to do to correct it.
Now it's time to go to work.
NEWSMAN
Cross Posted at: http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6293
When Democrats have a majority - Can higher taxes be far behind?
by: NEWSMAN
A tax even some Republicans can support?
Porn Tax Considered As Solution To CA Budget Shortfall
Written by: Doug G. Ware
LOS ANGELES - California state lawmakers are considering an unusual idea to solve the state's huge budget shortfall: Tax pornography.
The idea was proposed by a state assemblyman, and would impose a 25 percent tax on the production and sales of pornographic videos -- the vast majority of which are made in southern California.
It is unknown, however, how seriously lawmakers will take the idea or how the porn business would deal with the new tax. It is likely, though, that porm-makers would simply pass the cost along to consumers by making pornographic materials more expensive.
However, many economists believe that pornography is an industry with inelastic demand -- meaning market conditions typically don't affect consumers' desire for the product. In other words, it is believed that most porn consumers would continue to buy regardless of how much it cost.
A potential economic downside to the tax proposal is that porn producers could leave California to manufacture and distribute videos in other states that don't impose the tax.
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/watercooler/story.aspx?content_id=7276089e-3b07-44e9-9ce4-2cd6e1c31b37
Cross posted at: http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
A tax even some Republicans can support?
Porn Tax Considered As Solution To CA Budget Shortfall
Written by: Doug G. Ware
LOS ANGELES - California state lawmakers are considering an unusual idea to solve the state's huge budget shortfall: Tax pornography.
The idea was proposed by a state assemblyman, and would impose a 25 percent tax on the production and sales of pornographic videos -- the vast majority of which are made in southern California.
It is unknown, however, how seriously lawmakers will take the idea or how the porn business would deal with the new tax. It is likely, though, that porm-makers would simply pass the cost along to consumers by making pornographic materials more expensive.
However, many economists believe that pornography is an industry with inelastic demand -- meaning market conditions typically don't affect consumers' desire for the product. In other words, it is believed that most porn consumers would continue to buy regardless of how much it cost.
A potential economic downside to the tax proposal is that porn producers could leave California to manufacture and distribute videos in other states that don't impose the tax.
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/watercooler/story.aspx?content_id=7276089e-3b07-44e9-9ce4-2cd6e1c31b37
Cross posted at: http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
Doug Lamborn - Plan for Lower Gas Prices and American Energy Independence
by: NEWSMAN
( - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Lamborn Joins House GOP to Unveil Plan for Lower Gas Prices and American Energy Independence
Congressman Lamborn joined fellow Republicans in unveiling the Republican energy plan to lower gas prices and deliver real solutions to the energy crisis facing America
Following today's press conference on the steps of the United States Capitol, Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) issued the following statement:
"The Republican plan to increase domestic energy production will reduce the price of gas at the pump. We cannot simply rely on foreign nations to supply our energy needs, and we cannot continue the current do-nothing Pelosi plan on gas prices. By tapping into the vast amount of energy resources available in the United States, in an environmentally responsible manner, we can eliminate the Pelosi Premium at the pump. The Republican plan promotes domestic production, clean, and reliable energy sources, and advocates for better energy efficiency through conservation tax incentives." -Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
When Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, the regular grade gas price in Colorado was $2.17 a gallon, as recorded by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). At that time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised the American people a "commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices."
Today, according to the Daily Fuel Gauge Report published by AAA, Coloradans are currently paying an astounding $3.76 a gallon thanks to the Pelosi Premium of $1.59. Unfortunately, this promise has not been kept at the detrimental expense of the American people.
Additionally, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API), "the United States imports more than 65% of its petroleum needs," making it clear the United States is dependent on foreign oil. The EIA also states that gas pump prices are determined by the price of crude oil, refining and distribution costs, and taxes from the federal and state level. Crude oil accounts for 70% of the price, as indicated by API.
Opening energy options in the United States would cut down transportation, refining, and, most importantly, crude oil costs accrued with importing foreign oil. This plan not only increases our American-made oil supply but will take pressure off demand in order to cut gas prices.
http://lamborn.house.gov/News/...
Cross Posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
( - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Lamborn Joins House GOP to Unveil Plan for Lower Gas Prices and American Energy Independence
Congressman Lamborn joined fellow Republicans in unveiling the Republican energy plan to lower gas prices and deliver real solutions to the energy crisis facing America
Following today's press conference on the steps of the United States Capitol, Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) issued the following statement:
"The Republican plan to increase domestic energy production will reduce the price of gas at the pump. We cannot simply rely on foreign nations to supply our energy needs, and we cannot continue the current do-nothing Pelosi plan on gas prices. By tapping into the vast amount of energy resources available in the United States, in an environmentally responsible manner, we can eliminate the Pelosi Premium at the pump. The Republican plan promotes domestic production, clean, and reliable energy sources, and advocates for better energy efficiency through conservation tax incentives." -Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
When Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, the regular grade gas price in Colorado was $2.17 a gallon, as recorded by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). At that time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised the American people a "commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices."
Today, according to the Daily Fuel Gauge Report published by AAA, Coloradans are currently paying an astounding $3.76 a gallon thanks to the Pelosi Premium of $1.59. Unfortunately, this promise has not been kept at the detrimental expense of the American people.
Additionally, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API), "the United States imports more than 65% of its petroleum needs," making it clear the United States is dependent on foreign oil. The EIA also states that gas pump prices are determined by the price of crude oil, refining and distribution costs, and taxes from the federal and state level. Crude oil accounts for 70% of the price, as indicated by API.
Opening energy options in the United States would cut down transportation, refining, and, most importantly, crude oil costs accrued with importing foreign oil. This plan not only increases our American-made oil supply but will take pressure off demand in order to cut gas prices.
http://lamborn.house.gov/News/...
Cross Posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
My Prediction - NO Debates for Lamborn
I see nothing to be gained by indulging these repeat match candidates.
Their campaigns all agree there is no difference on the issues, so what is there to debate?
My advise to Congressman Lamborn would be to wait until after the primary, and debate the Democrat.
Now Crank can debate Rayburn, that would be great political theater.
So it will be NO debates in the Republican Primary for Congressman Lamborn - You heard it here first.
NEWSMAN
The Conservative Voice of CD-5.
Cross posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
More Evidence of the weakness of the Crank Campaign
Jeff Crank was unable to get a majority of voting delegates to agree to vote him onto the Republican primary ballot by acclimation at the fifth CD convention last Friday.
Delegates asked the chairman (Bob Balink) to allow them to vote "abstain" or "non of the above" on their ballot.
Fearing their boy Jeff would lose to "none of the above" I suppose, They were told such a vote would not be counted since no other candidates name was put into nomination.
Hearing no other nominations, the chairman called for a vote to declare Jeff Crank be the nominee of the assembly by acclimation.
Some cried, "yea", but the majority loudly cried, "NO."
This caused a problem for the chairman who then recognized the parliamentarian (Wayne Williams) who offered a substitute motion that nominations be closed.
This was the motion that eventually passed, which then required the chair to declare Jeff the nominee of the assembly without a vote of acclimation by the delegates of the assembly.
When you can't get a vote of acclimation against NO opponent, there is a problem.
NEWSMAN
The Conservative Voice of CD-5.
Cross posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
JEFF CRANK & Me Generation Selfishness
by: NEWSMAN
Former Colorado Senate President John Andrews asks the question every voter in the 5th congressional district should be asking. Why should I vote against my accomplished Conservative Republican Congressman, and what is motivating his vanquished challengers to require a re match?
..."Why dump a proven conservative ... and put another "all about me" contender in his place?..." John Andrews
By: John Andrews
"Republicans lost Congress in 2006, and may lose more seats in 2008, largely because members forgot it's all about the principles, the party, and the country, acting instead as if it was "all about me." Unless I'm missing something, that's also the reason two primary challengers are hounding Congressman Doug Lamborn in Colorado's 5th congressional district this summer.
As a freshman, Lamborn has compiled one of the most stellar conservative records in the US House or Senate, bar none. Club for Growth ranked him in their top 5 out of 535 members in the two bodies. National Journal rates him No. 1 among all House Republicans in consistently voting against Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.
He co-founded the House Caucus on Missile Defense and battled his way onto the diminished GOP side of the Armed Services Committee.
His endorsements for reelection, in addition to the Club for Growth, include National Federation of Independent Business, National Pro-Life Alliance, National Right to Work, Concerned Women for America, Republican National Coalition for Life, and the Minutemen Civil Defense PAC.
Other than that, he has done nothing, earned no one's admiration and support, and put up a big zero for the conservative cause, the state of Colorado, and the people of his Colorado Springs-centered district.
It's hard, therefore, to discern any motivation for the greater good or causes beyond themselves that would be driving ex-Hefley staffer Jeff Crank and retired Gen. Bentley Rayburn to force a rematch with Lamborn after losing to him two years ago.
These are two likable, accomplished, and capable men as best one can tell, but (news flash) we already have a solid Republican congressman in the 5th. So the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate objective reasons why either should displace the honored and honorable incumbent of their own party.
Absent some such reason -- and I've seen none -- the only remaining explanation is such nakedly selfish assertions as "I belong in Congress" or "He's not half the man I am" or "This is my destiny." Gag.
This is the kind of "me generation" thinking that eventually produced rank overspending, gross expediency, incumbency mania, scandal, and in some cases even prison terms for the GOP idealists of 1994 as things spiralled downward toward the voters' repudiation in 2006.
Why dump a proven conservative whose record shows he is not susceptible to any of those things, and put another "all about me" contender in his place?
The sensible decision for Republican primary voters, come August, is to keep Rep. Lamborn right where he is, and encourage Mssrs. Crank and Rayburn to find other outlets for the public service which they unconvincingly claim is their only motive."
John Andrews (andrewsjk@aol.com) is a fellow with the Claremont Institute and a past president of the Colorado Senate.
http://politicswest.com/
Cross posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
Former Colorado Senate President John Andrews asks the question every voter in the 5th congressional district should be asking. Why should I vote against my accomplished Conservative Republican Congressman, and what is motivating his vanquished challengers to require a re match?
..."Why dump a proven conservative ... and put another "all about me" contender in his place?..." John Andrews
By: John Andrews
"Republicans lost Congress in 2006, and may lose more seats in 2008, largely because members forgot it's all about the principles, the party, and the country, acting instead as if it was "all about me." Unless I'm missing something, that's also the reason two primary challengers are hounding Congressman Doug Lamborn in Colorado's 5th congressional district this summer.
As a freshman, Lamborn has compiled one of the most stellar conservative records in the US House or Senate, bar none. Club for Growth ranked him in their top 5 out of 535 members in the two bodies. National Journal rates him No. 1 among all House Republicans in consistently voting against Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.
He co-founded the House Caucus on Missile Defense and battled his way onto the diminished GOP side of the Armed Services Committee.
His endorsements for reelection, in addition to the Club for Growth, include National Federation of Independent Business, National Pro-Life Alliance, National Right to Work, Concerned Women for America, Republican National Coalition for Life, and the Minutemen Civil Defense PAC.
Other than that, he has done nothing, earned no one's admiration and support, and put up a big zero for the conservative cause, the state of Colorado, and the people of his Colorado Springs-centered district.
It's hard, therefore, to discern any motivation for the greater good or causes beyond themselves that would be driving ex-Hefley staffer Jeff Crank and retired Gen. Bentley Rayburn to force a rematch with Lamborn after losing to him two years ago.
These are two likable, accomplished, and capable men as best one can tell, but (news flash) we already have a solid Republican congressman in the 5th. So the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate objective reasons why either should displace the honored and honorable incumbent of their own party.
Absent some such reason -- and I've seen none -- the only remaining explanation is such nakedly selfish assertions as "I belong in Congress" or "He's not half the man I am" or "This is my destiny." Gag.
This is the kind of "me generation" thinking that eventually produced rank overspending, gross expediency, incumbency mania, scandal, and in some cases even prison terms for the GOP idealists of 1994 as things spiralled downward toward the voters' repudiation in 2006.
Why dump a proven conservative whose record shows he is not susceptible to any of those things, and put another "all about me" contender in his place?
The sensible decision for Republican primary voters, come August, is to keep Rep. Lamborn right where he is, and encourage Mssrs. Crank and Rayburn to find other outlets for the public service which they unconvincingly claim is their only motive."
John Andrews (andrewsjk@aol.com) is a fellow with the Claremont Institute and a past president of the Colorado Senate.
http://politicswest.com/
Cross posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
Washinton Post - US Winning War in Iraq - The Iraqi Upturn
by: NEWSMAN
Don't look now, but the U.S. -backed government and army may be winning the war.
Washinton Post
THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war.
While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran.
At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda.
So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."
Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites.
Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans.
It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year.
Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago.
As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.
If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise.
That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City.
When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.
Cross posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
Don't look now, but the U.S. -backed government and army may be winning the war.
Washinton Post
THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war.
While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran.
At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda.
So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."
Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites.
Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans.
It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year.
Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago.
As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.
If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise.
That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City.
When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.
Cross posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)