Denver Post Rips Suthers for "Memo"

Lefty Denver Post objective?????

Gimme a break. The Denver Post has a dog in this fight, its lefty bias.

Suthers obviously saw the Dems railroading a tax increase on home owners and decided to call a scam a scam.

To call the legal services folks at the General Assembly objective is like calling the Denver Post non partisan. Lawyers all to ofen give the opinions their clients seek, and so I don't have much respect for any opinion out of civil service or politically appointed lawyers.

Instead of siding with Ritter, the Post should be demanding a formal opinion from the AG, and it should demand that any tax increase be taken to voters in compliance with TABOR, like it or not.

But the Post is all about ignoring laws it doesn't like, including immigration, border security and TABOR.

If the paper were half way honest, it could increase its circulation and ad revenues by 30% to 50%.

Integrity pays, but at the Post, I guess that's not important.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:59:40 AM UTC

But AS

I don't read the Denver Post, but isn't Ewegan one of their more conservative posters? 

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 13:21:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Er, I mean "columnists":)

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 13:22:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another Skepitc......Another Marooon

David Harsanyai
John Andrews
Al Knight
They are now exposed:
ALL LIBERAL LEFTIES

Where DO you people get these stupid talking points: COLUMNISTS are in the OPINION section AnotSkep. SCREAMING "Liberal Denver Post" is just another silly Repub tactic, it's been exposed, as are you: The Award for TALKING POINTS QUEEN of the day goes to....the envelope Please:  ANOTHER SKEPTIC.

---

by: zeppo @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 13:40:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So..

...are you saying that you don't believe that there is a liberal bias at the Denver Post?

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 14:06:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So...

I don't get why cons are always acting as if having a bias is terrible or hidden.  We all know what positions the editorial boards tend to take.  This includes Pols and LGF and any other alternative forums out there. 

I suscribe to The Snooze, despite my liberal bias.  Why? Because they have MUCH better photographers and more editorial/opinion content.  I'm a junkie for that, which should come as no surprise.

The RMN is obviously much more "right" than the Post, and yet there are letters from time to time claiming that it is liberal!  Man, those writers have fallen off of the left-right spectrum right into the Kool-Aid bucket.

Both papers print a number of opinion columnists of the other persuasion.  I'm grateful for that for the sake of good journalism.

Filter accordingly.

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 16:04:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good point.

I have no problem with a newspaper being biased one way or another.  People will subscribe or not, and I don't want anybody enforcing 'fairness standards' on any form of media.  I'm a big free market guy like that.

I just think it's silly not to admit it.

Case in point wold be CBS before the 2004 election - "Fake but accurate" doesn't necessarily qualify as a high enough journalistic standard for me.

FYI I agree the News is biased to the right. (Not nearly as much as the Post is biased to the left, though).

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 16:11:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sounds like we should go pump gas together and bond

Ha ha!

Actually, I don't patronize that gas station because of the stupid right wing and religious stickers they display.

Not just stickers, stupid ones.

Market dynamics at work!

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 18:54:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Lawyers all to ofen [sic] give the opinions their clients seek, and so I don't have much respect for any opinion out of civil service or politically appointed lawyers."

Recall that Suthers was a "politically appointed lawyer" when he first assumed the AG role.  He's been elected since, however, his Deputy AG's and his Solicitor General (the alleged author of the memo in question) are certainly "politically appointed lawyers."  So, I assume you don't trust the memo either. 

Also, the Governor IS the client of the AG.  The AG doesn't appear to be giving the opinion the client wants.  Of course, if you believe what you read, the AG is back-tracking on his earlier statements to the Gov. that the AG wouldn't comment on this bill.  Did the AG only recently become informed/enamored of TABOR?

---

by: Cuervo71 @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 15:07:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reading is hard,

I'm here to help:

[Suthers'] political intent is obvious in the fact that [his memo] disputes two much longer and far more carefully researched opinions by the Office of Legislative Services. One was written in 2004 at the request of Republican Sen. Norma Anderson and Rep. Keith King, the majority leaders of their respective chambers. It concluded that the property tax freeze would not violate provisions of the 1992 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights...

Legal Services issued a second memo on March 28 of this year that also said the tax freeze "clearly does not constitute a new tax or tax rate increase" and thus did not require a separate vote of the people...

And those were opinions that were asked for.  Suthers decided to inject his own opinion, at the urging of Dick Wadhams, into a political debate, and to do so in an intellectually dishonest way.

Shooting the messenger doesn't work when the messenger's own your own team, and the messenger pits his facts against your...nothing.

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 21:10:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Legislative Legal Services

"To call the legal services folks at the General Assembly objective is like calling the Denver Post non partisan. Lawyers all to ofen give the opinions their clients seek, and so I don't have much respect for any opinion out of civil service"

so how do you explain the opinion OLLS gave in 2004? The only non-partisan lawyers in this entire ordeal have twice found the mill levy freeze to be completely legit.

---

by: Steve Balboni @ Tue May 01, 2007 at 00:05:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is the same guy who...

Had the Post print an editorial on the front page of the Sunday paper two days before the election regarding Ref C.  If their ever was a whoredog it's our Fat Bob.

---

by: guesswho @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 17:22:23 PM UTC

Partisan Legal Opinions

So, is the complaint that Suthers' as the ELECTED Attorney General is supposed to be unbiased and non-partisan.  That would be novel for the elected official to be held to a non-partisan standard and all the appointed lawyers, economists, etc who opine on legislation to be free to grind their political axes.

There are lots of legal opinions produced on legislation, almost all of it is partisan.  Do you think that if any of Ritter's legal advisors told him "Bill, this won't fly.  It's unconstitutional" he would publish those opinions?  No.  Only the (partisan) opinions that support the proposal see the light of day.

The debate between lawyers from different parties is healthy in my view.  Anybody who believes that there is one definitive "right" answer as to whether a proposed law is or is not constitutional given the complexities of TABOR has never been to court.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.  Thomas Jefferson

---

by: bpilgram @ Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 21:19:23 PM UTC