Republicans Smear FASTER, Try To Score Political Points

Here's how it will work...

"The State of Colorado requires politicians to ask the taxpayers every time they want to raise your taxes.  Governor Ritter and the Democrats did an end run around the law and raised your car registration fees astronomically in order to get more money for their spending in the middle of the worst economic crisis in a century!!!"

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 14:57:16 PM UTC

Umm,

"raised your car registration fees astronomically". Astonomically? Got some numbers to go with that assertion, LB? I think "astronomically' is a relative term in this context,no?  

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of mans' oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."    John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: dukeco1 @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 15:19:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not mine.

I'm just telling you how it will be played.  

I agree with you, but it's going to be a pretty effective attack.

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 16:08:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Their" spending

LB, our roads and bridges are for everyone. The fact is that a lot of them are starting to fall apart, and if we don't fix them now it will be much more expensive to do so when the economy turns around.

If you pay your car tags on time, you will likely see around a $40 increase depending on the size of your vehicle. That is hardly astronomical.

When you call everything a tax, and all spending is evil, it's hard to have a rational conversation. The Republicans who were bashing this policy aren't doing it for some righteous crusade. They're doing it because they're trying to take advantage of people's emotions in a tough economic climate.

If this was being used for anything other than fixing our crumbling infrastructure, I would probably agree with you. Is it the smartest move politically? Probably not. But it is an option, and the Republicans in the GA offered no alternative plan once the Governor unveiled his.

But don't make this into some grab for votes through spending. This isn't aimed at any special interest, or any particular interest group. Everyone in Colorado has a vested interest in not seeing bridges collapse and roads fall apart. When you join the haranguing, instead of trying to have a real conversation, it only makes our arguments seem more valid.

---

by: redstateblues @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 16:15:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like I said,

in principle, I agree with you.  But Ritter is weak, people are hurting, and the Dems have been in charge now for a few years.

This is going to play great for the Republicans in 2010.

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 16:40:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with LB

It doesn't have to be "turned into" a vote grab.  It's a natural.

It doesn't matter that for years it was the Republicans who were whining about a lack of money for their construction company friends in the transportation industry, and the Dems who solved the problem of how to create that income stream.

When people get their registration renewals (I just got one for my truck) they're gonna be PISSED.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 17:07:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But Ralphie

You and I have been some of the most vocal critics of Ritter, but you have to admit he did the right thing here.

He's been piss poor in most areas, but this is one of the few where he's actually shown a modicum of leadership. He told the GA what he expected out of the bill, took most of the political risk (we'll see if it ends up hurting other Dems down-ticket next fall) and is standing by his decision. There wasn't a blue ribbon commission, or a "hint hint" attitude--Ritter actually pulled the trigger.

It might prove to be his undoing, and I absolutely agree that it's a natural step for the Republicans to criticize it. That doesn't change the fact that it's a good plan.

---

by: redstateblues @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 19:07:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He should have done it in a second term, if any

Politically, it's a dumb move, it pisses people off when they register their cars, and the amount of money is really a drop in the bucket compared to the state's highway needs.

You know me, I'm a west sloper.  I want to see tollbooths all along I-25.

I don't think that would play well either, but at least the money would be collected where it's spent.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 21:43:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

double edged sword, isn't it?

If he waited until the 2nd term, his opponents would say he isn't doing enough for transportation.  He does it in his 1st term, opponents say he's heavy handed on the fees.

FASTER is a drop in the bucket. But since we had federal stimulus dollars coming that we could use, it made more sense to do it now.

---

by: Car 31 @ Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 21:59:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If politically "it's a dumb move," but

as RSB said, "the right thing" to do, then Gov. Ritter deserves twice the praise: One for doing the right thing, and one for doing it even when it wasn't politically expedient.

Political expedience requires courage to resist: This confusion by people too deeply entrenched in the game of politics, and too inattentive to its substantive purpose (to improve the social institutional arrangements within which we live and through which we thrive), converting political expedience into a moral virtue and political courage into a moral failing, is a trend that we should all strive to curtail.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 15:41:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's why it's potential trouble:

Because he could have gone the route of asking the voters for a tax increase to fix the things that FASTER addresses.  He didn't, and his opponents are going to use that against him, however "noble" of him it was.

Everyone registers their cars (well, most everyone), and nobody likes paying a lot more money than they're used to for the same service.  Nobility is out the window for everyone other than hardcore Ritter folks at the DMV cashier window.

I think it's awesome, mostly because he really struggles explaining why he did this to the middle.

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 15:46:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Laughing Boy

nobody likes paying a lot more money than they're used to for the same service

And that is why it didn't go before the voters for approval.  

When we need revenue for the safety of the citizens, when we need revenue to stop CO from falling deeper into a transportation funding hole, and when we need revenue but your average voter along the Front Range doesn't think transportation funding affects them - well, then leaders should step up and help fix the problem.  

---

by: Car 31 @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:10:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see

The people can't be trusted to decide which services we want in return for how much we want to be taxed.  So someone else will have to make those decisions for us.  Make us take our medicine, so to speak.

That's an interesting point of view.

I've always trusted the people.  

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:31:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If always trusting the people is always a good idea,

we can simply dispense with laws, and police, and armies, and trust the people not to commit acts of violence against one another.

Unfortunately, the real world is a slightly more complex and subtle place, in which even those who are not predators are human, and in which our social institutional arrangements must rise to the task of coordinating and mitigating the imperfections of our humanity.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:40:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, LB,

I disagree with you that it is a politician's job never to offend the electorate. I view government's proper mission as the resolution of collective action problems, in which each constituent is tempted by a local and short-term calculation to pursue a narrow self-interest, but in which all benefit more by enforcing a contractual agreement instead to pursue our long-term collective benefit (which, on average, benefits each individual more in the long run). Given the local and near-term biases of individuals, and the general lack of awareness that these do not correspond to their more global and long-term interests, a politician who refuses to act in ways which anger many of his or her constituents is an irresponsible panderer rather than a faithful servant of the people.

Our Founding Fathers established a representative constitutional republic rather than a simple direct democracy for good reason: The common good is not best served by plebiscite. Sometimes, it is incumbent on leaders to lead.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:13:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Going to voters

... takes too long.  They put it on the ballot in November, it doesn't become law for a month or three after the vote...  And since the legislature only sits until May, there's about 7 months minimum between the proposal and the result.  You can have a small recession in that timeframe.  Or you can enact measures to prevent a small recession from becoming a large one, or a large one from becoming a depression.  You can patch budget holes caused by rapidly changing economic forecasts, saving jobs and keeping our state's roads safe.

I agree that this could be political hay for the Colorado GOP, but this was the right thing to do, and it's perfectly legal under TABOR.

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 15:35:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The battlefields of politics

are littered with the bodies of idealistic, well-meaning people who resisted political expedience.

There is a difference between good government and good politics. Politics comes first.  It takes politics to be able to govern at all. The most successful people in government understand the difference, but are pragmatic enough to find a place in the middle.  They'll trade a lot of good government for a little good politics.

That's why we rarely have good government.

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what you believe if you can't get elected.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:16:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Political realism and political idealism

may be in tension, but they are not mutually exclusive. We all have a tendency to reduce reality to managable terms, and, in the process, usually distort it in various ways. I take an approach which tries to minimize that distorition:

First, identify the ultimate goal. If a political candidate makes the mistake of identifying winning an election as the ultimate goal, then they are a poor candidate in my view.

The ultimate goal is contributing to the improvement of our social institutional arrangements. Winning elections are one means to achieve that goal. Running for office, similarly, may have multiple purposes in service to the ultimate goal, with winning the election just being one of them.

When pursuing that ultimate goal of improving our social institutional arrangements, all realities must be considered, including (but not exclusively) the realities of what it takes to get elected. It is also very important to distinguish between particular perceptions of what it takes to get elected, and the slightly more subtle and elusive reality of what it takes to get elected.

I believe in employing realism in service to idealism, not to win elections, but to improve our social institutional arrangements (winning elections merely being one important vehicle for doing so). Undoubtedly, I am an imperfect practitioner of that art, and will hopefully continue to improve with practice.

My point regarding Governor Ritter's actions contributing to the improvement of our social institutional arrangements but not to his next electoral victory is that, whatever we say of it, we err in the most perverse way to portray it as a moral failing. He kept his eye on the ultimate goal, which may mean losing the next election. If he unerringly compromised the ultimate goal in service to one means for attaining it, that would have been the moral failing.

You're right that there is a balance to be struck: It would not best serve the ultimate goal to squander political capital for small gains, at the expense of many larger potential future gains. It is a subtle and complex calculation. I am loathe to reduce it, or those who make it, to a simplistic caricature which overemphasizes one or the other consideration (making decisions to get or stay in office, v. making decisions to do the most good while in office or in pursuit of office).

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:33:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You like to write, but you don't like to read

I never said SAFER was a moral failing.

I said it was stupid politics.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 16:53:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I never quoted you as saying anything else.

I was amalgamating several discussions, some of which involved the conflation of ignoring political expedience with moral failing. Since your response to my original post making the distinction was a general refutation (not of that specific point), I felt that this conflation was being implicitly carried forward.

By the way, Ralpie, you could probably use new ways of talking about the length of my posts (you used "can't say good morning in two words" three times on three separate occasions!), so I thought I'd toss out a couple of suggestions:

"By the time you finish shouting a warning to someone, you're shouting it to them at the morgue."

"The Sphinx's riddle can be updated to ask 'what walks on four legs, two legs, and three legs all in the span of time it takes to read one of Harvey's posts?'"

I'll post new ones as they come to mind. Cheers.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:21:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When you learn to say "good morning" in two words

I'll quit pointing out that you can't.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:25:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That makes a lot of sense.

Kind of like saying "you are writing in English" every time I post. I just thought that, if you were going to keep repeating the same acknowledged (and not particularly interesting or relevant) fact, you might like to at least be able to repeat it in more interesting ways.

Like, "the great thing about SH's posts is that when he writes about the future we read about history." Or, "SH is like a monkey clattering away at a key board, relying on random chance to eventually produce something coherent." Or, "Harvey's posts are like the Great Wall of China: Long, meandering, and, in the final analysis, completely useless." (Ouch! That last one hurt!). It just seems a shame to have to rely on the same unimaginative phrase over and over again.

(I'm not sure why you think that the purpose of any of my posts is to say "good morning," or by what misfortune you never learned the difference between "don't" and "can't," but that's another story).

Funny, though, how form always becomes the topic when someone is determined to "score points" and realizes that they can't score them on the substance of the matter.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 18:44:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're the one who took the thread in the "good morning" direction, Steve.

And by the way, I do know the difference between "don't" and "can't."  And I chose the right word.

Someone who answers a criticism about verbosity by being even more verbose obviously "can't."

You say things your way, I'll say things my way.  You're the one who is going to have to learn to connect with voters.  I'm not running for anything.

If you think you're going to have a half hour to get your ideas across to each voter who answers the door when you're walking precincts, then you have a lot to learn about campaigning.

But it's best that you learn that on your own.  It'll stick better.

Since you seem to like to have the last word, it's all yours.  This is my last post in this thread.


Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 20:21:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very kind of you.

1) Let's start with clarity of thought and expression, since you decided to defend the use of "can't" as the statement of a literally accurate truth: I responded to your first or second use of the "good morning" quip by posting "Good morning, Ralphie" (I think it's fair not to count the use of your name as a salutation against the word count). I have also posted numerous one and two word posts. "Can't" is an absolute, indicating something which will never occur. The fact that it has occurred is a definitive refutation of its accuracy. Of course, I understand, as does everyone else, that your real intention in the use of "can't" was to score a rhetorical point, not to achieve literal accuracy. And that would have been the smart answer: "Of course it's not literally true that you 'can't'..., but I was simply using a turn of the phrase to express the obvious truth that you don't...." No harm, no foul.

2) Everything is in how you choose to frame it. Someone who answers a criticism about always choosing to give comprehensive responses on this blog by continuing to choose to give comprehensive responses on this blog is someone who has demonstrated that they prefer to give comprehensive responses on this blog, nothing more, and nothing less. It is strong evidence of a preference, and no evidence of ability. What my abilities are not is a far more difficult thing to demonstrate, especially given that it requires proof of a negative (that I am unable to write more concisely). Of course, again, I have already proven the assertion of inability wrong, by having on numerous occasions posted very short and concise statements (it is typical of people with fixed beliefs to only perceive the evidence that reinforces their beliefs, and not the evidence which refutes their beliefs). It is simply the case that I more often post comprehensive statements. That is my preference.

Relatedly, it is quite the logical (and arrogant) fallacy to assume that someone who declines to follow unsolicited advice you have offered is unable to follow the advice you have offered. Again, you are unable to distinguish choice from ability.

3) Your statement that "if [I] think..., then I have a lot to learn..." is, generically, the following statement: "If you think that (insert random assumption here), then (insert consequence of random assumption)." For example, "If you think that you can molest children and not be reviled, then you have a lot to learn about being accepted in decent society." You've never seen me interact with voters, or with anyone, other than as a poster on a political blog. People generally write differently from how they speak, interact differently in live conversation from how they express themselves in a situation in which they can compose thoughts without interruption, and, in general, use different media differently.

4) You're right: I brought up the "good morning" thing, because I had regretted letting it slip by without comment the third time you used it (though you did decide to switch the topic to one about my verbosity, away from the substantive topic at hand). So I grabbed hold of your next (inevitable) comment about the length of my posts to give the response I would have liked to have given then. Not a perfect set-up, but I really did enjoy offering alternative ways of saying it.

5) Most importantly, this has nothing to do with the length of my posts, my campaigning abilities, the virtues or defects of doggedly refusing to legitimate a completely hollow and insubstantive issue, or any of the other superficial occasions you have grabbed hold of to offer me your advice and wisdom. This is simply a case of personal antagonism being expressed whenever and however the opportunity arises. That's okay: Personal antagonism is one of the realities of the world with which anyone is confronted, and someone running for office not least of all. I enjoy mulling it over, tasting the particular variety of antagonism that you are serving, and playing with it. You, and others, for ideological or personal reasons, will be trying to define me, trying to label me, trying to throw whatever you can and see what sticks. "Verbose" is an easy one: I am that, when the forum is conducive to it. It is part of a total package, one which voters who care about things that matter will be eager to embrace.

We're all in this story together: Let's make sure that we write it well.
http://www.steveharveyforcolor...

---

by: Steve Harvey @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 22:22:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me correct myself

I wrote SAFER.  I meant FASTER.
I drank decaf this morning.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 17:34:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Colorado voters are smarter than that

They get that TABOR is causing budget issues and is tying all politicians' hands.  They saw Owens and the Republicans struggle and complain about the lack of funding, and can see how disingenuous it is that they would use this to score political points.

Furthermore, if the Republicans want to make an issue out of this, they need to get their leaders out there saying something.  Until Penry, McInnis, Wadhams, et al. start talking about this, Colorado's moderates are going to see protests on this issues as no mare than the rantings of the Teabaggers that were roundly criticized in April.

"It takes no compromising to give people their rights. It takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no survey to remove repressions."
- Harvey Milk

---

by: J-Rock @ Sun Jul 05, 2009 at 20:56:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not a question of being smarter.

It's a question of them wanting Ritter to work within the framework of TABOR, and not skirt it with bullshit like a "tax freeze" and raising everyone's auto registration rates.

To be fair, though, I'll rejoice in anything that makes him politically vulnerable.

This does.

If you want to refer to everyone who doesn't like tax increases as a 'teabagger' you're going to lost a lot of the middle you desperately need in this State.

---

by: Laughing Boy @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 02:11:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Owens didn't just complain,

and he didn't raise fees.  He went out and threw his weight behind proposals like Referendum C that went before the voters.  And the voters responded positively.

For some reason the Democrats in power don't seem to trust the voters to give them the same support.  Aren't the Dems the ones everyone loves now?  Ritter may have taken what appeared to be the easy way out to raise funds, but the people aren't fond of the appearance of autocratic grabs for their cash.

With the budget shortfall the state is having right now you could certainly put forth a legitimate argument for raising taxes to make up the difference.  That Governor Ritter hasn't done so says a lot about how little political capital he has to work with, even with a fully Democratic State House.

---

by: cologeek @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 03:50:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ritter wishes

he could just propose a constitutional amendment and get it passed to fund an important project. If he had that kind of clout with the voters, then he'd be cruising to a second term and he could probably get them to vote yes on whatever else he wanted.

Unfortunately, he's already proved incapable of getting a tax increase passed--Amendment 58. An increase, I might add, that was on oil companies, and would have gone to higher education. If he can't get that passed in the best Democratic year in recent memory, then there's no way in hell he can get an amendment passed.

I think it has everything to do with Ritter, and very little to do with the Democratic brand--which by all accounts seems to still be voter's preference. With Ritter's selection of Bennet, a lot of 2010 is going to be a referendum on Ritter as Governor. I'm sure that's how the Republicans will be trying to frame it at least. Most of it will be decided by the economy though--if things are good, then Ritter and Dems win; if things are bad, it's 1994 all over again. At the very least it's going to be an interesting election in 2010 in Colorado and all over the country.

---

by: redstateblues @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 07:09:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As posted above...

Going to voters in a situation like this is too slow.

With Ref. C there was a looming budget crisis - foreseen, but not yet to panic mode.  This recession is much worse, and we're way beyond our ability to postpone a reaction until next year.

The Democrats can turn this into an "I Told You So" moment if the Republicans keep going at them on the issue.  "We Told You That Our Government Could Not React To A Crisis If It Had To Ask Taxpayers On Every Financial Decision.  We Did The Best We Could To Save The State From Fiscal Disaster, But It Wasn't Good Enough To Save (Insert Program Here)."

"We're below sharks and contract killers." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), speaking on Congress's 9% approval rating

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 15:42:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I love the nanny state signs!

Never has Freud been so proud.

If a caretaker has to ask the child if he wants to be saved from danger, explain how it's going to be done, and why it should have already been done thus, constituting an emergency, things would be get bad.

Veruca Salt (R) needs a nanny who will take the initiative

So Republicans, keep up the crazy talk and blanket, pouty answer of "NO! I want it naaaooowwww!!!"  

This blog is your blog, this blog is my blog

---

by: sufimarie @ Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 01:40:32 AM UTC