We don't know how smart this really was, from The Spot (a Denver Post property):
Senate Republicans Monday night said they found one industry whose tax break they actually were OK with eliminating: newspapers.
Newspapers are not subject to sales tax, and eliminating the exemption would result in more than $7.3 million in revenue annually to the state. Newsprint and printer's ink also is exempted, costing the state $3 million a year.
Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, cited a recent editorial in The Denver Post that supported the removal of some exemptions and credits and opposed others. Cadman said he wanted to make sure industries were equally "sharing the pain," and he offered an amendment to remove the sales tax exemption on newspapers.
The amendment, though, was not limited to the Post and would have affected any newspaper.
"Here we are targeting little industries across the state," Cadman said, when "one significant corporation" gets a tax break worth millions...
The Post'sTim Hoover was nice enough not to mention that his paper's parent company just filed for bankruptcy, having barely survived an economic downturn that claimed Denver's other newspaper. Before you even get to the folly of attacking the same media you rely on to get your message out, there's a pretty big jump from the (un)profitability of the Denver Post as compared to, you know, Coca-Cola. A bit of a value judgment being made as well, which is why we're talking about a few percent of the billions given away by the state in tax exemptions each year.
And no, as much as Bill Cadman might want Colorado Senate News to be the only source available, the newspapers aren't on the list just yet.
The money is in the bank from the Q4 fundraising period (well, unless you're Scott Gessler, that is, so it's time again to present our Winners & Losers from the last quarter of 2009.
Most early polls in any race have not been kind to Democrats, which is not unexpected given the anti-incumbent sentiment nationwide. But as the Grand Junction Sentinel reports:
A new poll shows Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper leading the likely Republican nominee to be the next governor of Colorado.
A Rasmussen poll released Monday showed that the Denver Democrat leads former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis 49 percent to 45 percent.
A month ago, Rasmussen had McInnis in a three-point lead over Hickenlooper the day he entered the race for governor after Gov. Bill Ritter announced he was dropping out.
At that same time, McInnis held a six-point lead over U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who was briefly thought to be the lead contender immediately after Ritter ended his re-election campaign.
The poll said Hickenlooper remained the better-known candidate.
It showed that 35 percent of the 500 likely voters surveyed viewed the mayor very favorably, while 12 percent regarded him very unfavorably.
At the same time, McInnis was viewed favorably by 13 percent of respondents and unfavorably by 14 percent. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent...
We repeat our boilerplate disclaimer about putting too much stock into early polls. Nearly every poll done this far out from Election Day is fairly useless because the average voter doesn't really know any of the candidates.
That said, and especially given what many consider to be Rasmussen's built-in GOP biases, you can't call this entirely insignificant. This is the first real poll on the Governor's race since Rasmussen's snap poll from a month ago, on the day Bill Ritter announced he would not run again, and can't be relied upon as a benchmark; Hickenlooper wasn't even a candidate yet.
And as we've said before -- which most pollsters acknowledge -- the most significant early numbers at this point in a campaign are the "very" favorable and unfavorable ratings. In order to rate someone as "very" favorable or unfavorable, you generally have to have somewhat of an informed opinion. Hickenlooper's 35% "very favorable" rating is not good news for Republicans.
Greenwood Village Republican Walker Stapleton said he's the best choice for state treasurer based on his education and professional background.
The grandson of historic Denver Mayor Ben Stapleton and cousin to former President George W. Bush made a campaign stop at Pueblo County Republican headquarters Saturday.
As treasurer, Stapleton said he'd wisely manage state funds for the Public Employees' Retirement Association and be an advocate for taxpayers.
"I'm proud to say I've never been part of inside politics. [Pols emphasis] I've been involved with building a successful business," the 35-year-old told the small crowd...
As we mentioned a couple of weeks ago, Walker Stapleton has amassed donations from a total of 46 states, a huge network for a state treasurer's race. We don't know how many people can claim no part in "inside politics" after pulling down checks from Christian, NancyandPhil Anschutz, Dan Ritchie, and even cousin Barbara Bush herself, but it makes for entertaining copy in the small media markets.
Here's a slightly more informed take on Walker Stapleton's life on "the outside," from a Washington Post story circa late 2006:
At every wedding, it seems, something happens not according to plan. Expect the unexpected, planners warn. But how many brides and grooms expect a peace protest?
That is what happens when the president shows up for the ceremony in the midst of a polarizing war. About 700 demonstrators marched past the seaside church where President Bush's second cousin was to be married Saturday and then up to the checkpoint guarding the family summer compound to protest the war in Iraq...
For the Bush clan, this was a weekend of family milestones, with a funeral, wedding and christening on successive days. "It's a pretty jam-packed weekend," said one relative who did not want to be named. On Friday, the family marked the death of Grace Walker, the aunt by marriage of former President George H.W. Bush. On Saturday, they celebrated the wedding of her grandson, Walker Stapleton. And on Sunday, they will christen the new daughter of Walker Stapleton's sister, Wendy.
Stapleton, 29, a real estate businessman in Colorado, is the son of the former president's first cousin, Dorothy Walker Stapleton, and her husband, Craig Stapleton, who was a partner with the current president when they owned the Texas Rangers and now is ambassador to France. Walker Stapleton and his father were with George W. Bush working out on Election Day in 2000 when Karl Rove called the Texas governor to warn him he might lose. [Pols emphasis]
Just your typical "local kid makes good" narrative, wouldn't you say? We're sorry to inform you that despite what you may have heard, "George" Walker "Bush" Stapleton was never your paperboy.
President Barack Obama's visit to Denver later this month has some Democrats upset.
The president is headed to Denver Feb. 18 to raise money for Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. Bennet's primary challenger, former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, says the state party should insist the president hold an event for Romanoff supporters, too.
"Many of my supporters were among the most active organizers for President Obama during the 2008 campaign and they remain staunchly behind the president," Romanoff wrote in a letter Friday to state party chairwoman Pat Waak.
"Unfortunately, the current plan of events during the president's visit has sent a clear message: 'Support the appointed incumbent Senator or do not be part of the president's visit to Colorado," Romanoff wrote...
Romanoff was considered a likely candidate for the Senate seat when it came open last year as former Sen. Ken Salazar became Interior Secretary. But Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter chose Bennet, who was superintendent of Denver Public Schools.
Romanoff said in his letter that there is "growing frustration" among Democrats that the party heavyweights are backing Bennet.
Here's what we'll say about this: it remains a fact that Barack Obama is considerably more popular than Andrew Romanoff, and there is a difference between making yourself anti-establishment (good idea) and anti-popular President (much less solid ground). This move is fraught with risk of backlash, of reasonable dissent giving over to Romanoff vs. everybody--as we've said before, if there's no compelling difference driving that rebelliousness, it's going to crash and burn.
While there is a sentiment in the abstract that the Democratic Party shouldn't take a formal position on a primary, that doesn't mean the President can't pick a favorite if he chooses. Ultimately, Obama wants to make sure this seat stays with a Democrat, and if he thinks that Bennet is the more likely one to do that, then his interests lay in supporting him. Disagree as you will, but Bennet is just one of many incumbent Senators Obama will campaign for, and the poll numbers urgently indicate that--here and around the nation--there's no time to lose.
(What a shock. And this has larger implications for Democrats. - promoted by Middle of the Road)
This seat is for sure going to be in play in Nov. He won it with 58% but McCain won it by 1000 votes over Obama. I had the great pleasure of meeting him when he came out to three rallies for Jay Fawcett in 06.
BREAKING NEWS: Congressman John Murtha Dies At Age 77
Posted: 2:42 pm EST February 8, 2010Updated: 2:53 pm EST February 8, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Rep. John P. Murtha died Monday at 1:18 p.m. at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Va.
At his bedside was his family.
Murtha, 77, was chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
The 19-term Democrat was the first Vietnam veteran to serve in Congress. He currently leads House Appropriations subcommittee on defense spending. Murtha has been a representative for Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District since 1974.
We have to believe that the Colorado Springs Gazette'sTom Roeder was at least a little bit embarrassed as he wrote this report:
Every year, El Paso County lawmakers lead legislative lambs to the slaughter: bills so unlikely to pass that they're considered all but dead upon introduction.
The flock has only grown as the mostly-Republican delegation has fallen deeply into the General Assembly's minority.
Many of the measures they offer up as sacrifices on the political altar have changed little, having been introduced for years at every session...
Last week, in one example, Republican Rep. Kent Lambert offered up his plan to have the state guarantee some of its savings accounts by buying gold bars. His bill would have required the gold to be stored at the state Capitol.
"At least I got farther than I did last year," he said with a grin after the measure was executed after a 30-minute hearing in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee...
Colorado Springs Republican Sen. Dave Schultheis, king of killed bills in a 10-year legislative career, says the doomed measures actually accomplish a lot in their brief lives at the Capitol.
One of the bills he has pledged to introduce would ban abortion in Colorado. Born out of a deep Presbyterian faith and support in Colorado Springs, the annually introduced measure makes other lawmakers at least think about the unborn before they snuff out the bill in committee, he said.
"One of the reasons I tend to do this is others stay clear of it," said Schultheis...
Introducing such bills costs lawmakers. General Assembly rules cap at five the number of bills each of the Legislature's 100 members can introduce, with a few exceptions.
That means the bulk of Schultheis' General Assembly agenda could be spent on measures that will never see a vote on the Senate floor.
Now as the article goes on to point out, Democrats are not immune to the practice of introducing silly, time-wasting legislation--we've criticized one such bill this year. But it's Republicans like Kent Lambert and Dave Schultheis who take the art of stupid bills to this level, where it's their primary contribution as a legislator. Particularly troubling is the fact that they are proud of wasting the legislature's time, but in that regard they're unfortunately only accountable to their districts.
As for the part about the number of these kinds of divisive time-wasting bills growing larger as Republicans "fell deeply into the minority"...it's not a coincidence, folks.
(An excellent, first hand account. - promoted by Middle of the Road)
.
As a member of the biggest Third Party in the country, the American Constitution Party, I believe in a lot of the same conservative principles that the Tea Party - 9/12 movement stands for. Or so I thought.
I went to check out the group, and to hear the folks running for the Senate for the two major parties. 5 people competing for the GOP nomination showed up. There was a cardboard cutout of Senator Bennet duct-taped to a chair on the dais, and the moderator announced that Andrew Romanoff had been invited, but declined.
I arrived as they were reciting the Pledge.
About 350-400 attendees.
Average age over 60.
Forum was well-organized.
First speaker was Congressman Doug Lamborn; he took 10 minutes to say he was doing all he could to stop the Obamination of unbounded spending, outlandish taxation and strangling regulation.
It sounded like he enjoyed being one of the 500 most powerful people on the planet, but after 3+ years in office, he couldn't point out even one example of how he had used that immense power to achieve something good.
It sounded like he wanted to keep occupying that seat of power, but still wasn't going to do anything but rail and rant ineffectively against those evil Democrats. Talk about a total waste of a Congressional seat.
.
Today, Senate Democrats responded to the Republicans "plan" to balance the budget and to oppose the budget balancing plan discussed on the Senate floor today with House Bills 1189-1199. Yesterday the Republicans offered an ill-conceived plan to balance the budget which didn't quite add up. Today, Senate Majority Leader John Morse (D-Colorado Springs) addressed it on the Senate floor, as he held up a copy of "Cliff's Notes: Basic Math":
Senator Morse's statement: "Today, I present the Minority Leader with the Cliff Notes version of Basic Math. Because your math is so far off I've gotten you a book on math. And I've gotten you a Cliff's notes version since you are coming at the 11th hour. With great honor I give you this book and look forward to your proposal."
"After reading the Republican budget fix it is quite clear that they can't add or subtract. The budget shortfall is $1 billion. The Republicans proposed a reckless "off the cuff" idea to fire state employees to save $17.8 million. $17.8 million in cuts to solve a $1 billion shortfall. Now they just need to come up with 50 more plans so the math will add up. The problem is their plan doesn't even identify the first $17.8 million.
"The Governor's budget proposal cuts state spending by $700 million. Removing corporate tax credits and exemptions provide the balance of the $300 million needed to balance the budget. It's a balanced approach to serious financial crisis. It preserves as best it can our core values. It protects the most vulnerable of our citizens. It asks everyone to pull together during these tough times. The Governor's plan demonstrates leadership. There's an old saying that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. It's time the Republicans either offer a serious solution or get out of the way."
The Denver Post'sTim Hooverwrites that Josh Penry didn't appreciate getting called out:
"Sen. Morse, thank you for the book," [Penry] said. "Let me remind you of some more recent math. 52 to 48. That was the margin by which the voters of Massachusetts rejected your tired arguments that budget cuts are impossible, and that taxes and fees are the catalyst for economic recovery.
"The math was the same in New Jersey and Virginia, and the math will very soon be the same in Colorado, too."
We think this retort from Penry says a mouthful: about his motivations, that is. It's about as frank an admission as you could ever ask for that electoral posturing is his biggest priority, not good policy. And in terms of a substantive response to the charge that the GOP's 'budget plan' is based on poppycock fantasy math, more or less exactly what we said yesterday?
That's where the bravado ends and the backpedaling begins, folks. Hoover continues:
Senate Republicans now say their figures have been misinterpreted. On Thursday, they put out a statement that said their budget proposal "includes a 0.25 percent reduction in state payroll spending for the current fiscal year, and a 4.4 percent reduction for next fiscal year." They also said the plan "would require Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter to cut the state's $3.2 billion state payroll budget by $19 million for the current fiscal year." Republicans said the plan would save $306 million in the next fiscal year.
Republican staff told reporters that the 0.25 percent figure pertained to payroll.
But by Friday evening, they said that what they meant was that they were calling for a 0.25 percent cut in the state's total general fund operating budget. That's roughly $7.5 billion.
The thing is, nobody 'misinterpreted' anything. As Hoover plainly states, the GOP release cited exactly the "payroll" figures that were deconstructed by Sen. Morse. They were wrong, laughably wrong, and substituting a completely different suggestion a day later does not excuse the original grandstand founded on misrepresentations and bogus arithmetic.
We received an unusual number of messages from under the Dome yesterday about this budget debate. By all accounts, the level of factless acrimony and election-minded posturing is peaking in the legislature this year in a way that few have ever seen. We think the Democrats are doing as good a job as they can responding, but aside from a few quickly-buried posts on The Spot, we're concerned that the full facts--like Morse's shredding of the GOP's math into bite-size pieces, and their feeble backpedaling in response--are not being adequately reported to the public.
And that, we're afraid, is why Penry is so unflappably smug.
Conservative blogger Ross Kaminsky had the opportunity recently to vapidly genuflect tointerview Senate candidate Jane Norton. It's kind of long, but we wanted to make sure you didn't miss this insightful passage:
[S]he noted that the word "education" is nowhere in the Constitution and that she has proposed eliminating the federal Department of Education. I wholly support that proposal, not just because the Dept. of Education is unconstitutional, but also because it is arguably one of the least effective parts of government on a per-dollar basis.
I asked Jane Norton what she thought of the Tea Party movement. She said that she thought it was perhaps the most exciting political development of her lifetime [Pols emphasis] and that it is exactly what the country needs...
Okay, stop there. Jane Norton, born in 1955, thinks that the "Tea Party" movement is, let's make sure we've got this straight, "the most exciting political development of her lifetime?"
Because during Jane Norton's lifetime, we've had some pretty exciting political developments: there was the civil rights movement, for example--maybe not terribly exciting for Norton, apparently not at all for the "Tea Party" themselves--there will be some disagreement on that one. But what about the election and re-election of Ronald Reagan, fellow Republicans? That wasn't politically kind of exciting? Or the fall of the USSR? The 1994 Republican Revolution? Clinton's impeachment? 9/11-inspired electoral triumph in 2002? Just doesn't seem like a very objective statement, does it?
Don't get us wrong, we know this is nothing more than a throwaway line, to be thrown away as fast as the "Tea Party" itself will be by Norton as soon as she's no longer sweating a primary challenge. It just kind of struck us, like "abolishing" the Department of Education, or agreeing that the federal government has "no place" in health care, not to mention that stuff about Obama caring more about "terrorist rights" than Americans...as something Sarah Palin would say.
Disclosure: I am working with Coloradans for Financial Reform, a coalition seeking to rein in reckless and abusive Wall Street in investment, credit card and mortgage practices that are hurting everyday Coloradans.
KUSA, KCNC and KMGH (probably Fox 31, too, but haven't been able to confirm) is airing a horrifyingly misleading ad about financial reform from a sketchy outfit called (ironically enough) the Committee for Truth in Politics. Denver isn't alone--it's supposedly running in 35 markets around the country--and it's a BIG buy here through February 11.
Rasmussen released the results of a new Colorado Senate poll Friday, and the news is particularly bad for incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet. According to the telephone survey, Bennet now trails likely Republican nominee Jane Norton by 14 points, 52%-37%. Norton's lead is up two points from January's Rasmussen poll, which showed her with a 49-37% lead.
Making matters worse for Bennet, his Democratic Challenger, former Speaker of the Colorado House Andrew Romanoff, seems to be making a push in the Rasmussen poll Romanoff trails Norton by just 7 points, 45%-38%.
And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. People who could not even spell the word "vote," or say it in English, put a committed socialist idealogue in the White House, name is Barack Hussein Obama.
Presumably, he means all sixty-nine million, four hundred fifty-seven thousand of you. And didn't we try a "civics literacy test" in this country during the Jim Crow era? We read in history class that didn't work out so well, but Tancredo has gotten nostalgic for 'the good old days' before.
(Interesting discussion. There are several counties in Colorado with larger populations than the entire state of Wyoming. - promoted by Colorado Pols)
From the NYT:
The White House fired back this morning at a move by Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, who placed a "blanket hold" on dozens of President Obama's nominees awaiting confirmation before the Senate. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...
Old topic, over and over. Nothing to do with "democracy." Senators from teeny-tiny states, like Wyoming (or Alabama), thwart the votes and sentiments of millions of voters in states perhaps 60 times their size (California).
When fundraising numbers for Colorado's U.S. Senate candidates were all announced earlier this week, it continued a rabid conversation about what individual reporting numbers mean for each campaign. Less discussed, but no less important, is whether or not each campaign is raising enough money just to keep the lights on.
As we've said before, fundraising reports are normally a reliable indicator of potential electoral success, because most large donors (people that give at least $500 to a candidate) write checks to the candidate that they believe is most likely to win.
But the other reason that fundraising is so important is for very fundamental purposes: You need a lot of money to both support a statewide campaign and to get your mug on television. It's no secret that the candidate who does best on TV is often the candidate who ends up winning the election, so an effective campaign has to be able to pay for its day-to-day operations while also saving as much as possible (70-80% is a general rule of thumb) for television.
Obviously, a U.S. Senate race is a costly affair. In 2008, Democrat Mark Udall outspent Republican Bob Schaffer $11.7 million to $7.4 million. Now that the fundraising reports for the 2010 batch of Senate candidates are available, we thought it would make sense to look at just how much money they are going to need just to fund their campaign. The answers tell us a lot about which candidates are in a position to win, and which are just treading water right now.
As so many of you predicted, the 2010 election season is now in full swing on the proxy battlefield of the Colorado General Assembly. There are a number of in-points for today's discussion, we'll start right off with gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper's remarks when asked about the budget yesterday--as reported by The Spot:
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, who is running to become governor, in radio appearances today declined to to take a stance on Gov. Bill Rittter's push to elminate select tax breaks for businesses.
"Here is what I told the governor," Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said. "'When I'm mayor, and I'm in the middle of trying to work through the budget, the thing I hate is having other elected officials come in and tell us what we should do and what we shouldn't do. And there is going to be a long campaign. I'll have plenty of time. Let's let them get through this."
Republicans have hammered at Hickenlooper for declining to state a position on Governor Ritter's proposed revenue increases...
"Mayor 'Hickenritter' is a formally announced candidate for governor but nowhere to be found on the Ritter tax increase proposals being debated in the state capitol this week," Colorado Republican State Chairman Dick Wadhams said in a prepared statement. "How can the presumed Democratic nominee for governor not take a postion on Ritter's tax increase schemes."
We'll begin by conceding that some people will not find Hickenlooper's answer satisfactory. As has been pointed out about his opponent Scott McInnis for months, you should be able to express an opinion on the issues most directly pertinent to the office you're running for.
But we'll also say this: Hickenlooper's answer is more thoughtful, and more legitimate, than that provided by his opponent on the same subject. It's a most ironic attack coming from a party whose candidate for governor has been lampooned, by Democrats as well as editorial boards around the state, over truly silly evasions on his plans for the state budget. It's a pretty astounding turnaround for McInnis to 'urge' Hickenlooper to take any stand on the budget after not only failing to articulate his own alternatives, but declaring it would be 'at least a year' before he can do so.
We read in this same article that McInnis is urging Hickenlooper to sign on to his letter opposing wholesale the suspension of a few targeted tax credits that have been proposed to balance the budget this year. This illustrates another very important difference--Democrats have not actually claimed that McInnis never talks about the budget: more precisely, they say he throws bombs from the sidelines when politically convenient, criticizing this line item or defending that exemption, but dodges the responsibility to provide a workable alternative.
And "Exhibit A" for 'no workable alternatives' is front and center in today's Denver Post:
It seems that much of the suspicion surrounding Tom Wiens' bit of ambiguity concerning Q4 was more than justified. Here's a snippet from CQ Politics posted yesterday afternoon: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/ey...
Former Colorado state Sen. Tom Wiens (R) was the source of almost nine out of every 10 dollars that went into his U.S. Senate campaign in late 2009.
Wiens' campaign said in a Feb. 2 release that it raised $728,418 through the end of last year, "which included contributions of over $188,418 and a candidate-provided loan of $540,000."
It turns out that the lion's share of Wiens' $188,418 in contributions came from Wiens himself.
Wiens' full campaign report, now available in the Senate's public records office in Washington, D.C., disclosed that he made personal donations of $101,250 to his campaign on top of the $540,000 loan. So Wiens actually provided $641,250 of personal money to his campaign, or 88 percent of his overall campaign receipts.
The $101,250 contribution came in six installments: $2,400 on Nov. 16, $32,600 on Nov. 16, $25,000 on Nov. 30, $20,000 on Dec. 2, $16,000 on Dec. 23 and $5,250 on Dec. 31. Wiens made the $540,000 loan on Dec. 31.
Wiens' report, which was not online as of Thursday, said that he raised $87,169 from individual donors (other than himself).
Not only does Wiens have a bit of an embellishment problem, he still has to supplement himself above and beyond his own candidate loan, footing the bill for nearly nine out of every ten campaign dollars that clink in his coffer. For a man who has more than a few monetary "issues" in his past, it's only a natural act in Wiens' pecuniary theatrics. Is he really the sort of candidate Republicans want to face Bennet in the fall, considering his shady dealings in the past and mendacious Q4 numbers?
Is it just me or was this a very long week? I need to decompress--feel free to join me.
I had the amazing opportunity to see this group in a small auditorium at my university. I had chills up my spine for two and a half hours straight. Enjoy.
"Obama says he's not a Bolshevik, and he says he's not an ideologue. That leaves one other possibility, he's an idiot, a full-fledged idiot if he's not an ideologue and he's not a Bolshevik."
State Rep. Ellen Roberts isn't trying to pick on anyone with her health-insurance bill this year, she said.
But critics have targeted Roberts' bill for an early death.
It faces long odds Thursday in its first committee hearing, but Roberts will argue her bill is necessary to keep insurance costs down for everyone.
House Bill 1154 would forbid the Legislature from putting new mandates on health-insurance companies for a year. That would squeeze out bills to require coverage for birth-control and pregnancy services, chemotherapy and autism disorders.
The trouble, Roberts said, is that insurance costs for everyone rise when patients make emotional testimony before the Legislature and force insurance companies to cover their diseases... [Pols emphasis]
HB 1154 has its first hearing Thursday afternoon in the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. That panel is sometimes used as a "kill committee" for bills disliked by House leadership.
The bill caused a splash late last year when word leaked out of Roberts' and Curry's efforts. Curry left the Democratic Party about the same time and now serves as the Legislature's only unaffiliated member.
Did in fact die today in "kill committee." So to recap, what we had here was a very nasty and combative bill, written by and for the insurance industry, that for reasons unknown was being pushed by one of the GOP's most important state senate pickup hopefuls. We think that in retrospect was a big mistake, if some of the heartless quotes about this bill (bold above, see this post for an industry lobbyist's even more heinous commentary) don't find their way into campaign literature against aspiring Sen. Ellen Roberts, the Democrats aren't doing their job.
As for Rep. Kathleen Curry (I), we still don't understand what possessed her to sign on to this godawful mercenary bill, and very little of her subsequent behavior has made sense to anyone--but if it was to give some kind of bipartisan cover to the "Sick People Should Wait Act," well, fail.
We haven't been the only ones confused by Democrat Andrew Romanoff's complete lack of messaging as to why he was running against Sen. Michael Bennet. From day one, Romanoff has been unable to articulate just what he would do differently if you voted for him instead of Bennet, which has always struck us as a remarkably strange deficiency. "What's your message?" is kind of the first or second question you need to ask yourself when you decide to run for office. If you can't answer that question, well, then you should probably re-evaluate your whole plan.
But while we've been critical of the fact that Romanoff spent the first several months of his campaign completely sans message, we can also acknowledge the fact that he has finally started to figure it out. This doesn't exactly differentiate Romanoff from Bennet, but at least Romanoff is finally starting to say what he would do if elected. From an email sent to supporters today:
Speaking in Pueblo today to more than 100 people from Pueblo and Fremont counties, U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff called on Congress to solve America's health care crisis, save money and save lives.
"If I were in the U.S. Senate today, I'd fight to take the pork out, put the public option back in and remove the health insurance industry's antitrust exemption," Romanoff said. "Congress should put an end to its backroom deals and pay-to-play politics and put the health of Americans first."
Gee, that was easy. It was expensive, apparently, but it was easy. If Romanoff had been doing this from the beginning of his campaign, things might look a lot different for him than they do today.
From a