(As we've said before, folks, hypothetical general election matchups don't mean squat until we get through a primary. It doesn't matter how Bennet or Romanoff would do against Norton, Wiens or Buck, because only two of these candidates can make it to November. - promoted by Colorado Pols)
From Public Policy:
-In the Democratic Senate contest Michael Bennet leads Andrew Romanoff 40-34. Support in this race may end up having to do more with personalities than ideology, as there's no real divide in support along liberal/moderate lines for now. Bennet's up 42-33 with liberals and 40-36 with moderates. Both candidates are pretty well liked by the party electorate. Bennet's approval is a 57/21 spread with primary voters and Romanoff's favorability comes down at 45/15. The one place where there is a clear division is along racial lines. Bennet's up 42-34 with whites while Romanoff has the 42-31 advantage with Hispanics.
For now this is a real race, but it remains to be seen whether Romanoff can compete with Bennet financially and his ability to do so will have a lot to do with whether he can win over the quarter of voters who are undecided. (emphasis added).
Bennet has a huge advantage with primary voters, 57%-21%. Regardless of what happens tomorrow, that's the gap that Romanoff needs to close, and without resources, it becomes a nearly impossible task.
Notice the demographic split: Bennet leads with white voters, 42-34, while Romanoff leads with Latinos, 42-31. Expect Bennet's campaign to play up his support for comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act, in particular, as the primary keeps going.
Last note: Bennet has a lead among both liberals and moderates.
My bottom line: given that the primary seems to be oriented around personalities rather than ideological differences, expect this primary fight to get nasty if Romanoff manages to raise significant funds to get on the air.
(As we've said before, folks, hypothetical general election matchups don't mean squat until we get through a primary. It doesn't matter how Bennet or Romanoff would do against Norton, Wiens or Buck, because only two of these candidates can make it to November. - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Full summary from PPP:
In the Republican Senate race Jane Norton leads with 34% to 17% for Ken Buck, 7% for Tom Wiens, and 10% combined for the rest of the field. There are more Republican primary voters who dislike Norton than there are Democrats who dislike either Bennet or Romanoff. Her favorability stands at 41/26. She leads Buck 39-7 with moderates, but by a much narrower 34-21 with conservatives. Given the quarter of GOP primary voters who dislike Norton and the tepid support for her from some voters on the right is Colorado a state where a Tea Party sort of candidate could become a third major candidate this fall and prove to be a spoiler? That would be interesting.
It's too early to completely write off Buck or Wiens because neither is particularly well known right now. 62% of primary voters have no opinion about Buck and 67% are ambivalent toward Wiens. If they have the resources to become better known their support will improve but 17 points is still a lot to make up. (emphasis added)
Good point about resource management - if that is the question, then Buck is at a disadvantage, though 27 points is an even taller hill to climb. This likely explains the early independent expenditures against Norton.
No ambiguity on the issue of the Army's hotly-contested proposed expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site for gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper--and a clear distinction between himself and GOP opponent Scott McInnis. As the Pueblo Chieftain reported yesterday:
If residents of Southeastern Colorado don't support the expansion of the Army's Pinon Canyon training facility, gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper said Saturday he doesn't support the expansion either.
"With the way (the expansion) was presented, I'm a 'No,' " the Denver mayor said in an interview before the Pueblo Democratic party's St. Patrick Day's fundraiser, held at the Union Depot.
"Unless there is a deal embraced by the residents of Southeastern Colorado that they feel is better for their community, it's hard for me to support it. I don't think the military is so foolish that they want one part of the community to thrive at the expense of another."
Hickenlooper is running against Republican Scott McInnis, who supports the military's position on site expansion...
Despite being an urban mayor, Hickenlooper said he should appeal to rural voters because of his agricultural roots that trace to his grandparents, who were farmers. When he was a restaurant owner, he bought from Colorado food producers.
"What the agricultural community needs is a governor who can be a salesman and who can actually promote their products, and not just in-state. That creates the value of what they produce," he said.
It's rare to find a solution to energy problems that has support from farmers and ranchers, hunting and fishing groups, labor unions, conservation groups, and industry. Yet Coloradoans agree that renewable energy sources such as solar and wind offer important benefits for our economy, environment, and rural communities. In fact, our state is recognized as the national leader in what many call "the new energy frontier." As such, we have a responsibility to seize this opportunity, and do it right from the start.
Poke your head outside anywhere along I-70 and you can feel the power of the wind. Drive across the eastern plains and see acres of crops standing ready to be transformed into next generation biofuels. Stop any Coloradoan on the street and they will proudly tell you that the sun shines 300 days a year in our state. Speak to officials in Logan County and they'll tell you 1/7 of their county tax base now comes from the Peetz Table wind projects. Fly low across the eastern plains and witness the wellheads to the ocean of natural gas below our prairie that will play a critical role in the development of our wind and solar resources.
Embracing this new energy frontier sets the stage for historic opportunities in rural areas of our state that have in the past had limited options for economic growth. It holds the potential of being the most significant job creator we've seen since the oil boom of the 70s-80s.
With caucuses just a couple of days away, the local conservative blogosphere is crying foul over an apparently pro-Senate candidate Ken Buck 'independent' message group's tactics. The details don't really seem all that scandalous, or in any event substantiated by much more than innuendo, but high dudgeon is the order of the day from the Independence Institute's Ben DeGrow:
In short, the Taxpayers for Liberty survey is a dishonest and underhanded scheme implemented by a shadowy group, and its "results" utterly worthless. If only we knew the extent of its reach...
Ken Buck ought to come out and publicly condemn the tactics used by TFL, third parties that are seeking to manipulate the game to his benefit. Were he to pursue that course, I and many others would be impressed by Buck's courage and integrity. The longer he stays silent, though, the more questions will linger about the nature of the relationship between his campaign and this rogue group. And that wouldn't be healthy for Ken Buck or for the Republican Party.
Anyway, DeGrow takes his usual thousand words to essentially relate a he-said-she-said story alleging that this group never mailed Buck's opponent Jane Norton their "candidate survey." Since his only corroboration on that charge comes from, you know, the Norton campaign, it's tough to get overly worked up--and it's harder still to imagine that this one obscure group and their little survey are going to meaningfully affect Tuesday's caucus one way or the other.
No, making a bunch of plaintive noise about some little-known group "playing dirty" (clutch those pearls! Wasn't Norton the one playing dirty last fall?), indeed making the discussion about this group's 'tactics' instead of the candidates, is something we think serves Norton's purposes going into Tuesday more than the 'Taxpayers for Liberty' could ever help Buck.
A Colorado Springs resident claims a state senator who is paying only $500 a month rent for a downtown Denver condo is violating the state's ethics laws.
A complaint filed this week with the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission says Sen. John Morse accepted something of value greater than $50, which was outlawed when voters in 2006 approved Amendment 41.
Morse, a Colorado Springs Democrat and the Senate majority leader, said he has done nothing wrong.
"That is nonsense," he said. "There is no way this is an Amendment 41 violation."
The complaint was filed by Brandon O'Dell, a Republican and a 25-year-old graduate student at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. O'Dell declined to provide information about what led him to file the complaint, who researched it and who wrote it, except to repeatedly cite unnamed "friends."
...Morse faces a tough re-election bid this year, from Republican Owen Hill, and said he believes questions about his living arrangements are politically motivated.
The complaint says the type of condo where Morse is staying rents for around $2,600 a month, which Morse said is "absolutely untrue."
"They are out of their mind," he said. "No one would pay $2,600 a month for a place where they can be kicked out on the weekends. I am basically subletting a room."
As ethics complaints go, this one seems especially thin--nobody's going to think that subletting a single room on weekdays should cost $2,600 a month, and we wouldn't be surprised to find many legislators who represent districts outside Denver have had to get creative to find an affordable place to sleep during the session. Like we pointed out when Rep. Steve King faced his own ethics questions recently, they don't make very much money. It's more than a little possible that you might find, if you look hard enough, some living arrangements substantially more 'creative' than Sen. Morse's, but that's for another blog post.
Combined with the fact that the complaint was initiated by a 25-year-old College Republican who doesn't want to talk about who helped him write it, citing only "friends?" Yeah, you already know very well what the purpose of this complaint is--direct mail glossies and robocalls. They've only got a few weeks, though, before the Amendment 41 commission laughs this one off, so we would expect to see those pretty quickly.
SATURDAY UPDATE: The Denver Post'sDavid Harsanyi did respond, but we think beer-thirty started early at the Post yesterday afternoon. Should have probably just taken his lumps, because this response is, well, it's unusually and notably ridiculous.
The bill gives Amazon an ultimatum. Collect taxes on your site for Colorado or hand over the names of those who do not pay up. If you do not, Colorado can subpoena you for the names and/or fine you 10 bucks a pop. Sounds like "force" to me. But in the interest of peace, I concede, I could have qualified "force" with "try to," as per a Supreme Court ruling. But it's far from a mendacious statement...
Below, you can catch up on what we're talking about if you haven't already: in a column yesterday, Harsanyi asserts that the bill in question "forces" online merchants to collect sales tax. The bill very plainly does not do that, having been exhaustively debated and amended to coexist with federal law. And reaching for the most incendiary terms in one's vocabulary--isn't every law ever passed an 'ultimatum?'--doesn't make this demonstrably false statement any more truthful.
But now that Harsanyi has determinedly picked up the shovel, for God's sake, don't stop him.
I gather most people comprehend while reading. So it would be mind-bogglingly deceptive if I had actually written 'lose' or 'loss' or 'losing' or anything of the sort. My column does not - not once. What I wrote was: "Unfortunately, this meant closing its associates program, which involved an estimated 5,000 jobs.' That statement is true.
Sorry, but there is no way to read Harsanyi's column and not determine that he wants the reader to think 5,000 'jobs' were lost. The sentence Harsanyi cited in his own defense quite obviously asserts that, and his closing paragraph again deplores the idea that the legislature would be "willing to risk the jobs of thousands of citizens for a couple million bucks." For reasons we've described below, Harsanyi's invocation of "5,000 jobs" wildly hyperbolizes the economic impact of Amazon's actions earlier this week--period. We're not sure exactly what Harsanyi thinks he is refuting here, but it's not the point we made.
Original post, which, needless to say, we stand behind completely, follows.
--
The big political story this week in Colorado was Monday's announcement by online retail giant Amazon.com that they are terminating their relationships with "affiliates" located in the state. Conservatives have rallied to Amazon's defense, while Democrats and their allies have reacted with indignation and threatened to boycott the retailer.
The biggest problem we see here is a profound lack of understanding: of what the new state law in question actually does, and what Amazon did in response--and why. And we're sorry to say, that lack of understanding isn't helped a bit by Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi today:
[I]f anyone ever needed an obvious illustration of how government overreach can damage an economy, they need look no further than the Colorado legislature's foolish attempt to wheedle a few extra bucks out of consumers via an Internet sales tax.
After legislation forcing online companies to collect sales tax passed, Amazon.com moved to protect its consumers and long-term interests by severing its ties with Colorado. Unfortunately, this meant closing its associates program, which involved an estimated 5,000 jobs.
Amazon's actions were not surprising, as it did the same in North Carolina and Rhode Island...
Full stop--this is some pretty shockingly false information to find itself printed in the state's newspaper of record, even in an opinion column. Everyone who has followed this issue since House Bill 1193 was being debated knows that the bill does not "force" online companies to collect sales tax. Until federal laws change states can't do that, and that is why the bill merely requires online retailers to report sales to the state and customers. This has been argued out so many times that the only way for Harsanyi to get it this wrong is to intentionally do so.
Next, there's the matter of the 'loss' of "an estimated 5,000 jobs." If you read that without comprehending, you might actually believe that what we're talking about here are 5,000 actual paycheck generating, family supporting jobs. That is exaggeration well past the point of misleading--we're still waiting to see estimates on average income for Amazon's "affiliates," but just about everyone we've talked to who carried Amazon's ads on their site never even earned the minimum amount required for Amazon to generate a check. One person who had an Amazon box on their page has made about five dollars in as many years. Obviously some people may have focused on these ads a little more and done a little better, but to call the termination of this commission program 'losing 5,000 jobs' is just mind-bogglingly deceptive.
The rest of Harsanyi's column doesn't get much more intellectually honest: he doesn't think that the state should be considering "fairness" with regard to Amazon's tax advantage over local retailers--leave that to "toddlers and legislators," he says. Of course, he doesn't want to talk about the tax advantage at all; it's all about their 'far superior business model,' even though the tax advantage is pretty darn central to that 'superior business model' based on how vigorously they defend it.
We have trouble imagining how this story could be more egregiously misrepresented.
(Not the legislature's finest hour, folks - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Rep. Mark Ferrandino's attempts to cap interest rates on payday lending in Colorado stalled Friday in the Legislature, the Denver Post's Tim Hoover reports, as House leaders postponed a vote because two Democrats were absent. The margin could be as close as a single vote, Ferrandino told Hoover.
Who's opposed? House Republicans, who say reining in 300 percent interest rates would hurt the working poor, and some Democrats too. Hoover quotes Greeley Rep. Jim Riesberg, who "offered an impassioned defense of payday lenders" and said banks gouge customers worse with overdraft fees, and Arvada Rep. Debbie Benefield, who said the customers were the problem.
Rep. Debbie Benefield, D-Arvada, said people who have problems with payday loans have bad money management skills. She angrily said the debate was a discussion about "saving individuals from themselves and about the Catholic Church and other crap I'm hearing."
The bill could come up for consideration again next week or might be sent back to committee for a rewrite.
Under White House pressure to act swiftly, House and Senate Democratic leaders reached for agreement Friday on President Barack Obama's health care bill, sweetened suddenly by fresh billions for student aid and a sense that breakthroughs are at hand.
"It won't be long," before lawmakers vote, predicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She said neither liberals' disappointment over the lack of a government health care option nor a traditional mistrust of the Senate would prevent passage in the House.
At the White House, officials worked to maximize Obama's influence over lawmakers who control the fate of legislation that has spawned a yearlong struggle. They said he would delay his departure on an Asian trip for three days-until March 21-and he will go to Ohio next week for a campaign-style pitch for his health care proposals.
The delay gives congressional leaders much-needed breathing room to finish the legislation and nail down support from wavering lawmakers.
Just released today, Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter has officially endorsed Sen. Michael Bennet. From a press release:
Democrats in Colorado are blessed to have two highly qualified men running to represent Colorado in the United States Senate. One is our sitting US Senator, Michael Bennet, the other is our former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff.
I have remained neutral in their primary until now, because I believe both men are gifted and talented public servants of whom Colorado can be proud. However, I have decided to endorse Michael Bennet in this primary. Over the past year, Michael's diligence, determination and dedication to solving problems and moving Colorado and America forward have earned my trust, respect and full support.
Perlmutter and Denver Rep. Dianna DeGette had been the only Democratic members of Colorado's delegation to not take a side in the Senate primary, but of the two Perlmutter's support is definitely more important. Perlmutter's district boundaries include large portions of two of Colorado's biggest and most electorally important counties -- Jefferson and Adams -- and his support will carry particular weight among Jefferson County Democrats who might have been inclined to back Andrew Romanoff.
Today's PPP poll on the Colorado Senate race shows the same trend found in recent Rasmussen polling: Andrew Romanoff does better than Michael Bennet against the leading Republican, Jane Norton. According to a poll pitting the Democrats against the top three Republicans, Romanoff would beat Norton 44-39, while Bennet and Norton would be tied at 43-43. Both Democrats do well against Ken Buck and Tom Wiens.
I would be cautious about declaring Romanoff to be the more electable candidate based on these early numbers though. Bennet has had all the negatives of incumbency- being associated with an unpopular majority party during a recession- without the positives- defining himself positively to the voters on the airwaves in the context of a statewide campaign. If Romanoff is still doing better than Bennet four or five months from now once the voters have started really paying attention the electability argument might carry more heft. [emphasis added]
In other words, there's a built-in bias against incumbents that could vanish once the real campaigning starts. Just as Democrats have been aiming all their fire at Norton (and probably driving up her negatives), so have the Republicans been attacking Bennet (and ignoring Romanoff).
So this poll does show Romanoff has residual goodwill and has left a favorable impression from his years as top Democrat in the House, but it doesn't show how he performs statewide when there's a real campaign against him. And that's coming, whoever the nominees are.
This time it's an op-ed repeating GOP talking points in the Washington Post. How much do you want to bet Andrew Romanoff's biggest regret is having hired this clown:
If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly
By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen
Friday, March 12, 2010
...[The Democrats'] blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November. In the wake of the stinging loss in Massachusetts, there was a moment when the president and the Democratic leadership seemed to realize the reality of the health-care situation. Yet like some seductive siren of Greek mythology, the lure of health-care reform has arisen again...
...Bluntly put, this is the political reality:
First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.
Republicans could probably point to this and say, "That's what we've been saying for nearly a year!" To which, most Democrats would say, "Exactly." (Side note: isn't it sweet how concerned Caddell is with how this will play out for the Democrats?)
When Andrew Romanoff fired Caddell last month over comments the former Carter and Clinton pollster made in a video that was posted by a Colorado pols user, the campaign said:
"Today a video was posted on ColoradoPols, in which Pat expressed views that were completely at odds with Andrew's campaign, his career and his commitment to the environment and to Colorado's working families. Andrew heard those comments for the first time this afternoon and ended Pat's role in the campaign,"
Well, it looks like Caddell is going to do his best to get back at his short-lived employer by writing stuff like this WaPo op-ed. As long as Pat Caddell's name remains in the news, it's a blight on the Romanoff campaign. Caddell has every reason to make sure he stays in the spotlight for the rest of the campaign--after all, if what he wants is to get back at his former boss, this is a great way to do that.
While I have truly enjoyed meeting so many wonderful people, I have come to the conclusion that this is not my year and I will live to fight another day. I am making this announcement now so that our supporters who are attending next week's caucuses will have ample notice to consider involvement with another candidate.
In a three-way Republican primary, we thought Lakey had a shot at winning the GOP nomination (though he had no shot at taking down incumbent Rep. Ed Perlmutter).
(Interesting and generating some comments - promoted by Danny the Red (hair))
Got the press release below forwarded to me by a friend who covers finance stories on a national desk and this just a couple days after an SEIU newsletter about "interest rate swaps." Reading between the lines and taken along with the NY Times article and the recent SEIU newsletter, there are some very serious questions that need answers. These Swaps are exactly what has sent Greece to the brink and are costing cities and states across the nation millions they already can't afford to be losing.
Are banks like JP Morgan rolling in extra profits from Swap transactions at the cost of DPS students, teachers and retired DPS teachers counting on their pensions?
Just what kind of financial wizardry did Bennet and Boasberg do with DPS' funds and what is the condition of the teachers' pension fund? What if any impact does it have on PERA after that merger? Has the DPS School board been kept fully apprised of the financial condition of the district, the pension funds and any losses they're eating after their current and former resident financial geniuses got them into this deal? Do the teachers know?
Who advised DPS on these transactions & what kind of fees were they paid?
"This ban on salt, these people... In fact, in this health care bill... Where is it? Where is it? No, it's in the stimulus bill. I have to look in the right stack. In the stimulus bill already there are tax increases on sugared drinks. In the stimulus bill. It's already there. They've already passed it. Obama's already signed it into law. Everybody thinks this stuff is not going to happen. It's too weird. It's too crazy."
And starting again out in left field...Jane Norrrr-tonnnn.
We've expressed amazement in this space before at Republican Senate candidate Jane Norton's apparent message strategy we dubbed "Out of Left Field" Norton. And we've said before that it sucks to be Norton's spokesperson. You never know what Norton is going to say, or when she might say it, and more often than not, she's not saying something good.
Well, it's happened again. A new video is now online in which Norton tells a Republican Party forum in Colorado Springs that "with regard to Social Security, it has turned into a ponzi scheme."
Why on earth would Norton say this? There are some 600,000 Coloradans on Social Security, with hundreds of thousands more hoping to be able to cash in sometime soon. Norton might even have a valid point in here somewhere about Social Security needing an overhaul, but you don't compare it to a ponzi scheme!
By talking so critically about Social Security, Norton gives the impression to a lot of voters (which will no doubt be clarified in an attack ad down the line) that she does not support Social Security. And that's not a good idea. We all know that Senior Citizens might forget to put in their teeth, but they never forget to vote; and you absolutely don't want to come across as unsympathetic to one of their primary concerns.
Norton's statement would be bad enough if it were just a one-time thing, but if you are a Republican who views her as your best shot at winning back a Senate seat, you've got to be concerned about Norton's complete lack of message discipline and apparent willingness to say anything, anytime. In the last two months alone, Norton has served up a half-dozen or so giant meatballs for her opponents -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to use against her later. This is not what you would expect to see from the supposed GOP "frontrunner" in a U.S. Senate race.
The bill requires all insurance plans sold in Colorado's individual and small-group markets - the only markets over which the Legislature and the state Division of Insurance have regulatory authority - to cover contraception (defined in Colorado statute as medically approved drugs, devices and procedures that prevent pregnancy - clearly excluding abortifacients like RU-486 and other methods that terminate a pregnancy).
The bill requires all insurance companies selling insurance in the individual market to include maternity coverage in the majority of the plans they offer...which means the minority of their plans will NOT cover maternity care.
Yet according to the Senate Republicans' talking-points shop, everyone in Colorado will feel an increase in their health care expenses - even though the bill clearly affects only the individual and small-group markets. And in an effort to distract from the fact that Republicans are voting to withhold insurance coverage from pregnant women in Colorado, the ColoradoSenateNews.com release obfuscates the plain language of the bill, claiming instead that it mandates oh-so-scary "reproductive services" (social conservative dog whistle for abortion...even though abortion isn't even mentioned in the bill).
Full release after the jump - as well as the questions discerning reporters should ask before just reprinting the ColoradoSenateNews.com release...
It's now been over 22 weeks since Jane Norton has been quoted directly in The Denver Post.
Now wait a minute, you say, in The Post on Nov. 11, in the year 2009, there's a quote attributed directly to Norton, not to one of her spokespeople or to a news release. Norton was quoted as saying, "The very heart and soul of who we are as Americans is being eroded. We're seeing Washington's giant hand grabbing everything in sight."
Yes, that's a Norton quote, but alas the Nov. 11 quote is apparently taken from a speech she gave at a Republican forum. The words went from Norton's mouth to the ears of a reporter. But this doesn't count, because it wasn't a two-way communication, as far as I can tell. The reporter quoted her speech.
So you have to go all the way back to October 4, 2009, to find a Post article containing words that came directly from Norton's mouth into a reporter's ears, in a two-way conversation.
That's over 22 weeks since Norton has been quoted directly in The Post.
During Norton's 22 quoteless weeks, reporters have had a string of excellent reasons to talk directly to Norton. The reasons keep piling up.
(Related to this, in case you haven't been paying attention - promoted by Colorado Pols)
Less than 48 hours into the effort, support is growing rapidly for ProgressNow Colorado's call to boycott online retail giant Amazon following its decision to terminate relationships with affiliates in the state.
The editorial board of the Aurora Sentinel writes in today's edition (click here to read) that "a clearly punitive act by online retailer Amazon not only invites retribution from Colorado consumers, it practically demands it...it's important for consumers to press back against Amazon for trying to bully their way into making more profit at your expense. Send Amazon an e-mail message telling them of your displeasure at their mean-spirited and politically motivated antics instead of an order, and take your wallet to an Aurora store instead."
"After only one email alert to our list, thousands of Coloradans have pledged to shop elsewhere until Amazon stops using their business partners as political pawns," said ProgressNow Colorado Executive Director Bobby Clark. "We've heard from individual citizens, angry ex-Amazon affiliates, elected officials, and local retailers, virtually all expressing their support."
Anne in Fort Collins writes in response to ProgressNow's call to boycott, "Amazon doesn't want to follow the law and wants to strong-arm Colorado into backing off...sorry, Amazon--I would rather support local businesses than do business with a company that employs unfair tactics to compete."
Tannis in Greeley replied, "I've been thinking I need to do a better job of supporting local businesses. Thanks to your decision to protect your unfair advantage, I will be shopping at stores which actually benefit my community."
Jim in Denver writes, "As a Denver retailer for the past 45 years, you bet I'll support this campaign. A level playing field is what I want to see."
Check out our newest advertiser, Precision Polling, by clicking on the banner advertisement above. You'll hear more from us about Precision Polling in the near future.
To get in on the action yourself and advertise on Colorado's largest and most active political website, email us at ads@coloradopols.com.
Colorado Springs Gazette reporter Mark Barna writes for The Pulpit blog:
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson was pushed off the Focus radio show by the organization's board of directors. The board told Dobson that his last "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast would air Feb. 26. Dobson was disappointed. He didn't want to leave his radio show. That's when he decided to start "Family Talk with James Dobson," set to air on radio stations May 3.
Or so goes the account by Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a high-profile conservative evangelical who leads the Antioch Bible megachurch in Kirkland, Wash. Hutcherson has made a name for himself for his flamboyant manner and opposition to abortion and gay marriage (and as a former NFL linebacker).
On Tuesday, Hutcherson's editorial called "I Lost My Focus on the Family" was published online at World Net Daily. In it Hutcherson says he knows that Dobson was pushed out of Focus, claiming to have talked to Dobson and Focus president and CEO Jim Daly about it.
Focus on Wednesday denied Hutcherson's assertions, but Hutcherson didn't back down.
"I am not speculating. I know what the truth is," Hutcherson said in an interview today with World Net Daily...
In the editorial, Hutcherson expresses his disapproval of Focus' new kinder, gentler approach on hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage.
The politicization of Focus on the Family under James Dobson, which ultimately led to large sums of money poured into political battles while the organization's "core mission" of family counseling shed its workforce, is a well-known story we've discussed in this forum many times.
What's really going to be different remains to be seen, but this public spat is an indicator that at least some on the religious right are afraid that Focus is giving up its hard political (spelled GOP) edge--while others, possibly including the board of Focus on the Family, welcome the change.
