One of the most conservative Republicans in the state Senate is taking on a two-term Democrat in a congressional district that includes the liberal stronghold of Boulder.
Sen. Kevin Lundberg of Berthoud said Monday that he will challenge Democratic Rep. Jared Polis in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District...
Lundberg is not up for re-election in the state Senate until 2014, so he will remain in office if he fails to unseat Polis. The Republican says his challenge of Polis is "kind of like David versus Goliath."
So far, the only official statement we can find is this on Sen. Kevin Lundberg's website:
Based on strong support from citizens of the Second Congressional District Kevin has decided to move forward with a campaign.
To be honest, your guess is as good as ours as to what kind of "support" has truly been demonstrated for the comically arch-conservative Sen. Lundberg challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Jared Polis. Lundberg has a reputation for taking the most embarrassingly far-out position in the General Assembly on just about everything, from climate change denial to his short-lived "Dr. Laura" divorce impediment bill. Lundberg's website claims that "1,580 people have already given their support," but his Facebook "Like" button only shows about 125--and some of them are almost certainly Democrats keeping tabs on him. Lundberg has been sending out emails to a list of Republicans asking for support and "prayers" (see an example of one of these emails after the jump), and had set a Jan. 7 deadline for making up his mind--apparently he heard enough from others to convince him to pull the trigger.
We'd say that if no more credible Republican challenger emerges to Rep. Polis, one of the wealthiest members of Congress and one of the more powerful members given his level of seniority, that can be taken as a sign that Republicans have written the CD-2 race off. Redistricting may have made CD-2 somewhat more competitive, but less so against a strong incumbent like Polis--and not at all for a hardcore ideologue like Lundberg. Quite frankly, Lundberg is so far-right that he would have a hard time winning in a district with a slight Republican lean.
In the meantime, on any issue you can name and as only Lundberg can, this should entertain.
Earlier this month prominent Republican Ali Hasan switched parties and became a Democrat. According to an interview "InnerView" with the Colorado Statesman, it's our fault:
CS: Did you talk to anyone in Colorado about your decision before you made it?
MAH: There was - actually (laughs) there was a lot of bloggers on (political website) Colorado Pols. I would say it was Pelosi, Polis and then Colorado Pols, funny enough. [Pols emphasis] Because there were a lot of people in Pols who e-mailed me directly and said, "You know, we would really love to have you." And a lot of them were very humorous and said, "Look, we'll get over your fiscal views," (laughs), but they said, "You know, you're so good on the immigrant and gay views that you'd have a place here." So there was a couple of precinct captains in Colorado that I did have close conversations with, and I just said, "You know, when you consider my past history and my fiscal views that I'm not going to give up, do you think there's a place for me?" And they always came back saying, "Yes."
In a debate on the merits of HR1540, a resolution declaring that growing Marijuana on Federal lands is an "unacceptable threat to law enforcement and to the public," our own Rep. Jared Polis spoke up (h/t Raw Story):
"I have no doubt that marijuana plantations, as the resolution states, pose a threat to the environmental health of Federal lands, that drug traffickers spray unregulated chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers, but I submit that the best way to address that is to incorporate this into a meaningful and enforceable agricultural policy for the country with regard to the regulatory structure for the production of marijuana," Rep. Jared Polis said.
"As long as [marijuana] remains illegal and as long as there is a market demand, the production will be driven underground," he continued. "No matter how much we throw at enforcement, it will continue to be a threat not only to our Federal lands, but to our border security and to our safety within our country."
The Federal Communications Commission Thursday suspended its weeks-long series of talks with Internet providers on Net neutrality, dealing a blow to efforts to produce a deal that the agency could take to Congress.
The decision to cut off negotiations marks a major political setback for Chairman Julius Genachowski, whose office reached out to stakeholders six weeks ago to strike an agreement and avoid a public battle over rules that would treat all users' Web traffic equally.
But the end to industry discussions - which a source close to the FCC talks blamed entirely on news that Google and Verizon separately sought some form of net neutrality agreement - could now force the FCC to take a more aggressive approach to solidifying its broadband authority.
FCC chief of staff Edward Lazarus stressed in a briefly worded statement that the agency has no plans to back down on Net neutrality, months after a federal court in a case involving Comcast essentially nullified much of the agency's broadband authority...
..."Any outcome, any deal that doesn't preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs, will be unacceptable," he said.
Colorado's congressional delegation has taken different positions on Net Neutrality. Republican Rep. Doug Lambornhas opposed it, while Democratic Rep. Jared Polishas been a supporter. Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter signed onto an odd letter last fall that sort-of questioned Net Neutrality. Both Colorado Senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, are supporters of Net Neutrality.
(Mr. Hyde (R) strikes again!-ColPols--I just updated with Jared's response - promoted by Danny the Red (hair))
Update with Jared's response
I voted against the HIRE Act along with 35 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus on grounds that it was simply too little, too late: its tax cuts will not bring about real job creation, and it did not include adequate funding or allocation methods for infrastructure projects or initiatives to help the poor.
Jared Polis
FRIDAY POLS UPDATE: Details emerge, from the New York Times:
Though the measure attracted bipartisan support when approved by the Senate last week, House Republicans were dismissive, saying it was cobbled together by Democrats for political purposes and would do little to spur new employment. And many Democrats, even though they backed the measure, considered it far too limited in scope...
House Democrats wanted several changes. They adjusted the bill to cover its costs more completely, to satisfy Democratic fiscal hawks. To attract liberal lawmakers who contended the measure was too meager, they added a provision to generate business for minority contractors. The revisions mean the measure will have to be reconsidered by the Senate, where it was unclear whether Republicans would seek to slow its progress.
The centerpiece of the legislation is a plan to exempt businesses that hire people who have been out of work for at least 60 days from paying the 6.2 percent payroll tax on those employees through year-end. It also grants a $1,000 tax credit if the workers are kept on for a full year.
Opinion is divided on whether the approach is effective or simply gives businesses a break on workers they would have hired anyway. But lawmakers said that given the dismal unemployment picture, they were willing to give it a try, and estimated the tax breaks would put 300,000 people to work.
That was not enough for some Democrats. "We should stop calling it a jobs bill, and instead acknowledge this is about business tax cuts," said Representative Barbara Lee, a California Democrat and chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. She voted against the bill and said much more needed to be done to reach the chronically unemployed.
Original post follows--was it too much for Jared Polis, as he said about health care? Or not enough, as some members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus apparently decided? We retract our "Mr. Hyde (R)" crack above, but only long enough to get an explanation--which, given Rep. Polis' erratic record on Democratic legislative goals, should have been immediately forthcoming after last night's vote. As it is, people coming away with the "wrong impression," assuming it was wrong, of this vote can't be blamed for doing so.
--
There are no new stories that I can find, no floor statement, and no press release.
Since Rep. Polis has not issued any statements, and I would think that such a vote would justify one, I have to assume it's because he hates America and doesn't want anybody to get jobs.
House progressives organizing to rescue health care reform are pressuring their Senate counterparts to go back to the provision that has most energized the party and a majority of Americans throughout the debate: The public option.
Jared Polis, Diana DeGette and John Salazar announced on Tuesday that they are uniting with 80 other Representatives to move an immigration reform bill forward. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP) includes several provisions, one of which I find intriguing--the HR 4259 Employment Benefit Act, introduced by Representative Polis.
The EB Act would expand the current EB-5 immigrant investment visa program, which was established in 1990 to attract foreign capital to the US and create jobs for Americans. Current requirements include establishing a business or investing in an existing business that was created after 1990, a minimum investment of $1 million dollars, and the creation of at least 10 full time jobs or 5 full time jobs for American workers in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA.)
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who made his initial fortune during the Internet boom a decade ago, is now backing away from an anti-net-neutrality letter that he signed last week.
Polis began soliciting co-signers Tuesday for a new letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski that asks the agency "to join us in our effort to ensure that it remains an open-access network" when the FCC begins writing rules this week on the contentious issue.
"We believe that the proposed rules enhance the FCC's historic commitment to competition and innovation, and are necessary to ensure that internet users can go to any legal web site and access any legal online service that they choose," Polis writes in the draft. "The internet is one of humanity's greatest cultural achievements and the most powerful infrastructure for free speech and innovation."
Polis' apparent change of heart is in marked contrast to an anti-net-neutrality letter that he signed off on last week along with 71 other House Members...
"We write to express both our hopes and concerns related to upcoming [FCC] proceedings focused on the deployment and use of broadband networks," Members wrote in the first letter. "As the FCC embarks on its much-anticipated rule making addressing the subject of 'net neutrality,' we therefore urge the commission to carefully consider the full range of potential consequences that government action may have on network investment."
Not too different from his eyebrow-raising statements on health care reform a couple of months ago, Rep. Jared Polis was forced into a full-scale backpedal after he signed onto a letter that was (sorry, no debate here) obviously intended to attack net neutrality proposals presently under consideration. In subsequent comments at Daily Kos and other "netroots" venues, Polis has denied that the original letter was ever intended as an attack on the principle of net neutrality.
Unfortunately, nobody involved with the issue bought that for a minute. This is a bigger problem for Polis than it is for others who signed the original letter--Polis heavily courted the "netroots" during his run for office, and net neutrality is one of their biggest issues. Said one influential net neutrality activist in response to Polis' 'surprise' at taking heat, "perhaps you should have thought twice before signing on to a letter that was orchestrated by the phone and cable lobby to be a warning shot across the bow of FCC commissioners." To try to claim that the letter somehow didn't say what it plainly said...well, these activists know better and they don't appreciate being patronized.
Having already upset this influential base of support with his string of regrettable comments about health care, Polis surely didn't need this gaffe. We're not saying he's in real career-threatening political trouble, but he'd be foolish to think people aren't paying attention.
In a statement just released today two years ago, congressman congressional hopeful Jared Polis '07 took sides in the ongoing debate on funding health care.
votepolis.com 2007
I strongly believe that access to quality, affordable health care is a right and not a privilege, and it is imperative that we take action to meet the pressing health care needs of our nation...
...putting patients above special interests...
...I oppose the Bush administration's proposed deductions that provide the largest tax benefits to high-income individuals who can already afford health insurance and add substantially to already-large budget deficits.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has made available a website with district-by-district breakdowns on how the current health care plan will affect consumers and small businesses. It's a great resource, but we pity the poor bastard who had to put all this information together.
As for the tax surcharge that Democratic Rep. Jared Polis used to unhelpfully insert himself into the discussion, the numbers don't back up his argument very well: The surtax would not affect 98.3% of taxpayers in CD-2.
