CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 27, 2009 02:14 AM UTC

Where do we owe our allegiance?

  • 40 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

Ok, this is not going to make me Mr. Popular.

As I’ve mentioned to a couple of campaign managers, we owe our primary allegiance not to a candidate or party, but to our country and to the world. This is essential at times like this when we are in a world of hurt and we have to be focused on what will improve things, not on what gives one side temporary political advantage.

In addition while we decry the lack of civility and discussion in the political sphere, if we at the same time focus on political advantage, support our candidates regardless of their efforts and votes, and can only see the bad in the other party – then we are a cause of the problem. We cannot expect Republicans to be open-minded if we ourselves are not.  

Let’s talk about the Ritter administration. We are presently in a world of financial hurt. And while Governor Ritter has done an excellent job of applying cuts to minimize the impact on the state, his efforts have ended there. Not only do we see no efforts to find systemic changes that will significantly increase revenues or reduce expenses, but we find him “reassuring” us that he will not consider anything that might be construed as a tax increase. (Note – most of us don’t find that statement reassuring at all.)

What we appear to have with Bill Ritter is an administration that is no different from a GOP administration on the big issues and makes slightly different choices on exactly how to apply the cuts. In fact a big part of his message is that unlike the GOP, Bill Ritter anguishes over these cuts and cares deeply about their impact on the people of Colorado. Now I may be going out on a limb here but I think Josh Penry & Scott McInnis are also anguished about what the people in this state are going through and care deeply about the people in this state. And truth be told, although empathy is nice but results are what we need.

But is the Ritter administration truly no different on the systemic questions than an GOP administration? Absolutely not. In the previous GOP administration we had Bill Owens step up and work to craft C & D and work very hard to get both passed. When the state faced a revenue situation less serious than today, the response of a GOP administration was to increase taxes as needed. It was a close thing, it took major cooperation from the Democratic legislature. But the bottom line is he did it.

Bill Ritter is not even trying. If only a Republican administration will dare raise taxes in Colorado, then we need to elect a Republican administration. I am dead serious on this point. The state is not going to go bankrupt a-la California, but it’s going to be in a race to the bottom with Mississippi if we don’t have sufficient revenue to help grow the state economically. And if only the Republicans are brave enough to step up and solve this, then we do need to elect a Republican.

And before you say “but, but… Republicans are evil” – they’re not. Most (not all) want the same results as most (not all) of us Democrats. They do believe that there is a legitimate role for government. They do understand that government investments in things like roads & education pay back to the state with a significant multiplier. Most are willing to step up and do what is best for our state. And a couple like Al White and Dan Marostica show more political bravery than any Democrat.

Yes the Republicans are in bed with the Oil & Gas industry. But we’re in bed with both the unions & the trial lawyers (does that make us Democrats bigamists?). Yes the Republicans make statements for political advantage – so do we Democrats. (Is it truly that big a deal if the mountain in an ad is in another state? But is sure is a useful story for political advantage.)

While everyone was worried that with a Democratic majority and administration the party would go too liberal. Instead what we have is Democrats so timid they are afraid to do anything that the GOP would fundamentally disagree with. And for the few that tried, like Morgan Carroll, boy did they get slapped down fast. So we’re left with “better” people who would “like to” do more. But they can’t you know, it just would fly.

The thing is, people did not elect a Democratic administration & legislature, both in Colorado and nationally, because they thought everything was just peachy and they didn’t want any real change. They elected Democrats because the Republican approach is unpopular. Very very unpopular. They put Democrats in charge because they want a change. Not a couple of minor differences, but some real change. Not “we could effect change if we were brave enough” – but actual “we’re implementing it now, and will do more tomorrow.”

Now what people want to see, what will make them better off, what the state needs – all are open to discussion. But we need to step up with major systemic change. Because otherwise come ’10 the voters will decide that doing nothing new is a clear failure and they’ll bet on the candidate offering a change. They’ll take almost any change over stay the course when the course is a disaster. And if that happens, we Democrats will have no one to blame but ourselves.

This is not just a problem for Bill Ritter, we face this nationally too. If at the federal level they have not addressed healthcare, financial regulation, and turned the economy around – we’re going to see a lot of Democrats going down to defeat. The voters are demanding results, not platitudes. And having a lot of great ideas but not implementing them is nothing more than mental masturbation.

And to those who say (in so many words) “our Democratic candidates may they always be right – but our candidates right or wrong” – that is the last thing this country needs. And it’s the last thing our party needs as it’s the road to defeat. Blind loyalty is nice in a dog, but it’s counterproductive in the political sphere.

I leave our elected leaders with this question – to what use do you gain power if you effect no difference?

Should we Dems shut up and blindly support Ritter?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

40 thoughts on “Where do we owe our allegiance?”

  1. The problem, as I see it, is that the “conservative” framing of the issues still dominates the political discourse, which has many Democrats still taking defensive positions.  

    They seem to buy the false metaphors we’ve all heard for decades e.g. deficits are good if they are due to “tax relief” but a waste if it goes to “socialized medicine”.

    Dr. George Lakoff, author of the Political Mind has much to say about this.

    Failure of Conservative Values:  Yes AND No

    How to Make Friends and Manipulate Irrational Voters

  2. I can’t imagine that either Repub would actually be better for the progressive agenda than Ritter…so really supporting them isn’t an option for progressives.

    I mean even when we dislike the person in there, the option isn’t going for a MORE conservative candidate.

    Primaries are always an option, but in the case of the Governorship, term limits also take them out quickly so primaries are more often reserved for federal races.

    1. Would you wave your magic wand and swap him in? Yes there would be a lot of negatives compared to Ritter – but we would also see gigantic positives from a new C & D.

      I’ll be honest, if we had that choice (we don’t) – I’m not sure which I would take. I definitely don’t think it’s an easy decision.

      2. Good one, David. If you believe that’s a realistic fantasy, you must indeed have a rich fantasy life.

        Imagine the actual alternative to Ritter (Bob Beauprez) offering a new C & D today. Seriously. Close your eyes real hard and try to imagine it. Keep trying.

        1. but he did.

          What’s really interesting is you denigrate Beauprez with the statement that he would never consider a C & D equivalent. By that measure, shouldn’t you treat Ritter the same as he is the governor and so in his case we know he won’t consider it?

          1. That’s not denigrating Beauprez, David, it’s a simple statement of fact. Some would read that as high praise.

            I don’t know how involved you were in Colorado politics four and five years ago, but Owens’ position on Ref C was not the out-of-nowhere shocker you seem to think it was. The Republican Party has changed since then, and so has the economy.

      3. if Bill Owens were in office today, I’m about 100% sure he wouldn’t offer a new C and D.  He did so at the time because it was feasible that they would pass.  Now?  It’s simply not a possibility.  If a high-profile Democrat offered something like C and D, not only would both measures go down to a solid defeat, but it would assure Josh Penry a clear road the to governorship next election, and the resulting budget decisions would be FAR worse.

        You may think that bold new revenue sources would be a good thing.  I agree.  But in Colorado, right now, in this economy, they simply aren’t going to happen.

        Yes, that’s a political calculation, but sometimes political calculations need to happen.  It’s not called politics for nothing.

        1. We had an amazing Democratic sweep in ’08. I don’t think that was a cry from the electorate to please stick with the existing Republican approach.

          I think a bond package sold as jobs building infrastructure we desperately need would go over quite well. People’s biggest concern is either being unemployed or becoming unemployed.

          My big complaint is not that this wasn’t done, but that it wasn’t even seriously considered. We’re our own worst enemy in that we Dems are not even willing to evaluate.

  3. “Yes the Republicans are in bed with the Oil & Gas industry. But we’re in bed with both the unions & the trial lawyers”

    I think false equivalences like that help create the problem and sap the courage to make positive change.

    You might as well say:

    “Yes, they are in bed with corporate profit at the expense of a sustainable planet and worker’s lives, but we are in bed with the institutions that defend people from exploitation even if that hurts short term corporate profit, so we are just as bad.”

    1. All businesses are evil & immoral. And all unions & trial lawyers are angels working for the betterment of mankind. {sarcasm off}

      Stereotyping like that you and others do does not contribute to an honest and robust conversations. The only reason we no longer have 98% of the human race living at a level of constant hardship & starvation is because of companies chasing that corporate profit – and in most cases helping the human race along the way.

      And while unions, like corporations, is a force for good in whole, they also do many negative things from corrupt locals focused on enriching their leaders, shutting out non-union employees from working, and imposing inefficiencies on the workplace.

      And trial lawyers work hard to perpetuate an inefficient system that pays lawyers well, but is not designed around efficiently and fairly allocating payment for wrongs done.

      1. You are setting up a straw man here. I am not saying that all biz is bad and all lawyers are angels.

        I am saying that corporations are about creating short term profits. One doesn’t have to be a stereotyping ideologue to believe that. It is something I learned while working as a stockbroker. I think that makes those institutions altogether different than those that, while they can obviously be corrupted, are designed to a very different purpose.

        I am not saying it is demons vs. angels. In truth, I don’t really subscribe to your belief that Dems and Repubs divide up in any clean way in favor or against corporatism.

        I just think that where there is a divide, the differences are far deeper than “you like that team, I like this team” ones.  

        1. Some are about short term profits (and the stock market rewards that well so as a stockbroker that is the primary view). But many companies are about different things.

          When I worked at Microsoft the corporate focus, and it permeated the entire company, was about taking over the world in every market we had a product. Not profit, not large market share, but 100% of each market.

          That led to great profits – but it wasn’t the driving force. And what it did focus people on was constantly improving the products we were working on.

          Companies are focused on profit – you cease to exist otherwise. But each has it’s own specific driving items. And many right now are doing everything they can to minimize layoffs, not maximize profits – because they are trying to do the best they can by their employees.

          As to the divide, that is an interesting question. If we look at the majority in each party (ie remove the people out on the extreme left & right), I think the divide comes down to the Republicans want the government to do what it must, but not 1 thing more. While on the Democratic side we want to make sure the government is doing everything that will help us.

          To a large degree that is a difference of focus rather than what end result we would like to see. And I think when both sides work together to craft solutions, with that difference in focus, we can have great results.

      2. The only reason we no longer have 98% of the human race living at a level of constant hardship & starvation is because of companies chasing that corporate profit – and in most cases helping the human race along the way.

        I feel like this cat and your comment is on my paw:

        That is all.  

    1. to try and salve David’s new found outrage in a way that would address his refusal to believe that our election calendar includes things like “deadlines.” I’m extremely put out to have been ignored.

      http://coloradopols.com/showCo…

      It’s Saturday morning

      If only we dared to dream, the guv and the leg could have this thing wrapped by Sunday night. The only thing standing in our way is pessimism. We’ll do a new batch of ballots on recycled cardboard, thus saving the environment. Win-win! Synergy!

      Let’s do this thing!!!!

      DOWN WITH PESSIMISM!  

      2. Discussing this with you two would be like discussing it with my dining room table. If you choose to actually discuss the issue at hand, I’ll be happy to respond.

        But if all you’re going to do is try to change the subject with snark, I suggest you go join your fellow travellers at a tea party protest.

        1. is not changing the subject, David. It is simply inconvenient for you. If anyone argues like a piece of furniture, it’s the fact-challenged blowhard.

           

          1. My primary point is why has Ritter been unwilling to do anything? And why during this spring & summer, when time still remained to put something on the ballot, was he MIA?

            You’ve been avoiding that fundamental question by instead speaking about the fact that the deadline has passed (and avoiding the subject that Ritter didn’t even try before the deadline passed).

            I want a governor who will step up to find solutions, not just patch leaks in the boat.

            1. David, I think the premise of your question is deeply flawed. After the Supreme Court decision this spring, Ritter and the legislature closed some tax waivers (sales tax on cigarettes, for instance), and also set aside the Homestead exemption. There are millions of dollars in tax breaks that could be suspended, but Ritter can’t just wave a wand and make them go away — there’s the JBC, for one thing, which has been meeting. Ritter’s not a king.

              Voters shot down A59 less than a year ago during what was probably the most progressive sweep statewide since the early 1970s. Do you really think Ritter ought to go back for another bite at that apple and jeopardize the statehouse, because … well, it’s not entirely clear why Ritter’s handling of the budget has all of a sudden become your cause cГ©lГЁbre lately. But state voters don’t usually appreciate mulligans on rejected ballot issues, especially just one year later. Suggesting otherwise isn’t bold, it’s foolish.

              And were you actually here during the late ’80s and early ’90s when we actually did have a great public works project (Denver International Airport) that helped ease us through the first Bush recession? From conception through elections through bonding, it was years before shovels hit the ground. Your notion that a “bond issue” would be either swift, effective or even possible is puzzling, I haven’t seen evidence any of those are the case.

              1. Virtually nothing passed from the left, the right, or the center. There was so much on there, and the Presidential and Senate races were taking so much mind-share – I think a lot of people just voted no on everything.

                On a bond, I think if it had a heavy emphasis on shovel ready projects that did not get federal funds, we would see work starting within 6 months. An airport (I was here during the start of it) is probably the least shovel ready so not a good example.

                But put the bond issue aside. My complaint is not that specific item. It’s that we don’t see anything major coming from the Ritter administration. We don’t see any discussion about eliminating tax breaks and other corporate welfare. We don’t see any discussion about what the state should and should not provide.

                My concern is that the Ritter administration is busy working within the constraints they find themselves deciding where to cut, rather than working to reduce the constraints themselves.

            2. I think the reason you are catching so much crap is because in the other diary a few days back, you consistently suggested ideas that were impossible to implement due to timing and related legalities. My guess is that folks would like a suggestion to be offered that has merit, has been researched and is doable.

              That said, to address today’s diary, I disagree strongly with you on what Ritter is doing. We are in the middle of the biggest recession since the Great Depression. This isn’t the time to raise taxes on people that are already struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck.

              Raising taxes isn’t a bold initiative–it’s the definition of insanity. Colorado is actually in much better shape, relatively speaking, than most other states in the US. Raising taxes right now? Who exactly are you suggesting can afford that additional cost? As a small business owner, I know I can’t. What group? How much would be raised in one fiscal year if we raise taxes? What would the income cutoff point be?

              If you can’t answer these questions, then I suggest you go back to the drawing board and do more research. Come back with homework done and fill us in and let’s see if it’s doable.

              And I’m sorry to break this to you but the day a Republican boldly suggests we raise taxes, is the day they serve ice water in hell.

              And one last thing–I know you are meeting with Mr. Carpenter today (I can’t make it but wish I could have accepted the invitation because I think it will be a healthy discussion). Here’s the thing–lay off the insults of calling these folks names such as “can’t do” and “Mr. Late.” Be respectful. Listen. Learn. Be open to the fact that your frustration on this issue may be overshadowing your common sense and doing more harm than good, solutions wise.

              Have a great meeting, David and I look forward to hearing from you and others that attend on how it went.

              1. I should have concentrated on my main concern which is that I don’t see any new thinking proposed.

                And what really worries me is that the answer to anything proposed is a list of reasons why it is impossible rather than considering if it’s a good idea. And if so, how to achieve it.

                For example, it’s too late for a bond – but it wasn’t 6 weeks ago (and even better, 6 months ago). I still see value in asking why it wasn’t proposed.

                We spend hundreds of millions putting people with addictions in prison – for being drug users. Yet we have no one willing to raise the question of would that money be better spent elsewhere in this crisis.

                What I want to hear out of the governor’s office is what systemic change they are investigating rather than statements about how they are not willing to look at things.

                As to the meeting today, I don’t think anyone I have interviewed has ever complained about how I acted in the interview. (In fact, usually the complaints come here that I didn’t beat on people enough.) I absolutely plan to listen.

                1. I did not mean to insinuate that you would be anything less than respectful. I know how it is when you start off on the wrong foot with someone and was mostly voicing my hope that this wouldn’t turn out to hinder your input.

  5. You are exactly right and completely wrong.

    Right about the policy and what leadership should mean. Wrong about the politics.

    In the previous GOP administration we had Bill Owens step up and work to craft C & D and work very hard to get both passed. When the state faced a revenue situation less serious than today, the response of a GOP administration was to increase taxes as needed. It was a close thing, it took major cooperation from the Democratic legislature. But the bottom line is he did it.

    And the lesson you take is that the Governor chose to lead on a policy issue, that though he thought was best  for the state may not be popular with everyone.  Good for him, yayyy!

    Bu the lesson I see is that it ended his political career. Sure his divorce hurt- but the real pain was his party deserting him.

    CDSmith

    He did so at the time because it was feasible that they would pass.  Now?  It’s simply not a possibility.  If a high-profile Democrat offered something like C and D, not only would both measures go down to a solid defeat, but it would assure Josh Penry a clear road the to governorship next election, and the resulting budget decisions would be FAR worse.

    Precisely.

    So the political, electoral, assessment has to be:

    Which would be better?

    Ritter attempts a new C&D (well a new C anyway- D was a loser) and get creamed for it?

    Or

    should he pledge to not consider any tax increases and have a decent shot a re-election.

    I agree that the voters can be led. I agree we elect our officials to do specific jobs, including lead.  But I also agree that in the current environment a new C would mean near certain R gubernatorial victory.

    Watch- the R’s are going to paint Ritter as a spendthrift, “tax and spend” liberal anyway.  It will hurt – but it won’t stick near as much as if Ritter came out with C10.

    1. First, I do think Owens believed it would end his political career. But he believed that it was important enough that he was willing to work for C & D anyways. I find that very commendable.

      Second, it enhanced his political standing in this state. I think if he could win any race he entered in Colorado. Dick Wadhams probably calls him weekly begging him to enter the Senate race.

      I don’t think Penry will use the “tax & spend” label – he’ll use the “do nothing” label on Ritter.

      1. agree with the first- but

        and I disagree with the second.

        Yes- I think Owens realized there was political risk. But I think he thought that at core his party was not so ideologically blind and knee jerk that they could se past their temporary disappointment.

        And I think this is where he was wrong – and why I disagree with your second point.  He could maybe win the right general if he really wanted it. (I’m not sure he does.) but I’m not at all sure he could win a primary.  We’ll see it a bit with Norton’s primary.  If she gets hammered on C&D (I think she will) then I’d say I’m right.  If she gets a pass on C&D- then maybe I’m wrong and you are right. I hope you are.

        I hope Colorado voters can do the budget math – and will be taught to do so- and realize that passing C was good for the state.  And that a new C can also be a good thing. But if I was advising Ritter or any other D candidate at the state level, I’d tell him to wait until 2012 or 2014.

        1. I think Norton will lose fundamentally because she doesn’t want it that bad. Many will call that a referendum on C&D when it really may be a reflection on the candidate.

          Same if McPenry beats Ritter – many will say it’s a sign that the voters want a more conservative leadership. I think it will be what is always the case for a sitting governor losing – that the voter’s gave him a failing grade and so are accepting the one alternative available.

  6. Get together with the other states and get the sales tax exemption for Internet sales revoked. It’s not needed any more – and I say that as a company that sells over the net.

    However…

    You need to set it up that we report all sales to a central server, that we only have to report a sale ID (for auditing), total, and zip code. And the sales tax is set on a state level.

    How it’s structured is critical because if the proposal is on each sale we have to determine all applicable tax jurisdictions and then file with all of them you are going to have every Internet based company fighting it big time. The overhead would be horrible, especially considering that for many tax jurisdictions we would be looking at all that hassle to report 1 sale.

  7. I just got back from the meeting and I think it went really well.

    First off, Alan had 8 bloggers promise to show up. He got me and toward the very end one other. That’s it. Come on people – this is part of holding on to seats in ’10!!!

    Nothing new on what we discussed. I think the best way to put it is we have disagreements on what should be done in places, but what we have is a robust passionate discussion, not a civil war or any kind of separation.

    I think these discussions help us. I’m sure Ritter & team would prefer that everyone was thrilled but I think the discussions we have is actually healthier.

    It was also interesting listening to the different takes on what the previous elections meant, where we are today, and where each thinks we will be in ’10.

    1. Next time I’m going to make my bosses invite more–a lot of people would have benefited from yesterday’s conversation.

      I think Jim did pretty well, we both had some tough questions for him.

      1. Thanks again for the invite. Very sorry I couldn’t make it. I hope you’ll extend me the invitation again the next time you guys do something like that.

      2. Thank you for the invite and I would have loved to join you but due to the short notice, I had to work related issues that prevented my attendance.

        And also, did you receive my email?

  8. As we read history – I’m doing a political bio of LBJ right now – some names, although long not heard, pop right up as recognized.  In this book’s case, perhaps from when I was a kid or young adult.

    Then there are the general masses of politicians.  Never heard of them.

    In fifty years, Ritter will be one of them; a Fillmore or a Buchanan.  

      1. I’d love to be wrong.

        But I fear that Obama is likewise so afraid to piss someone off that he will not accomplish what needs to be done.

        FDR probably didn’t have the word “bipartisan” in his head.    

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

39 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!