Dems’ governors shine in NY, Illinois, Colorado

The Dems’ culture of corruption is shining brightly in NY and Illinois as well as in Nancy Pelosi’s House where Charlie Rangel is the poster child for the Dems’ leadership.

And, then, there’s Colorado, where Bill Ritter isn’t corrupt. Just incompetent.

Add to all of this the Senate’s Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and all of the paybacks Dems are making to union leaders, and you have the real Democratic Party.

The Dems are making Republicans look honest.

What a mess.  

Correct ‘The Big Line 2010’

Scott McInnis 2-1. On the attack.

J. Hickenlooper 4-1. Off to a confusing, muddled start.

Dan Maes 100 – 1

Jane Norton 2-1. Momentum is with her. She’ll get women’s votes.

Michael Bennet 6-1. Left wing Obama Democrat.

Ken Buck 10-1 Can Tancredo and Ron Paul give him momentum?

Andrew Romanoff 20-1. Monday we’ll know if he’s raising money.

Cary Kennedy 5-1. Incumbent.

J.J. Ament 7-1. Working hard, gaining.

W.R. Stapleton 10-1. Attractive. Lots of cash.

Ali Hasan 12-1. Young, personable, inexperienced.

John Suthers is unopposed. Strong candidate. Voting to almost Clear the Bench.

Unnamed Democrat 30-1

Bernie Buescher 3-1. Inclumbent. Doesn’t care about elections.

Scott Gessler 4-1. Expert. Will get strong GOP backing.

Cory Gardner 4-1. Momentum’s on his side. Gaining.

Betsy Markey 6-1. Saved by death of health care reform bill?

Ed Perlmutter 3-1. Incumbent.

Ryan Frazier 7-1. Raising money, appeals to independents. Has momentum.

What do you think? Give your odds.

John Suthers will vote NO on 3 state supremes

No sure why this isn’t being discussed here. It’s all over the web.

The Denver Post story. Be sure to read the comments:…

Rocky Mountain Right:…

Clear the Bench Colorado


I think Suthers should base his campaign on clearing the bench, not shy from the contest. At this point, I fear, he looks like a wimp.

Is President Obama the President you voted for?

I’m wondering how Obama’s supporters feel about him now.

What are the most positive surprises?

The most negative ones?

What do you think of Obama? Multiple choice.

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Will Udall and Bennet vote against health care reform bill?

The Denver Post says Udall and Bennet should vote against the health care reform bill.

We call on Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet to take a principled stand against the travesty the Senate legislation has become.

We do so because the deal-making and the concessions made to reach 60 votes have created a bill so poisonous to the stated ideals of both senators that they should be unable to attach their good names to its passage when it comes up for a scheduled vote on Christmas Eve.

To buy a “yes” vote from Sen. Ben Nelson, for example, the bill will fully fund the Nebraskan’s home-state Medicaid program, at a cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over the next decade.

Better to take up the quest for true health care reform next year and try once again to craft meaningful legislation than to accept this ghastly gift to the insurance industry and hodgepodge of pricey perks to legislators.

Without a public option, without an expansion of Medicare and without other significant changes that stand the greatest chance of holding down surging costs, the Senate’s legislation would leave working Americans pretty much where they are today: facing the prospect of double- digit inflation in insurance premiums for as far as the eye can see.

In fact, health care inflation could actually escalate.

Businesses, too, will continue to be rocked by higher costs.

Yes, 2010 is an election year and Democrats need to show they can make progress on major issues.

But shouldn’t the immediacy of a political race be all the more reason to demonstrate to constituents an ability to show true leadership?

Tolerating a bad bill simply to say you passed something would be irresponsible.


Will Bennet vote against health care bill?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Senator Michael Bennet’s elitism

From the Denver Post online by Richard Stacy:

Our unelected Senator, Michael Bennet, told CNN’s John King the other day that he’d vote for Obama-Reid-Pelosi heath care, even if it cost him his job. Political courage? I don’t think so.

Elite limousine liberal arrogance is more like it. To me, it reeks of “I know better than the unwashed masses of Coloradans.” “Let them eat cake” elitism, writ large!

Betsey Markey voted against the House version of these 2,000 page monstrosities, because she apparently listens to the voters of Colorado, respects us, and would like to keep her job. Not so the good Senator. He listens to his handlers in the Obama Administration and his chums in and The Daily Kos, on the far left fringe of his party. Far be it from him to realize that Colorado is still a center/right state – one which abhors extremism of either the right or the left.

I talk to lots of Coloradans on a daily basis, Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives. I have yet to talk to a single one who wants a government takeover of health care, massive new bureaucracies, bureaucratic meddling in the relationship between patients and their doctors, rationing by government bureaucrats of medical services and procedures, new taxes, huge additions to our out-of-control deficits and new burdens on our children and grandchildren to pay for the whole mess.

But that is exactly what they get under the bill for which Mr. Bennet is so nobly willing to sacrifice his job. Bennet seems blissfully unaware that the average Coloradan doesn’t trust the government to do much of anything right. The attitude I encounter most often, frequently from the members of the Senator’s own party, goes like this: “Do you want the people who run Amtrak and the Post Office to be in charge of your health care?”

Is Bennet an elitist?…

Is Michael Bennet an elitist?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

More are openly calling Congressional Dems and Obama ‘Communists’ and ‘socialists’

The backlash is mounting and the Dems’ popularity is ebbing.

Problem is that a recent poll shows only 53% of Americans prefer capitalism to socialism.

The poll didn’t reveal how many Americans know the difference between capitalism, socialism and Communism.

I’d say, maybe 20%.

In any event, how long will it before it will be ok for a politician to admit to being a socialist or communist?

Read the comments that follow this story, which shows its own bias and laziness.

Link is here:…

How long before being a socialist will be ok with voters?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Obama’s rookie errors, poor communications scare markets, confuse public, a leading political blog read by all of Washington and beyond, confirms that President Obama’s poor communications and weak team are confusing voters, politicians and the markets.

Link is here.

The sluggish and unsteady response to the uproar over AIG bonuses highlights a larger problem of his White House: Obama’s surprisingly uneven campaign to educate the public about the economic crisis and convince the public that he is in command of circumstances.

It was brilliant communications skills that carried Obama to the presidency, with a national campaign built on the strength of his personal story and the clarity of his promise to transform politics. On the rare occasions when he was thrown on the defensive, he quickly turned problems into opportunities and regained control of his public image.

What’s different now? The polished phrases and unflappable delivery haven’t gone away. His prime-time news conference and speech to Congress drew the usual praise.

But the discipline and strategic focus of the campaign have yet to move into the White House. The story of the day often catches the president flat-footed or on the defensive – and regularly undercut by fellow Democrats.

The analytical/opinion piece notes that Dems are doing the Republicans’ dirty work for them. Dems are criticizing the budget, the AIG mess and the administration.

We’re paying for having a rookie in the WH. He’s not communicating well because he has no knowledge of the financial markets and little economics sophistication. And he keeps changing his story, which confuses people and undermines the administration’s credibility.

Weak presidents hire weak teams that get in trouble real fast, as we saw with Clinton and are seeing with Obama.

So it’s understandable why Obama’s supporters are so angry and upset. They see their guy failing.

No wonder they throw tantrums when Obama is criticized.

For America’s sake, I hope Obama can turn it around. The learning curve is steep, and the guy’s still in kindergarten

It’s Obama’s Bear Market

Following up on a discussion we had a week or so ago about my contention that we’re in an Obama Bear Market, I’d like to point out that now almost everybody is saying the same thing. Heck, some of us were saying this last summer. See

Obama’s Radicalism is killing the Dow. The Wall Street Journal.…

Obama bear market punishes investors as Dow slumps.…

James Cramer: My response to the White House. Read the whole thing.…

Search the web for: Obama Bear Market

In short, Obama has scare investors out of the markets, causing prices to plunge 25% so far this year.  

Sen. Bennet doesn’t sound so bright questioning Bernanke

Sen. Bennet is questioning Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and is making a poor impression.

He initially seemed to be reading his question, which is a bad sign.  When he was appointed by Ritter, he was billed as very bright and a quick study. I don’t see that today. (Pun intended.)

What he’s asking is that the Fed and/or the Treasury bailout municipalities and other tax-exempt organizations that played the risky auctin-rate bond market and effectively got caught short.

That market is frozen, making it impossible for tax-exempt and even some for-profit organizations to lower their interest costs by borrowing for 30 to 60 days and rolling over those deals frequently rather than just issuing long-term bonds, which carry higher interest rates.

Tax-exempt organizations get big interest rate advantages by issuing bonds that pay tax-free interest to lenders. There is no reason the Feds should further subsidize them.

By promoting more subsidies for municipalities, school districts, etc., Bennet is promoting higher taxes that must be collected to make up the revenue shortfalls and subsidies granted to tax-exempt organizations. Historically, this has been public policy for a long time, but further subsidies aren’t justified. Tax-exempt organizations need to curtail their capital expenditures until the economy recovers five to 10 years from now.

Supporting frugality, of course, wouldn’t get Bennet elected in 2010. He’s looking out for himself rather than for taxpayers who are forced to subsidize tax-exempts.

Yes, lower interest costs for tax-exempt municipalities saves money for local taxpayers if the municipalities have to borrow. But they don’t have to borrow as much as they do and they should issue long-term bonds instead of playing the risky auction rate markets.

Wikepedia explains auction rate securities here:…

Dems killing Colorado tourism business

President Obama and his Congressional colleagues are blasting companies that use private jets and hold sales and marketing meetings at resorts like Keystone, Vail, Beaver Creek, Aspen and Steamboat Springs.

This hurts not only Colorado resorts but also our airports such as DIA, Centennial  and Colorado Springs.

Link is here:…

Since everybody in the country is mooching off of tax payers, nobody will dare entertain in Colorado.

Well, the slopes and hiking trails will be less crowded over the next five to ten years, I guess.

Maybe this will help the Tech Center Radisson?

Bennet, Udall, Salazar, Perlmutter, DeGette want seniors to shut up and die

Obama’s stimulus bill won’t stimulate the economy, but it will lock all Americans in the worst HMO scheme Tom Daschle could dream up.

If you loved the restrictive HMOs of the 1990s, you’ll love this bill 10 times as much.

And it will force seniors to live with debilitating, painful and even life-ending conditions that modern medicine can cure.

Instead of extending seniors’ functional lives, under the stimulus bill, the government will be able to deny care based on cost and age. Noting that the destruction of our health insurance system and degradation of Medicare benefits are outlined in Tom Daschle’s foolish book, Betsy McCaughey says:

The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

Read the whole article:…

If this slight of hand effort to take away benefits and make seniors live in pain passes as part of the stimulus bill, seniors will respond as they did in 1988. And they will vote against every Dem who conspired to take away their benefits. Young people also will protest, because the bill will authorized the government to slow the development of new drugs that will help extend the functional lives of young people.

Will you support taking benefits away from yourself, your parents and your grandparents?

Do you support this power grab by Obama and the Dems?

Do you support forcing us into a Canadian and U.K. type of failed health care scheme, one that’s been under attack in both countries for years?

Do you support taking seniors' benefits, forcing them to live in pain?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Bennet, Udall, Colorado Dems hew to Dems’ party line

It’s clear there is no independent thinking or courage among Colorado’s Congressional Democrats.

They’re all for raising taxes, increasing spending. The so called tax cuts in the stimulus bill are meaningless because the Dems are intent on increasing income taxes on consumers who buy the things that create jobs.

The signals Colorado Dems are sending to business owners and consumers are clear. Higher taxes are coming. Preserve your capital. Keep your cars longer. Buy no new houses. Travel less and cut back on contributions to charities. Walmart is the place to shop, not Macy’s, Nordstrom’s, Apple or Coach.

Cancel your season tickets for the Rockies, Broncos, Nuggets and Avalanche. Stop wasting money on tickets to collegiate events.

Send your kids to the military or community colleges, not to Colorado College, CU or CSU. Indeed, don’t waste money on college. There won’t be jobs for new grads for a long time to come.

Your kids won’t even be able to get jobs waiting tables. High end restaurants are closing as taxpayers conserve their disposable incomes.

Contribute to Republicans because they will do less damage to your pocket book and the economy.

Cancel your subscriptions to the Denver Post, Rocky and other papers that support the Dems. They support the stimulus bill that is all pork.

By creating new welfare programs and making it easier to get free health care and government handouts, the Dems are telling illegal immigrants to come on in. Americans are suckers and want you take our low-paying jobs and money.

Dems are telling the poor, “Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you. You don’t have to take a job you don’t like.”

And as for the greedy health care professionals who think nationalized health care will make it easier to make money in medicine, think again. Think about how the states are cutting access to Medicaid and how you hated the HMOs of the 1990s. Enjoy the good times while they last, because you’ll soon find out what it’s like to work for Obama, Ritter, Pelosi and Reid.

Yes, Republicans also are voting the party line, but they’re out of power and have virtually no say about the stimulus bill. They’re sending a strong message that they think they can exploit the Dems’ errors in 2010 and 2012, and they’re most likely right.

Why aren’t Obama’s appointees protecting him?

Is there a reason that President Obama’s appointees aren’t protecting him from embarrassment?

Geithner insisted on becoming treasury secretary despite his tax problems.

Daschle so far hasn’t had the good grace to back out after the disclosures of his tax cheating.

Ray LaHood, one of the great pay to play Republicans of all time and a GOP turncoat, will make sure those who want to play will pay.

Eric Holder helped Clinton pardon terrorists and Rich.

Hillary and Blll Clinton embarrassed themselves with all kinds of unethical behavior before they set out to make Obama look dumb.

David Axlerod lies like a Chicago politician, which works for Obama.

Joe Biden is inartfully practicing nepotism with his former senate seat, which is being held by a staffer for Biden’s son.

At least Bill Richardson had the good manners to withdraw as the Commerce Dept. nominee, but if he really had had Obama’s interests at heart, he never would have taken the Commerce nomination in the first place.

But Sen. Judd Gregg (R-VT) reportedly is willing to betray his party, country and state for a full-time job. If he does take Commerce and gives the Dems 60 seats in the Senate, no one, including his enemies in the Obama administration, will trust him. And Republicans will hate Obama as intensely as Gorian Dems have hated Bush since 2000.

Do you see the pattern of dishonesty, self-serving appointees and gutless responses by President Obama?

Is it possible that Obama’s appointees don’t feel much loyalty to him because they don’t respect him, hardly know him and even resent his improbable election?  

Obama helps lobbyists create a mess that won’t stimulate the economy

The NY Times’ David Brooks shows how Larry Summers’ guidelines for economic stimulus have been discarded in favor of a lobbyist-driven mess.

Link is here.

Udall and Bennet must take notice and help slow the train to economic depression.

Brooks’ key points:

But they’ve created a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord, which has spun off a series of unintended consequences. First, by trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well. The money spent on long-term domestic programs means there may not be enough to jolt the economy now (about $290 billion in spending is pushed off into 2011 and later). The money spent on stimulus, meanwhile, means there’s not enough to truly reform domestic programs like health technology, schools and infrastructure. The measure mostly pumps more money into old arrangements.

Second, by pumping so much money through government programs, the bill unleashes a tidal wave on state governments. A governor with a few-hundred-million-dollar shortfall will suddenly have to administer an additional $4 billion or $5 billion. That money will be corrosive both when washing in, and when it disappears in a few years time.

Third, the muddle assures ideological confrontation. A stimulus package was always going to be controversial, because economists differ widely about whether or how a stimulus can work. But this bill also permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency.

Fourth, Summers’s warnings about deficits have been put aside. There is no fiscal exit strategy. Instead, permanent spending commitments are entailed with no permanent funding stream to pay for them.

Fifth, new government expenditures on complex matters are being designed on a hasty, reckless timetable. As readers may know, the policy I am most passionate about is pre-K education. Yet I fervently hope that the Head Start expansion is dropped from this bill. A slapdash and shambolic expansion could discredit the whole idea.

Netroots get Obama to fire gay man who made Bush’s AIDS program succeed

Bush’s former speech writer exposes the partisan purge of the guy who has made America’s African AIDS program such a success.

Link is here.

Talk about partisan. Obama can’t stand to continue the program that is considered one of Bush’s greatest contributions.

By encouraging Dybul to stay until his successor was in place, the Obama administration displayed a generous spirit, as well as a practical concern for continuity in a vital program.

Then, the day after the inauguration, Dybul received a call asking him to submit his resignation and to leave by the end of the day. There was no chance to reassure demoralized staffers, or PEPFAR teams abroad, or the confused health ministers of other nations. The only people who seemed pleased were a few blogging extremists, one declaring, “Dybul Out: Thank you, Hillary!!!”

As in most political hit-and-run attacks, the perpetrator was not anxious to take credit. It seems unlikely to be Hillary Clinton herself — Dybul’s ultimate boss at the State Department — who had not even been confirmed when Dybul received his call. But someone at State or the White House determined that sacrificing Dybul would appease a few vocal, liberal interest groups. One high-ranking Obama official admitted that the decision was “political.” Yet the AIDS coordinator is not a typical political job, distributed as spoils, like some deputy assistant position at the Commerce Department. It involves directing a massive emergency operation to provide lifesaving drugs, through complex logistics, to some of the most distant places on Earth. And now that operation may be months without effective leadership — undermining morale, complicating interagency cooperation, delaying new prevention initiatives and postponing budget decisions.

It is difficult to imagine what vision of public service could cause any Obama official to celebrate a victory by sabotaging a good man and a good cause. And it is difficult to conceive what political gain Obama has achieved. This type of captivity to extreme interests is precisely what has discredited Democrats so often in the past. It is a kind of politics with all the “newness” of a purge, all the “freshness” of a mugging.

Do you approve of the firing of Dr. Mark Dybul?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Obama, Pelosi, Reid won, but they’re as nasty as ever

Nasty won for the Dems in 2006 and 2008, and they appear determined to continue to be bitter and spiteful.

See Obama’s attacks on Bush in his inaugural speech, on the White House web site and in his meetings with GOP congressional leaders  where he put them down with “I won.”

Pelosi is a naturally bitter and divisive figure. Harry Reid is simply small.

At Bloomberg, a conservative warns that by beginning their rule with incivility, Obama and his gang will undermine their ability to get big things done.  

Obama’s first civility test is Pelosi’s manners. Read the whole thing. Think about it.

In an effort to be diplomatic, the author, Kevin Hassett, credits Obama with recognizing the need for civility and ignores the President’s displays of bitterness from minute one.

What you can do for your country

1. Get a job, give it 120% and help your employer succeed.

2. Start a business. Make money. Pay taxes. Grow the business so you can hire people.

3. Be honest with yourself, your employees, your suppliers, your regulators, your customers, your investors and the IRS, and you’ll stand out in almost any field.

4. Seek a level playing field. Don’t demand that the government ethanolize your business or industry.

5. Be creative, strategic, entrepreneurial and energetic. Set an example for all around you.

6. Don’t tolerate incompetence, sloth, dishonesty or cronyism.

7. Hire and promote people smarter and more effective than you are.

8. Put your family first, your country second and the rest in whatever order feels right for you.

9. Seek input from those who disagree with you as well as from those who brown nose you.

10. Be accountable.

Hearst puts Seattle Post-Intelligencer up for sale; meaning for Media News Group?

Dean Singleton’s Media News Group is deep in debt to its partner, Hearst, which has put its JOA Seattle Post-Intelligencer up for sale and may close it.

What does this mean for Singleton’s empire? Is Hearst ready to get rid of more losing newspapers and newspaper investments?

Or is Hearst just getting rid of a loser so it can continue to support its other money losers.

Denver Post folks must be sweating.

Bill Richardson forced to back out

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

President-elect Obama is giving N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson the “Rev. Weaver push.”

Richardson announced that he has withdrawn his name for secretary of commerce because of an investigation into a company that has done business with N.M., according to the AP.…

This just confirms my long-held opinion of Richardson’s ethics and competence.

He was one of Obama’s weakest appointments, and the president-elect probably is glad to be rid of him.

Indeed, Obama is famous for dropping aides and friends who make him look bad, and it’s pretty clear that Richardson has been pushed out.