Category Archives: Michael Bennet

Sen. Bennet rips on the false debate in Washington DC

6
  by: catpuzzle Thu July 19, 2012 at 2:25 AM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



I missed this last week, but I’m glad it showed up on facebook, because it’s definitely worth a watch, if people haven’t seen it already.

While the House of Representatives was busy voting to repeal the health care law for the 32nd time, Senator Bennet was bringing some Colorado commonsense to the Senate floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

Bennet read a moving Facebook post from Denver school board member Mary Sewell’s that described where she learned of the Supreme Court’s heath care decision – in the doctor’s office with her daughter who was being diagnosed with diabetes.

It’s a really powerful example, and showed how the debate about repeal and the mandate is missing the point. Washington is debating whether to call the mandate a tax or a penalty.  But either way, it will only impact a really small portion of the country.  Instead, the debate should be about the majority of Americans throughout the country who are paying higher premiums to cover the cost of the uninsured and people like Mary Sewell and her daughter here in Colorado who won’t have to worry about preexisting conditions for her daughter thanks to the health care law.    


Full story: Sen. Bennet rips on the false debate in Washington DC

2012 General Election Preview: Take Back the House Edition

26
  by: AndrewBateman Mon July 2, 2012 at 7:24 PM MDT

(Interesting diary, and it’s obvious you put quite a bit of time into it.  Thanks for doing that. – promoted by ellbee)



With the Primary Election season concluded, a lot of people have been asking which districts are the best opportunities and the greatest risks for Democrats in the 2012 election.

This post will cover the State House side of that landscape. I will follow up with a similar analysis of the Senate races another day.

The fact is that, even though 28 members of the State House are not running for re-election (or were defeated in Primaries), the vast majority of seats will stay in the hands of the current party that holds it. It’s always possible for something unusual to happen and sometimes Dems get elected in heavy GOP districts and vice versa, but that kind of thing is pretty tough to predict.

There are a few districts, though, that are in play this year and could change party without some sort of miracle. These 10 districts will be the focus of most of the money and attention for the rest of the year.

What’s on the Line?

Democrats currently need to flip one seat in order to gain the majority. However, they gave away two districts in reapportionment that are almost certain to flip to the GOP. So this means that Dems need to win at least three contested seats to take control of the House, assuming they don’t lose any others. And with two current Dem seats that are competitive and at risk, Dems should plan to win at least 5, if not all 8 of their pick-up opportunities in order to ensure that they get the Speaker’s gavel next year.

The full details after the jump…

Method

I used voter registration numbers, as well as actual performance numbers from 2008 and 2010 to create a score for each district that offers an objective measure of each districts likely performance in a general election. (Similar to and based on the O’Hara Progressive Voter Performance Index)

A score of 0 means the district is completely balanced and no party has an advantage. Districts with scores of 0 through 20 lean Dem, while 0 through -20 will lean GOP.

Anything over 20 in either direction (+ / – ) is highly likely to go with the same party consistently over and over.

+75 = Dem forever

+50 = Strong Dem

+20 = Lean Dem

0 = Perfectly Balanced

-20 = Lean GOP

-50 = Strong GOP

-75 = GOP Forever

This isn’t a perfect method and doesn’t account for many elements that make or break a campaign. This is also based on numbers from 2008 and 2010, so some of it will have changed by now. But, acknowledging those flaws, I hope this provides a glimpse into where the action (and attention) will be this Fall.

Summary

Sacrificed Seats



These districts numbers were drastically altered or relocated to make room for Dem gains elsewhere. These are practically unwinnable for Dems.

HD56 Arapahoe and Adams County (Formerly Summit County) – Incumbent (HD30) Kevin Priola vs Dem Dave Rose (Score: -40)

HD64 Eastern Plains – GOP Tim Dore vs No Dem Running (Score: -68)

At-Risk Dem Seats:



HD3 Arapahoe County – Incumbent Dem Daniel Kagan vs GOP Brian Watson (Score: +8)

HD50 Weld County (Greely) – Incumbent Dem Dave Young vs GOP Skip Carlson (Score: +4)

Possible Dem Pick-ups



HD17 El Paso County – Incumbent GOP Mark Barker vs Dem Tony Exum (Score: +7)

HD28 Jefferson County – GOP Amy Attwood vs Dem Brittany Petterson (Score: +21)

HD29 Jefferson County – Incumbent GOP Robert Ramirez vs Dem Tracy Kraft-Tharp (Score: +20)

HD30 Adams County – GOP Mike Sheely vs Dem Jenise May (Score: +24)

HD33 Broomfield County – GOP David Pigott vs Dianne Primavera (Score: +10)

HD40 Arapahoe County – Incumbent GOP Cindy Acree vs Dem John Buckner (Score: +23)

HD47 Pueblo County – GOP Clarice Navarro-Ratziaff vs Dem Chuck Rodosevich (Score: +6)

HD59 SW Colorado – Incumbent GOP J. Paul Brown vs Dem Mike Maclachlan (Score: -2)

Denver County



Denver Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 will all stay squarely in the Democrats column. It’s Denver. All have scores +50 or higher and most are over +100.

Arapahoe County (1 at-risk, 1 pick-up opportunity)



District 3 used to be mostly in Denver, but was moved into Arapahoe County during reapportionment. Incumbent Rep. Daniel Kagan is facing a much tougher election than last time. Before redistricting, HD3 was +65, but now it’s only +8. Fortunately, the very popular incumbent should be able to hold the seat.

Districts 36, 41, and 42 will Stay Dem. All are +30 or higher.

District 56 (partly in Adams County), 37 and 38 will remain GOP they are all -30 or higher.

District 40 is a great pickup opportunity for Dems. What used to be a -45 rural GOP district is now a +20 urban district. The newly reformed district is about 36% Dem and 31% GOP. The district voted for Bennet over Buck by 51/42 and voted for the 47/46 in the Regents race in favor of the Dem candidate. John Buckner has a great shot at winning this one and unseating Cindy Acree.

Jefferson County (2 pick-up opportunities)



District 22 and 27 each used to lean GOP, but were contestable, but HD22 is now a solid -40. This district will stay GOP for a while.

HD27 is -18. It’s conceivably winnable, but pretty tough for Dems. Udall won here by a little in 2008, but Buck won it by a lot on 2010.

Districts 23, 24, and 26 are less strong for Dems than they were, but are still all over +20. District 26 is the weakest at +21, but should be fine.

District 28 is another great pickup opportunity for Dems. It was a -48, but is now +21. Incumbent Jim Kerr is not in the race, so GOP Amy Attwood will have a difficult time holding the seat against challenger Brittany Petterson.

District 29 is currently held by the GOP, but never should have been. Robert Ramirez is almost certain to lose this seat to Tracy Kraft-Tharp who is running a great campaign. The district improved from +14 to +21 in the reapportionment.

Boulder County



Districts 10, 11, and 12 will all stay very Dem. They are +145, +30, and +73 respectively.

Adams County (1 sacrifice, 1 pick-up opportunity)



With the exception of HD56 which is half in Arapahoe County and scores -40, Adams County’s districts are all good Dem districts after the reapportionment.

Districts 31, 32, 34, and 35 are all Dem districts that will stay that way, being +25 or higher.

District 30 was held by Kevin Priola, but he was redistricted into HD56 (which he will hold) leaving HD30 as a great pickup opportunity for Dems. The district is +26 after reapportionment.

Broomfield County (1 pick-up opportunity)



Broomfield’s HD33 is a very competitive seat. Dianne Primavera barely lost it in 2010 and is poised to re-take it in 2012, especially with the help of a slightly more friendly district. It was +7 before and is +11 now. The seat is open this time around (incumbent Don Beezley is not in the race), so Primavera has an advantage, having served the area before. Dems should be able to pick this one up this year.

Douglas County



Douglas County is Douglas County. All of them (HDs 39, 43, 44, and 45) are -70 or worse and all will remain Republican for the foreseeable future.

El Paso County (1 pick-up opportunity)



Districts 14, 15, 16, 19, 20,  and 21 are all Republican and will stay that way. The only district anywhere near 0 is HD 21 and it’s still at -25. Unfortunately, there is no Democrat running there. There is an American Constitution Party candidate in HD21, however, named Sean Halstead. Without a Democrat running, Halstead might just make a splash in the open seat.

But the real story in El Paso County will be districts 17 and 18. In both districts, Dems have slight advantage (+7 and +16 respectively). These are districts that are competitive. The GOP currently has HD17 (Rep. Mark Barker) and the Dems have HD18 (Rep. Pete Lee). But what the Dems will have this year that they’ve never had before is American Constitution Party candidates in both races. These right leaning third party candidates could be just the thing Dems need to win. And if they do, don’t forget that it was Tom Tancredo’s semi-successful campaign for Governor that allowed all the ACP candidates to get on the ballot without having to petition. So when the Dems take back the House next year, we should all send a thank you to Tancredo for bringing a third major party into Colorado politics.

Larimer County



Districts 49 and 51 will stay solidly Republican.

Districts 52 and 53 will stay solidly Democratic, although HD52 (currently John Kefalas) will be a tougher race than usual. It is an open seat this year and was reduced from +31 to +18 when the lines were re-drawn. Should still be a relatively easy win, but if GOP candidate Bob Morain works hard enough, he could give Dem candidate Joann Ginal a run for her money.

Weld County (1 at-risk)



Districts 48 and 63 will remain solid GOP seats.

District 50 is a competitive seat. It was previously held by Jim Riesburg, who was replaced by Dave Young, both Dems. Young is running to keep the seat against GOP challenger Skip Carlson. The district has always been competitive and didn’t change much (demographically) in reapportionment. Young should be able to hold the seat, but will need plenty of support.

Pueblo (1 pick-up opportunity)



District 62 didn’t change much, it will remain Dem.

District 46 (Previously held by Sal Pace) was weakened a little in reapportionment, but not enough to make it competitive. Dems will hold here.

The balance of Dem advantage was given to District 47, which has always been competitive, but now leans slightly left. Dem candidate Chuck Rodesivich has a good shot at picking up this open seat.

Eastern Colorado (1 sacrifice)



District 64 is easily the largest, geographically, of all the House Districts. It covers 9 counties and stretches from Trinidad and the Southern Colorado border at 1-25 to three counties on the Eastern border all the way up North of I-70 and Washington County. This district is huge. But more importantly, it is completely different than the district that Dem Wes McKinley has served for the last couple years. Instead of being a balanced, competitive seat with a +0.3 score, it is now a -68 Republican bastion. There isn’t even a Dem running.

District 65 covers 7 counties in the Eastern and Northern part of the state. This district is also heavily Republican and will stay that way.

Western Colorado (1 pick-up opportunity)



District 13 covers Jackson, Grand, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties. It also includes half of Boulder County. It is a solid Dem seat at +106.

District 26 (The number used to be in Jefferson County) is now the combination of Routt and Eagle County. It is a little less strong than the old 26 (+20 vs +30), but the Dems should hold it, even in the new neighborhood.

Districts 54 and 55 are both Grand Junction Districts and are both solid GOP districts. They will stay that way.

District 61 is a strong Dem seat (+27) and will be held.

District 59 is a competitive seat which was made more competitive  in reapportionment, bringing it to -2. Representative J. Paul Brown is running for reelection there, but Dem challenger Mike Maclachlan has a good chance if he works hard enough.

Districts 57, 58, and 60 cover the rest of Western Colorado and are all -50 or worse.  


Full story: 2012 General Election Preview: Take Back the House Edition

BREAKING: Most of Arizona SB-1070 Immigration Law Overturned

18
  by: Colorado Pols Mon June 25, 2012 at 5:35 PM MDT

UPDATE #2: Colorado Independent:

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court invalidated the bulk of Arizona’s discredited anti-immigrant law…[T]his ruling makes clear that we must have one federal law that finally fixes our broken immigration system,” said U.S. Rep. Jared Polis in a prepared statement.

“The people who are blaming President Obama for Congress’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform are the same people who praised Arizona’s discredited anti-immigrant law as a ‘model’ or who stood on the sidelines while Senate Republicans defeated the DREAM Act in December 2010. They should be arguing with their fellow Republicans on the need for a comprehensive solution rather than casting blame,” Polis continued.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the majority of the Arizona law underscores that it is the federal government’s responsibility to enforce our nation’s immigration laws,” Sen. Mark Udall said. “It also gives further cause for Congress to act on reforming our immigration policy to be tough on lawbreakers and fair to taxpayers while keeping our borders secure. We need to work toward a bipartisan solution to our immigration challenges, while ensuring that we build adequate protections against profiling and discrimination. We cannot fully address the issue of illegal immigration with a patchwork of different laws across the country. Congress needs to act on comprehensive immigration reform.”

Democratic U.S. Sen, Michael Bennet largely agreed with Udall and Polis that the onus is on Congress to pass meaningful reform.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law has made it clear that Congress has the responsibility to enact a comprehensive and practical immigration policy,” Bennet said today.

—–

UPDATE: The Washington Post:

The court ruled that Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the United States legally; cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrations to apply for a job; and cannot arrest someone based solely on the suspicion that the person is in this country illegally…

[D]eliberations were a revival of the questions of federal power and states’ rights that marked the court’s deliberations about President Obama’s health-care law.

The federal government had contended that the Arizona law, with its aim of “attrition through enforcement,” undermined the federal goal of a cohesive immigration policy by attempting to shift the problem of illegal immigration to other states…

The Obama administration has taken a tough stance against the Arizona law and against most of the other states that have implemented their own laws. Its lawyers went to court early to block SB 1070, and won at both the district court level and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

As a result, the law’s most stringent provisions have never taken effect.

—–

That’s the word from the U.S. Supreme Court this morning–here’s a link to the decision. Three out of four major provisions of Arizona’s SB-1070 immigration law, many components of which were unsuccessfully proposed in Colorado by Republican state legislators in the last two years, have been overturned. The provision that the Court did not invalidate is the “check your papers” provision requiring law enforcement to check immigration status; but “strict guidance” was given:

CNN Political Analyst Gloria Borger added that the upheld portion of the Arizona law could still be challenged in a lower court, and the ruling “limited the authority of what Jan Brewer’s police officers can do” because they can stop someone but they cannot hold somebody without contacting federal officials.




Full story: BREAKING: Most of Arizona SB-1070 Immigration Law Overturned

Keating/PNA Poll: Obama 48%, Romney 44% in Colorado

24
  by: Colorado Pols Tue May 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM MDT

UPDATE: Will somebody let Dick Wadhams know that Politico is now referring to Colorado as “The Boulder State?” Wadhams should have a unique appreciation for this nickname change.

—–

Politico’s Maggie Haberman this morning:

As Mitt Romney heads to battleground Colorado this week, the Democratic-leaning firm Project New America is out with a poll showing President Obama with a slight edge in the Boulder State, [?--Pols] leading 48 percent to 44 percent.

The survey of 601 likely voters taken over three days last week also give Obama a big lead among registered unaffiliated voters, 57 percent to 30 percent for Romney.

From Project New America’s poll memo:

“A 27-point margin for the President among Unaffiliated voters is surprising,” said Jill Hanauer, President of Project New America. “Colorado elections are won among Unaffiliated voters, mostly in the suburbs of Denver. Mitt Romney has a steep hill to climb with this group.”

Obama also holds a commanding lead among the state’s fastest-growing demographic, Hispanic voters, among whom he leads 67-24.  Jason Leon, PNA’s Director of National Outreach, said, “Colorado Hispanics have been hit hard by the recession, but these numbers suggest that Mitt Romney’s economic message is not resonating. We’ve seen a significant movement from “undecided” towards Obama in the past year.”

The “gender gap” that fueled Senator Michael Bennet to a narrow victory in 2010 is relevant today, with Obama leading 51-40 among women.

Pollster Chris Keating said, “These numbers show it will be difficult for Romney to win Colorado, especially if Obama continues to appeal to women.”

The unaffiliated and Hispanic spreads, as well as the persistent “Ken Buck gap” in women’s support for the abortion hard-line Republican candidate, are key bellwethers to watch and are indeed looking good for President Barack Obama if this poll is accurate. Politico is right to note, though, that Obama’s overall margin over Mitt Romney is right at the poll’s margin of error.

So needless to say, nobody gets to relax–most likely not until the second week of November.


Full story: Keating/PNA Poll: Obama 48%, Romney 44% in Colorado

Election-season brings heavyweight guests to Fernando Sergio’s Spanish-language radio show on KBNO

1
  by: Jason Salzman Tue May 22, 2012 at 11:16 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



When KBNO radio host Fernando Sergio launched his weekday Spanish-language talk show in 2004, you’d have been completely crazy to predict that the President of the United States would call in for a chat about seven years later.

But now, who’s surprised? Well, I was, but I shouldn’t have been.

Sergio’s show, “La Voz del Pueblo,” has grown to be the biggest and most trusted Spanish-language talk show in a state where Hispanics could easily decide the next presidential election.

And so, on Tuesday morning, a woman’s voice on KBNO said, “Hi, give me one moment, the President will be on the line.”

“No problem. No problem,” replied Sergio.

Then a minute later, Obama said, “Hello, Fernando?”

So began an interview that was scheduled for ten minutes but ran about 20. (Read about it here.)

“To the best of my knowledge it’s the first time a sitting president called into Spanish-language radio here in Colorado,” Sergio told me. “You wouldn’t be human if you didn’t appreciate that. It was a very positive experience for me and [my listeners] to have the most important man in the world calling.”

So how’d Sergio land Obama?

“We approached the Obama campaign,” Sergio told me. “They did their research and expressed interest. And then we approached Secretary Salazar, and the Secretary said, ‘I will ensure that they know your show is an important show, and the President should speak to you.’  We heard back in a couple days.”

“Four years ago, I was able to speak with John McCain twice, but we were unable to speak with Obama,” Sergio told me. “Instead, we got Joe Biden.”

Republicans are reaching out to Sergio this year as well.

“I had a conversation with [Colorado Republican Party Chairman] Ryan Call,” Sergio said. “He told me, ‘You can be sure that I will have Governor Romney on your show at least twice this year.”

Has a date been set for Romney?

“Not yet,” Sergio replied. “It’s just  a promise. It’s up to him. The doors are wide open. We will be as respectful with Governor Romney as we were with the President.”

“At some point during this process I will make the case for one of the other,” Sergio said. “Twenty or 30 days before the election. Here is who I’m going to vote for, and here are the ten reasons. But let people become well informed first. ”

“I stress how important it is to vote. Every single day, I say, you go out there and you vote. Don’t let anyone else decide this for you . This will be a permanent theme until November.”

It’s an approach that’s in keeping with how Sergio runs his radio show, which he sees as a “platform is to try to help people.”

The show, which airs 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 1280 AM, mostly addresses consumer issues, like problems with banking industry and issues with police and immigration. Immigration attorneys make regular appearances on the program.

“The platform has worked out for us,” says Sergio, who’s been doing radio for 18 years. “It’s kind of like Martino’s show, but we’re more into helping people than promoting businesses.”

Sergio has an active presence on facebook, but his show isn’t streamed online, because of steep fees that are required due to the fact that KBNO mostly airs music, Sergio told me. He hopes a solution can be found and online streaming will be added at some point.

Asked about the issues he thinks are most important to Hispanics, Sergio said:

“From my perspective, of course, it’s the economy, but immigration for me, it’s a matter of respect. It’s emotional. I feel it. There is no other issue that has the same emotional impact. I was born in United States. But I witness the difficulties they face. I listen to the phone calls and the abuse.”

“I am an independent,” said Sergio, who supported Michael Bennet in 2010 and is leaning toward Obama. “I try in my own wisdom to do what’s right for my listeners.”


Full story: Election-season brings heavyweight guests to Fernando Sergio’s Spanish-language radio show on KBNO

PPP: 62% of Coloradans Favor Civil Unions Legislation

16
  by: Colorado Pols Fri April 13, 2012 at 9:42 PM MDT

UPDATE: FOX 31′s Eli Stokols:

The sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, and House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, who co-sponsored last year’s bill, have been working to find a Republican to sponsor the bill in the House.

Thus far, they’ve been unable to find a Republican to carry the bill, as Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, who supports civil unions, has yet to be swayed to sign on.

Interestingly, the divide on the issue of civil unions is generational, with voters under 30 supporting gay marriage by a 77-23 margin.

“That should be a real warning sign to the GOP that continuing to tack right on this issue is going to significantly hurt its ability to appeal both to the next generation of voters and to swing voters who are somewhere between moderate and liberal on social issues,” Public Policy Polling concluded.

—–

Posted today from Public Policy Polling:

Colorado voters strongly support a bill in the legislature that would create civil unions for same sex couples in the state. 62% favor the proposal to only 32% who are opposed. Democrats (83/13) and independents (75/19) are pretty unanimously supportive, as are a third of Republicans (31/61).

A majority of Coloradans are actually willing to take it a step further and just legalize gay marriage. 53% of voters in the state think gay marriage should be legal to only 40% who believe it should be illegal.

There are two things in the crosstabs on gay marriage that really stand out. Voters under 30 think gay marriage should be legal by a 77/23 margin, and independents support it by a 61/32 spread as well. That should be a real warning sign to the GOP that continuing to tack right on this issue is going to significantly hurt its ability to appeal both to the next generation of voters and to swing voters who are somewhere between moderate and liberal on social issues.

We already see Colorado shading bluer and bluer at the Presidential level and this is one of the issues where Republicans seem to be stuck behind while the electorate is moving forward. [Pols emphasis]

Other results announced by PPP today include Gov. John Hickenlooper at 57% approval, tied with Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman for most popular in their recent polling. Curiously, within that popularity only 23% of Coloradans would like to see Hickenlooper run for President in 2016. Sen. Mark Udall appears to have an edge in overall favorability (40% favorable vs. 37% unfavorable) over junior Sen. Michael Bennet (33-38%) with neither up for re-election this cycle. Sen. Udall, as most of you know, is next up for re-election in 2014.

Also interesting is a strong generic-ballot preference for Democrats in the state legislature (sorry, Frank McNulty), and an evident willingness to support President Barack Obama (see PPP’s earlier poll) even as they remain ambivalent at best about “Obamacare.”

Read the full memo here.


Full story: PPP: 62% of Coloradans Favor Civil Unions Legislation

Ken Buck Knows How This Story Ends

69
  by: Colorado Pols Mon April 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM MDT

Our friends at the Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog report:

In…12 states – Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin – included in the Gallup/USA Today survey, Obama leads Romney 51 percent to 42 percent.

While that lead is eye-opening in its own right – most people believe that the race between Obama and Romney will be very close – it’s all the more remarkable given that, just a month ago, Romney held a two-point edge in these same 12 states.

And even a cursory look inside the numbers explains why Obama has reclaimed the lead; it’s women. [Pols emphasis] In mid-February, Obama took less than half of the vote from women under 50 years old. Now he wins more than 60 percent of them. (Obama is ahead of Romney among all women by 18 points.)

“Romney certainly didn’t create the gender gap, but the heir apparent will inherit what is no doubt a challenge,” acknowledged Tracey Schmitt, a former spokeswoman at the Republican National Committee. “The general election will provide the campaign an opportunity to address the divide.”

On a Sunday morning early in October of 2010, we sat down and wrote a post we called “The Dynamics of Buck’s ‘Woman Problem.’” In this post, we described a growing shift of support away from GOP U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck toward his appointed Democratic opponent Michael Bennet among women voters–even as the conventional wisdom felt increasingly certain that Buck was “pulling away” and solidifying his lead. In the end, pollsters were substantially underweighting the negative motivational response by women to Buck’s strident anti-abortion and (initially) pro-”personhood” rhetoric, which as it turns out was one of few factors in 2010 that managed to motivate Democratic voters at all.

Ever since Buck’s narrow loss to Bennet in 2010, a loss directly attributable to Buck’s massive loss of support among women in September and October–but originating in positions taken during the primary–we have repeatedly warned that any lurch to the right on social issues, women’s and reproductive rights in particular, in the GOP presidential primary would prove similarly disastrous to whoever their eventual nominee is. “Etch-a-Sketch” delusions among groupthinking staffers prove our point about the harm that’s already been done.

Who wants to tell us this isn’t going down exactly as we warned?


Full story: Ken Buck Knows How This Story Ends

BREAKING: Colorado Pols Acquires Local Conservative Blogosphere

14
  by: Colorado Pols Sun April 1, 2012 at 3:37 PM MDT

NEWS RELEASE

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Contact Colorado Pols at webmaster@coloradopols.com

GRAND JUNCTION–Colorado Pols, the state of Colorado’s most-read and discussed political blog since 2004, announced the acquisition today of multiple small Colorado conservative blogs and new media sites, along with plans to expand its selection of content to cover more of the political spectrum. Conservative websites purchased by Colorado Pols in the past week include the Colorado News Agency, the Colorado Public Advocate, the Colorado Observer, Complete Colorado, Colorado Peak Politics, and WhoSaidYouSaid.com among others.

This stunning turn of events was made possible after Democrats outraised Republicans 150-to-1 in the 2010 election cycle, as recently reported by Karen Crummy of the Denver Post.

“Once Alex Cranberg bailed to join Team Perry, buying out the entire Colorado conservative blogosphere was surprisingly easy,” said former Gov. Alva Adams of Colorado Pols. “We won the Colorado News Agency from Jon Caldara in a poker game, and we got a great deal on Colorado Peak Politics after appraisers valued that blog roughly equal to the Beavis and Butthead episode collection on DVD. They drove a hard bargain, though, holding out for a copy of Beavis and Butthead Do America: The Movie–which wasn’t included in the boxed set.”

Concluding negotiations with the union representing the Colorado Public Advocate, the Colorado Observer, Colorado Peak Politics, WhoSaidYouSaid, and other conservative blogs, officials from Colorado Pols and Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 7777 expressed confidence that this new partnership would lead to more and better local political news coverage.

“We were a little surprised to hear from conservative bloggers asking for representation in their negotiations with Colorado Pols,” said CWA Local 7777′s president. “We explained to them that we actually represent lots of Republican workers at companies across Colorado, and they don’t have to tell their colleagues if they don’t want to. That said, we’re very pleased to have secured an excellent compensation and benefits package for them.”

U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, a specialist in the field of mergers and acquisitions prior to entering politics, was deeply involved with both sides of these transactions, and is looking forward to a new Colorado conservative blogosphere “under the heel of Colorado Pols’ shiny jackboot. You can quote me on that.”

“In conclusion,” said former Gov. Adams of Colorado Pols, “you may have heard that our true plan is to run these blogs into the ground, as if they haven’t done a great job of that themselves. If you compare our traffic, it’s clear this talk of ‘competition’ is silly. And given how few of these conservative blogs survive from one election to the next, we’re helping them by buying them out and relocating them to a property that won’t vanish without a trace in December.”

###


Full story: BREAKING: Colorado Pols Acquires Local Conservative Blogosphere

Let’s Make a Trade!

19
  by: Colorado Pols Thu March 15, 2012 at 7:36 PM MDT

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: We added something to the guidelines (after the jump) to clear up some confusion.

—–

Today is the trade deadline in the NBA, and while professional basketball may not interest you, it got us to thinking about what would happen if you could trade elected officials (insert obvious jokes here).

For example, would you trade Republican Rep. Mike Coffman for Democratic Denver Mayor Michael Hancock? This is a purely political exercise, so don’t worry about policies or ideologies. Think of Democrats and Republicans as two different sports teams, so if they are traded they assume the general ideology of their new party.

In the case above, a Democratic Coffman would let the donkeys gain, and probably hold, another Congressional seat while also taking Coffman out of a potential Senate race in 2014. In exchange, Republicans would get the Denver Mayor’s office, which can be a great bully pulpit and fundraising position (yes, we know that the Denver Mayor is technically “nonpartisan,” but Hancock is absolutely a Democrat). The downside for Democrats is losing control of the city that is the very heart of the state; the downside for Republicans is that Hancock would face a strong challenger for re-election.

Go ahead and propose some theoretical trades in the comments section, and we’ll take the best and most interesting and put them to a vote in a later post; we’ll also post our own mock trades a bit later.

Click to read the guidelines after the jump, and remember: This is a game of politics, not policy. The point of a trade would be to theoretically make your “team” (in this case, your political party) better as a whole and in stronger position to win future elections.

 

Let’s Make a Trade Guidelines

UPDATE: The political office that the person currently holds goes with them in a trade. If you trade Sen. Michael Bennet to the Republicans in exchange for State Sen. Greg Brophy (an example from the comments below), Bennet is still a U.S. Senator — but he’s now a Republican Senator.

  • The trade must be theoretically acceptable to both sides. In other words, you wouldn’t get anywhere by proposing a trade of Sen. Mark Udall for a Grand Junction city council member.

  • If the trade were accepted, the elected officials would change parties and essentially vote/govern the exact opposite of their current stance. Basically, they are playing for a new team and would be expected to help their new friends.

  • Whoever is traded would have to run for re-election as a member of their new party. You could trade Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Denver) for Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs), but they would both almost certainly lose a re-election bid.

  • Current and past politicos are eligible to be traded. You could swap Democrat Bill Ritter for Republican Bill Owens and run a former governor for a future office.

  • Don’t be afraid to put together a nice package trade. Would Republicans trade Rep. Cory Gardner and Coffman in exchange for Gov. John Hickenlooper?

  • Feel free to propose trades of national politicians. You can also trade someone who is not an elected official but a serious power broker nonetheless (Tim Gill, Larry Mizel, etc.)

    • If we need to clarify further, we’ll answer questions from the comments thread with updates to this list.


    Full story: Let’s Make a Trade!

    DeGette Leads “Women’s Health Wednesday” Smackdown

    19
      by: Colorado Pols Thu March 1, 2012 at 10:58 PM MDT

    UPDATE: Senator Michael Bennet joins the fracas. Press release after the jump.

    —–

    Via the Colorado Independent:

    DeGette’s remarks as delivered differed slightly from the prepared version sent out to members of the media and reprinted below:

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the Inaugural Women’s Health Wednesday. Starting today, and continuing for every Wednesday, Members of this distinguished body will take to the floor to stand against the unceasing attacks on women’s health care levied by my colleagues across the aisle and the extreme right wing across the nation. [Pols emphasis]

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to kick off this first Women’s Health Wednesday by reminding everyone this is 2012, not the Dark Ages. Let me say that again: This is 2012. Yet because of the actions of this Congress, and straight up to the positions of their candidates for president, we are actually debating birth control. Birth control. 99 percent of women have used birth control at some point in their lives, including 98 percent of Catholic women, and 1.5 million women rely on it for non-contraceptive purposes to treat a variety of medical conditions.

    The Institute of Medicine has determined, based upon science, that birth control is a fundamental part of women’s preventive care. Yet, here we are debating birth control.

    Mr. Speaker, everywhere I go women stop me to express their disbelief and outrage that we are actually debating birth control. Birth control saves lives, helps prevent unintended pregnancies, improves the outcomes for children, and reduces abortion. Those are all good things for women; for their families; for our nation. So why on earth would my colleagues across the aisle and their party launch a massive effort to limit access to birth control? This is 2012. We all know better.

    Rep. Diana DeGette’s being kind with that last, since apparently, some of them do not.

    Press release from Sen. Bennet’s office:

    Bennet Statement in Opposition to Blunt Amendment Restricting Access to Contraception

    Bennet: Women Don’t Need to Be Told by the Government How to Make Their Own Health Care Decisions

    Washington, DC – On the floor of the United States Senate, Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet today voiced his opposition to an amendment, introduced by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, that would restrict access to contraception and other preventative health care for women. The Senate voted down this amendment 51-48.

    “I have a wife and three daughters…, and one thing I know is they don’t need to be told by the government how to make their own health care decisions, nor do the 362,000 Colorado women who would be affected immediately if this amendment passed. This amendment is written so broadly that it would allow any employer to deny any health service to any American for virtually any reason, not just for religious objections.

    “In my home state of Colorado, I have held hundreds of town hall meetings in red parts of the state and blue parts of the state…. They want to know why we aren’t spending our time working on how to create more jobs for them…, how to fix this nation’s debt and deficit or how we pass a bipartisan transportation bill that creates immediate jobs and fixes a crumbling infrastructure.

    “[It's] another case where political games are risking our ability to provide more opportunity, not less, for the next generation of Americans. And instead over the last several weeks, we’ve continued to debate about women and whether they should have access to the health care services they need and whether they should be the ones that are able to make the decisions about the health care services they need. And we sit here and wonder why the United States Congress is stuck at an approval rating of 11 percent. Maybe it’s because we’re talking about contraception in the context of a transportation bill.”


    Full story: DeGette Leads “Women’s Health Wednesday” Smackdown

    Doug Lamborn: Useless

    9
      by: Colorado Pols Thu February 9, 2012 at 7:10 PM MDT

    UPDATE: But wait, there’s more!

    It seems Lamborn has his own legislation in which he proposes to lease federal land for oil shale development in order to fund transportation projects. But as The Grand Junction Sentinel notes, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that Lamborn’s plan would not produce a single cent in the 5-year time period he proposes, in large part because nobody has any idea how to develop oil shale:

    The Congressional Budget Office scoring shows leasing of oil shale would reduce the deficit by $5 million in 2016, but would generate no revenue until then [Pols emphasis]. It would cost $5 million in 2022, the edge of the time frame for the budget office.

    To recap, Lamborn won’t support extending wind energy tax credits that have already been proven to create jobs and revenue, but he’s pushing his own energy-related legislation that won’t do a damn thing.

    It’s hard work being this useless.

    —–

    Kelcie Pegher, an intern in Washington DC writing for the Durango Herald, reports today:

    Members of the Colorado congressional delegation are calling to extend the wind-energy production tax credit as part of the payroll tax extension.

    Eight members of the delegation, including Democratic Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennett, as well as Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette, Ed Perlmutter and Jared Polis signed a letter to the chairmen of the conference committee.

    Also included are Republican Reps. Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton and Mike Coffman. Coffman joined the other members of the delegation late Tuesday in their letter. The wind-energy production tax credit gives wind-energy farms a 2.2 cents-per-kilowatt credit on their taxes each year for the first 10 years and will expire at the end of the year.

    That’s both Colorado U.S. Senators, all three Democrats in the congressional delegation, and even three conservative Republicans. So who’s missing? Colorado Independent:

    U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, is the lone holdout in the state’s bipartisan push.

    Lamborn clarified that he supports wind energy as part of an “all-of-the-above energy plan” but that he is in favor of removing regulatory barriers for the industry as opposed to encouraging its development via tax breaks.

    “My preference is to help industry grow by reducing federal regulations and mandates as opposed to carving out special interests in the tax code,” Lamborn wrote in an email to the Colorado Independent on Tuesday.

    The thing is, we strongly suspect that if you ask the three Republicans who did support the wind power tax credit, they would tell you their preference is also to “grow the industry” by slashing regulation like Lamborn says. Despite this, Reps. Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton, and even Mike Coffman (though after a bit of polling deliberation) signed on in support of extending the wind power tax credit. After all, the oil and gas industry still gets all of their tax credits. Republicans, especially in Colorado, have no rational basis with which to oppose wind energy tax credits–and many reasons to support them. As in, our economy:

    Colorado generates the third highest percentage of power from wind of any state in the nation and is home to several major wind energy developers and wind turbine manufacturing facilities.

    Estimates show that wind energy employs upwards of 6,000 workers statewide.

    Once again, Rep. Doug Lamborn proves the lengths to which a safe seat can be abused, and occupied by a representative openly hostile to the interests of the state he represents. As you can see, this is now an argument that can be made on an objective, nonpartisan level.

    J’accuse, Colorado Springs.


    Full story: Doug Lamborn: Useless

    The Right Man For Congress in CD6 – CO State Representative Joe Miklosi

    33
      by: nancycronk Sat January 28, 2012 at 1:34 AM MDT

    Rumor has it CO Senator Brandon Shaffer, current candidate for CD4, will be deciding this week whether or not to jump into the CD6 race, abandoning his campaign in CD4. My guess is, he’s waiting for CO Representative Joe Miklosi’s numbers to come out from the last quarter. For those who have not been paying close attention, Colorado’s CD4 became less easily winnable as a result of recent Congressional redistricting.

    I respect and admire Brandon Shaffer; he is literally one of my political heroes. Not just that – I am indebted to him. I’ve made calls for his race in CD4 very recently.

    Loyal readers on Colorado Pols may remember Senator Shaffer’s unwavering support of Michael Bennet in the 2010 Senate Race. Not only was Senator Shaffer one of just a few legislators who believed in Michael Bennet from the beginning (add State Representatives Karen Middleton and Daniel Kagan, as well as Congressman Jared Polis to that list), but he also took a lot of grief for Bennet at the Boulder Convention and Assembly. I stood by Senator Shaffer then, and always will.  

    Senator Shaffer courageously sponsored a controversial anti-human trafficking bill written by my friend Beth Klein, as well. Always a diplomat and a statesman, Senator Shaffer had to answer to opponents on both sides of the aisle to defend the bill. I am grateful to him for his courage and strong sense of justice; he acted to protect young street girls and boys who would otherwise have no political voice, and who certainly were in no position to benefit his office financially or politically.

    Yet, I support Joe Miklosi for Congress in CD6. Joe has laid the groundwork since the beginning for a successful campaign to oust tea-party darling, Congressman Mike Coffman. An expensive primary in CD6 will not help win the seat for a Democrat. Because of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, unprecedented amounts of dirty corporate money will be pumped into this Congressional race (You thought you were sick of Bennet/Buck ads in ’10? Just wait!). We need every dime from every Democrat we can scrape together to defeat corporate loyalist Coffman.

    My friends and I are deeply invested in this race. While working for MoveOn in 2008, my team and I registered many thousands of new voters across the state, most of whom turned out to elect President Barack Obama. Staffers of then Secretary of State Mike Coffman instructed voter registrars to register voters one way, then Coffman said they did it incorrectly, prompting him to try to throw out more than ten thousand of the registrations. It took a federal investigation to get him to stop.

    Coffman’s office has also turned away left-leaning and independent constitutents who have tried to meet with Coffman, telling them, “Congressman Coffman represents those who voted for him”. Add to that the time Coffman’s staffers flat-out lied and told television reporters the crowd of 1000+ pro-health care reform activists we gathered outside his office were in fact, anti-reform tea partiers.

    Democrats and Independents alike in CD6 want Republican extremist Mike Coffman out of office as soon as possible. The Colorado Democratic Party could not justify helping us much in 2010; CD6 was considered a lost cause. This year is different; the numbers are in our favor. Winning in CD6 depends on two huge variables: getting out the vote in Aurora, and Mike Coffman’s friend, Secretary of State Scott Gessler, doing his job with integrity. The first variable is within our control. The second takes faith in our political system.

    Why Representative Joe Miklosi?

    Joe identified CD6 as his next goal long ago – long before Congressional redistricting made CD6 a competitive seat. Joe cares about Veterans, and knows Coffman has failed them. Joe believes in listening to his constituents and working across the aisle when necessary, and Coffman’s record is abysmal at both of those things. Joe cares about the many diverse interest groups in Aurora, and wants to protect their interests; Joe has a solid record in the state legislature to prove it. Joe understands suburban and rural voter’s issues, and has learned the political landscape of our district. He’s met many of us, and we’ve signed on to his campaign.

    Joe Miklosi won me over as a supporter a couple years ago when I saw his extraordinary skills as a mediator and consensus builder. At the time, progressive radio talk-show host Mario Solis-Marich was raking Democratic State Senator Morgan Carroll over the coals ruthlessly for her “no” vote on tuition equity; he literally aired slanderous commercials on his radio station at every break. As a friend and supporter of Morgan’s who understood her rational while wishing she would vote “yes”, I was outraged. Those who know Morgan know she is a legal genius – if Morgan says a bill is not written well and violates the State or U.S. Constitution, you can bet your house keys that she’s right. Senator Carroll wanted a bill that was better written and would hold up in court, and was willing to work together as a team to draft a better bill – one that would not only win, but stand.

    I called a group of Latina/Latino friends and asked them to meet with Senator Carroll and myself over dinner to talk about what happened on tuition equity and try to rebuild together for another round of legislation. The first meeting was great. The second meeting, with an expanded circle of invitees, was very heated and tense. In stepped Representative Miklosi, someone who cares deeply about the issue and wanted what was best for Colorado, and helped to diffuse the tension and clarify mutual goals. It was at that moment I saw an extraordinary statesman in Joe Miklosi -not your average Joe.

    I recently asked my network of 2500 facebook contacts (most of whom are progressive activists in Colorado) if they think Senator Shaffer should primary Representative Miklosi, and those who responded were overwhelmingly against the idea. Those in CD4 said they would feel betrayed, and would ask for their contributions back. Those in CD6 said they were already supporting Joe Miklosi, who has worked long hours since Day One to build relationships, going to many house and senate district meetings and special events.

    Money may have started trickling in slowly at first (CD6 residents have a version of learned helplessness, I think), but pundits will discover the pace picked up remarkably in the fourth quarter of 2011. CD6 residents are starting to believe in the political process again, and they… we… are finding our hope in Joe Miklosi. Joe Miklosi has also won the support of many labor unions and nearly every Democratic state legislator in the area.

    The 2012 election cycle will see an unprecendented amount of PAC money dumped into Colorado, but the latest incarnation of the eggmendment and the marijuana legalization initiative will get out left-leaning and independent voters in large numbers. Under those circumstances, Democrats tend to do well. I trust Senator Shaffer (and his very capable campaign manager, RBI’s Craig Hughes) will see the wisdom in staying in the CD4 race and giving it all they’ve got. We need to win both Congressional seats in CD4 and CD6, and in 2012, it’s possible to do so. Why? Senator Brandon Shaffer is a class act, and Representative Joe Miklosi is not your average Joe.

    Please send Congressional candidate Joe Miklosi as much money as you can if you want a strong new leader in Congress.

    Still To Come Very Soon: “Who is Joe Miklosi?”

     


    Full story: The Right Man For Congress in CD6 – CO State Representative Joe Miklosi

    Eric Weissmann Joins CD-2 GOP Primary (With More To Follow?)

    17
      by: Colorado Pols Fri January 27, 2012 at 10:12 PM MDT

    That’s the word we got from Boulder today, confirming an early report by the Colorado Statesman back in December–Eric Weissmann, a political novice investment banker from Boulder, will announce next week that he is challenging state Sen. Kevin Lundberg in the GOP primary to take on incumbent Democratic Rep. Jared Polis in November.

    Our understanding is that to the extent Republicans in the new CD-2 are taking the possibility of running against Polis seriously (more on that in a moment), they’re not at all confident about Weissmann despite his potential ability to self-fund his campaign. Weissmann’s background as a Mitt Romney-style “corporate raider” is a liability in Boulder and its liberal environs, and we’ve heard that Weissmann has been known to wax a little nutty with his rhetoric–which isn’t to say that Sen. Lundberg, his only so-far declared challenger, isn’t just as bad.

    Either way, in the Loveland Reporter-Herald earlier this month, Boulder County GOP chairman Joel Champion claimed at least five Republican candidates are considering this race. With both Sen. Lundberg and the relatively unknown Weissmann possessing their own special liabilities, we’re also watching for somebody from a bigger league to perhaps jump in.

    What might possibly stop that as-yet-unnamed more credible GOP challenger from emerging in this race is the better understanding of the newly redistricted CD-2 all parties have now. Although the new district is nominally closer in terms of party representation, with Democrats only at about a 4% advantage, historical voting patterns in the new district show it was in fact solidly carried–62%–by Barack Obama in 2008, and 55% for Michael Bennet in 2010. We’ve said before that despite the party registration shift in the new CD-2, Jared Polis will remain very hard to beat there, and analysis of the new district bears that out quite clearly.

    But who knows? Maybe Hank Brown will come out of retirement.


    Full story: Eric Weissmann Joins CD-2 GOP Primary (With More To Follow?)

    The SOPA/PIPA Blackout: This Mattered

    21
      by: Colorado Pols Thu January 19, 2012 at 11:13 PM MDT

    Our friends at the Washington Post report:

    An online protest led by Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. against U.S. anti-piracy bills illustrates how Internet companies are changing legislative debate in Washington.

    Nine co-sponsors, five in the Senate and four House members, began withdrawing their support for Hollywood-backed measures to combat piracy. Internet companies devoted home pages yesterday to opposing the bills, threatening a traditional lobbying effort led by the Motion Picture Association of America that assembled bipartisan support for the legislation…

    “It’s unprecedented,” Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard University professor of law and computer science who serves on the boards of bill opponents Electronic Frontier Foundation and Internet Society, said in an interview. “You could see some members of Congress saying there’s no percentage in it for me to stick out my neck on something like this.”

    In Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet, a former co-sponsor of the Senate version of the bill called the PROTECT IP Act, backed away yesterday citing “valid concerns” raised locally–FOX 31:

    Bennet, a Democrat, was one of 40 co-sponsors for the “Protect Intellectual Property Act”, which is being pushed by Hollywood’s music and film industries in an effort to crack down on internet piracy and copyright infringement.

    But, on Wednesday, as protests swirled through cyberspace, Bennet told FOX 31 he’s going to push Congress to take a more balanced approach…

    “This is an important jobs issue,” Bennet said. “Recently, several Coloradans have raised valid concerns about potential unintended consequences that could result from the bill as it is currently written and that could compromise our economic growth.”

    Several Republican legislators, including Rep. Scott Tipton, Doug Lamborn, and Mike Coffman also announced opposition to SOPA yesterday, positions that we believe were not public knowledge prior to yesterday’s protest (assuming they had taken positions at all). Rep. Jared Polis has led the opposition to these bills in a truly national sense, and deserves credit now that his opinion is growing in come-lately popularity among his fellow representatives.

    Within what we do consider to be a very effective use of our platform yesterday to add our voice to a much larger expression of dissent, we feel obligated to correct one piece of inaccurate reporting about our involvement–or at least place it in its proper context. The Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby reported today on local websites involved in the SOPA blackout:

    Most notable among political followers in the state was the decision by ColoradoPols.com to link to a national website, sopastrike.com/strike, instead of posting its usual fare.

    Although ColoradoPols.com does post original content, it’s primarily known as an aggregate site, one that routinely links to copyrighted news articles produced by newspapers around the state. Last year, the Denver Post threatened legal action against the website as a result.

    Folks, this isn’t an accurate characterization of the actions taken by the Denver Post against this blog in 2010 (not last year, there’s the first correction), or our motivation for joining in the SOPA blackout. To briefly recap for those not aware, in May of 2010, a group of Colorado newspapers led by the Denver Post demanded that this blog stop quoting any material from their publications–a demand in excess of their legal rights, and impinging on our own legitimate fair use rights. We have nevertheless complied with this demand in the interest of avoiding costly litigation. Note that the Grand Junction Sentinel didn’t participate in these threats, and we appreciate being able to cite non-paywalled content from them.

    Because no media outlet has a monopoly on information, we haven’t suffered from this misguided decision, although we regret being unable to properly acknowledge and promote excellent journalism still produced at the Post and elsewhere. But while there are convergent themes in the Post’s unlawful demands on us and the battle in Congress over SOPA/PIPA, their legal bullying is not the reason we chose to get involved with yesterday’s protest action.

    We participated because SOPA/PIPA represent a much greater threat to online forums like this one than any newspaper, even those like the Denver Post who engaged in such unscrupulous “protection” of their copyrights as the ill-fated Righthaven. It’s one thing to demand we do something with legal enforceabililty–quite another to be blocked by legally immunized ISPs and search engines. Combine that with the loss of “safe harbor” provisions giving websites a fair opportunity to remove offending content, and we’re talking about a mortal threat.

    But with SOPA/PIPA in disarray, and this blog more popular than ever after a year and a half of impasse with misguided, declining local newspapers, maybe these are fights we’re winning.


    Full story: The SOPA/PIPA Blackout: This Mattered

    Should Pols join the blackout on Jan 18?

    17
      by: DavidThi808 Sat January 14, 2012 at 6:35 PM MDT

    (What say ye?   – promoted by Pita)



    The SOPA/PIPA legislation is a horrible bill. It basically would seriously damage the Internet in a heavy handed, and ultimately ineffective attempt to reduce piracy of Hollywood content. It would spell the end of Pols because people do post links to copyrighted material here (usually inadvertently).

    Congress:

    Senator Bennet [D - WallSt/MPAA] – is a co-sponsor of PIPA

    Senator Udall – opposed.

    Congresswoman DeGette – silent.

    Congressman Polis – rock star opposing it.

    Congressman Gardner – silent.

    Congressman Tipton – silent.

    Congressman Lamborn – silent.

    Congressman Coffman – silent.

    Congressman Perlmutter – undecided.

    Congressman Lamar Smith (the lead sponsor of SOPA) – violates SOPA

    More at:

    Why these bills are so bad

    Fast Company

    ars technica

    how to easily set Pols to blackout

    A special note about Representative Jared Polis. I always thought it would be good to have some representatives in Congress who understand the Internet because they would have the credibility to keep legislation sensible where it impacts the net.

    Nope. Jared has tried to point out that some parts of the bill flat out won’t work. And that others are not an effective way to achieve the stated goal. And it’s all ignored because the contributors have given the reps their marching orders and logic & facts are irrelevant.

    But through all this Jared has done a superb job fighting to kill this disaster. Win or lose we owe him a gigantic thank you for the effort he has made.

    Should Pols join the blackout on Jan 18?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...


    Full story: Should Pols join the blackout on Jan 18?