Twenty-nine senators signed a letter to President Obama recently urging him to leave Social Security and Medicare “off the table” when dicussing budget cuts and deficit reduction with Republicans. Their concern is that Obama will try to strike some kind of “bipartisan grand bargain” in an effort to avoid going off the fiscal cliff. This sounds troublingly familiar and I hope the President does not go there. But so far two important names have not been affixed to that letter: Colorado Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall. So, I’m asking the two of you here to sign on now. If you can’t do that, then please have the good sense to know that voting in favor of any kind of “hard-fought compromise” will be met with a huge backlash that will not be pretty for your political futures. Just saying……
Where are Udall and Bennet?
Celebrating Chimney Rock National Monument, No Thanks To Scott Tipton
The Durango Herald’s Joe Hanel reports at long last:
President Barack Obama will declare Chimney Rock Archaeological Area a national monument Friday, ending an effort that was three years – and a millennium – in the making…[Sen. Michael] Bennet, Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez, and Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., wrote a letter to Obama this summer, urging him to consider declaring the monument after their bills stalled amid partisan squabbling in Congress.
Tipton sponsored and passed a bill in the House to establish the monument. It differs from Bennet’s by forbidding extra money to be spent on the monument.
Tipton’s spokesman, Josh Green, said the congressman would have preferred that Congress acted.
…Tipton’s main opponent, Democrat Sal Pace, said the Republican has been a stumbling block for Chimney Rock because he backed a bill that would have taken away the president’s sole authority to declare national monuments.
“If it was left in Congressman Tipton’s hands, this designation would never occur,” Pace said in an email. [Pols emphasis]
Let’s be clear about a few things. Rep. Scott Tipton’s decision to sign on with Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet in support of an executive declaration for Chimney Rock was important, and helped clear allegations of partisanship from President Barack Obama’s path to issuing it. Had the area’s representative in Congress not been on board with this declaration, it would have looked much worse politically, a la Bill Clinton and Utah’s Escalante National Monument in 1996. Tipton’s support has effectively defanged this as an electoral issue against Obama.
However, Tipton’s concurrent decision to sponsor legislation stripping the President of the very power he is using to declare Chimney Rock a national monument is pure double-dealing political imbecility. Tipton’s not fooling ideological opponents of monument declaration by sponsoring that bill after signing a letter asking Obama for an executive order, and to boosters of Chimney Rock, this legislation insultingly undermines his claims to support them.
In short, this could have been a great opportunity for Tipton to show some real bipartisanship only a few weeks out from the election, but he has at least partly squandered it.
Full story: Celebrating Chimney Rock National Monument, No Thanks To Scott Tipton
Romney’s “Victims” Monologue: A Defining Moment
UPDATE: FOX 31′s Eli Stokols:
Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio and Sen. Mark Udall ripped Republican Mitt Romney for his controversial comments about Americans who don’t pay taxes, which surfaced in a video Monday.“You judge a person’s character by what they say in private,” Udall said at a press conference in Sunken Gardens Park. “Mitt Romney has failed the character test.”
…The comments are a devastating blow to a campaign already losing ground in the polls and a candidate whose opponent had already been engaged in a messaging war to portray him as an out-of-touch millionaire.
“It’s hard to believe that somebody who wants to be president of all of the people of this country would write off half of them,” Palacio said Tuesday.
—–
Over the years of campaigning for high elected office, Republican Mitt Romney has taken some of his worst heat not necessarily for his opinions on one issue or another, but his readiness to completely reverse himself on just about any issue–which he has done repeatedly as his stint as governor of Massachusetts evolved into presidential aspirations.
More recently, though, somebody has seemingly convinced Romney to stop flip-flopping on the issues whenever he decided it was expedient. Something has convinced him of late that this was the wrong course. Perhaps it was the “Etch-a-Sketch” stuff. We don’t claim to know.
In any event, what we have today in the 2012 presidential race is a candidate who decided to stop flip-flopping at the exact moment his political career depended on him doing just that. Romney lurched hard to the right to win his difficult primary in an attempt to placate the most vocal of his critics in the Republican Party. And now, when everyone expected a move to the center–and Republicans honestly needed him to for the sake of their own image–Romney is inexplicably doubling down on the hard-right tropes that eked him the nomination.
FOX News reports today on Romney’s follow-up to the devastating release of video from a fundraiser of him writing off roughly half the country as “dependent on government,” who “believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
He stands by all of it, even if it was “inelegantly stated.”
“Of course there’s a very different approach of the two different campaigns, as I point out I recognize that among those that pay no tax, approximately 47 percent of Americans, [Pols emphasis] I’m not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes. That’s not as attractive to those who don’t pay income taxes as it is to those who do. And likewise those who are reliant on government are not as attracted to my message of slimming down the size of government. And so I then focus on those individuals who I believe are most likely to be able to be pulled into my camp.”
First of all, folks, this is unmitigated nonsense. Please don’t waste too much time arguing the merits of Romney’s meritless case–it’s just not factual. In the above comments, Romney doesn’t even consistently single out federal income tax payers, which is the only way to make the charge that 47% of Americans “pay no tax” credibly. If you simply count federal payroll tax payers, you add another 28% of the population, leaving only the elderly and incomes under $20,000 per year–and even those people pay sales, property, and all kinds of other taxes.
The persistent myth that a huge percentage of the American people “pay no taxes” is a common right-wing axiom, reinforced since the 2008 recession, when the number of people receiving some form of assistance obviously did increase. This belief forms the basis of the conservative “We Are The 53%” campaign and other efforts. It is, at its core, a belief meant to sow contempt for the remaining 47% who “don’t pay taxes,” reinforcing the Ayn Rand conservative worldview of producers of value vs. “moochers.” That is, people “who believe that they are victims.”
We’re not saying nobody believes what Romney apparently believes about a large percentage of the population. But when you start to look under the hood of what Romney is saying, from the factual problems to the ugly prejudices that allow those factual problems to be squelched in his and too many minds…he’s not speaking to a majority of Americans anymore. In fact, he’s telling millions of ordinary people, their grandmothers, their kids in college, their neighbor who’s trying to get back to work, that his job as President is “not to worry about those people.”
It’s going to take a few days to process, but Romney is laying bare something very important. A mistake that drives a whole movement. A fundamentally, intentionally divisive misconception that has fueled a great deal of the last three and a half years of misguided rage.
This conversation needed to start, even if Romney will sorely regret being the one to start it.
GOP Drops Wind PTC From National Party Platform
A release from Sen. Mark Udall today condemns the decision by the Republican National Committee to drop the wind production tax credit from the GOP party platform–considered vital to protecting thousands of Colorado jobs, and supported by nearly the entire Colorado delegation, including GOP Reps. Cory Gardner, Scott Tipton, and Mike Coffman.
But not supported by the new presumptive head of the Republican Party:
U.S. Sen. Mark Udall released the following statement after GOP leaders decided this week to remove an extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) from its draft party platform:“The wind PTC supports up to 6,000 jobs across Colorado and more than 75,000 jobs nationwide,” Udall said. “I am disappointed that former Gov. Romney and Republican leaders have ignored the voices within their own party, including the vast majority of Colorado Republicans, in choosing to exclude the PTC from their draft platform. As we saw last week when Vestas decided to lay off dozens of workers at its Pueblo facility, the failure to pass the PTC has real implications for Colorado and our nation. This isn’t a partisan issue. The PTC helps create Made-in-America energy and supports American manufacturing. It is incredibly unfortunate that national Republicans led by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are willing to cede these good-paying jobs and America’s place on the cutting edge of energy innovation to China and our other competitors abroad.”
The GOP’s decision to drop the wind PTC from its draft platform follows remarks by former Gov. Mitt Romney saying he would allow the tax credit to lapse. The wind PTC also would be allowed to expire under vice presidential candidate and Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
Salazar, Udall: What The ACA Means For Colorado
( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Obama Administration Regional Director in Health and Human Services, Marguerite Salazar, was in Denver Monday to discuss the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or “Obamacare”) and what it means for people living in Colorado. Hosted by Senator Mark Udall, she held a press conference with the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative’s Executive Director, Dede De Percin. Salazar applauded the recent Supreme Court Decision to uphold the Constitutionality of the ACA, and promised it will bring a multitude of benefits to Colorado’s citizens, and to our local economy.
As Udall introduced Salazar, a native of Alamosa, he added he “proudly voted for the Affordable Care Act”, and shared that in his travels around Colorado, many citizens had expressed frustration over their lack of quality healthcare insurance due to pre-existing conditions clauses, as well as caps on coverage.
“Those problems will be gone under the Affordable Care Act. In addition, families like my own with young adults in them will benefit from the feature that ensures people ages 22-26 will still be able to join their parent’s health insurance plans while getting their careers off the ground.”
Salazar outlined the scope of the problem in Colorado:
“Until now, there have been 700,000 people uninsured in Colorado. Over the last ten years, insurance rated had doubled. Nationally, more than 50 million Americans were uninsured, and tens of millions of people were underinsured”.
No More Abuses, Better Care for Colorado
The Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act means Coloradans will be protected from insurance company abuses, Medicare will be strengthened, families will experience more financial security, and Coloradans across the state will have better access to healthcare overall.
Under the ACA, it is illegal for insurance companies to deny anyone for pre-existing conditions, to provide coverage caps to families or individuals who experience major medical tragedies, to discriminate against girls and women on the basis of their gender, and to cancel policies after a person has been diagnosed with a chronic illness or disease.
80/20 Rule
Many Coloradans will receive cash back from their insurance companies if the insurance companies fail to provide enough coverage in proportion to the rates they are charging in premiums. (An older man at the press conference stated he had already received a rebate check for more than $260.) The rebate is called the “80/20 rule” – insurance companies are mandated to spend eighty percent of the payments they collect on health care for their policy holders. If they don’t, they must refund it to their contracted customers. In 2012, 12.8 million Americans will receive more than 1 billion dollars in rebates. The ACA also prevents unfair rate increases — premium rate hikes greater than 10% will automatically trigger an audit.
Better for Small Businesses, Better for Non-profits
The Affordable Care Act will make doing business in Colorado more affordable. Small businesses, as well as non-profits, which make up 96% of the employing businesses in Colorado, used to pay 18% more in premiums for the same coverage compared to large corporations. Small businesses that choose to provide health insurance premiums for their employees will receive tax credits of 25% to help them do it. In 2011, 360,000 employers received a tax credit nationally. Any small business in Colorado that was not aware of this benefit can go back as far as 2010 to amend their tax return to qualify for their credit. Non-profit businesses (including many churches) that do not pay taxes are still eligible for the credit, allowing them to receive cash payments for providing healthcare insurance to their employees.
Young People Will Be Insured
Families with young adult children in Colorado are already enjoying the “22-26 feature” of the Affordable Care Act. Previously, premiums were too high for young adults just starting out on their own, so many of them were uninsured, putting them at long-lasting financial risk if they had an accident or debilitating illness. Under the ACA, more than 50,000 families in Colorado are already enjoying peace of mind from this benefit. Nationally, the number is 3.1 million families.
Access to Health Care
As Udall traveled Colorado, he saw first-hand how rural areas are often underserved medically. Physicians and other health care providers have preferred doing business in large, urban areas over smaller, rural communities. Under the Affordable Care Act, the number of healthcare providers employed through the National Health Services Corps has tripled, adding 6000 new providers. The NHSC now has more than 10,000 doctors, nurses, physical therapists, dentists, etc., on its’ staff. Since 2010, Colorado has received $17 million from the ACA to fund 170 existing health centers in CO, and $78.8 million to create new health centers.
Preventing Illnesses and Promoting Health
Since 2010, Colorado has received $17.2 million in grants from the Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the ACA. Free, routine health maintenance and preventative services are available through at “Getting Us Covered.” Services include:
• Adult routine examinations
• Immunizations
• Smoking cessation programs and patches
• Pelvic exams
• Pap smears
• Mammograms
• Colonoscopies
• Prostate exams
• Flu shots
No More “Lockouts” or Caps
Families and individuals facing major medical tragedies and chronic illnesses such as cancer will no longer be “locked out” of health insurance. Nationally, 67,500 people were locked out of the insurance market because their expenses were too high, causing them to be rejected for insurance. In Colorado, families like Nathan and Sonji Wilkes and their young son Thomas finally have access to the life-saving medical care, under the ACA.
Medicare Strengthened
Medicare is strengthened under the Affordable Care Act, meaning more recipients will benefit from preventative care, while efficiencies will bring down costs, saving the government more money. Fewer people will use expensive emergency room visits for routine care.
Donut Hole To Close
For Senior Coloradans in the “Donut Hole” – the income bracket where they do not qualify for Medicare prescription coverage, yet they also cannot afford paying for their own prescriptions, the ACA offers a 50% discount on brand-named drugs. In the first five months of 2012, more than 7000 people in Colorado used this benefit, resulting in an average benefit of nearly $700 per person. In addition, more than 42,000 Colorado Seniors have already received a $250 rebate check to help cover the cost of their prescriptions. The donut hole will be closed by the year 2020 under the plan. 5.2 million Senior Citizens have already saved a total of 3.7 billion dollars.
How is the Affordable Care Act paid for?
The cost savings of efficiencies built into the ACA nationally has been estimated at approximately $500 billion, which more than covers the cost of the Affordable Care Act. Those efficiencies include the addition of new anti-fraud measures, and the strengthening of enforcement to anti-fraud measures that already exist. Health service providers will also be given tools to help them cut costs to patient care. Under the ACA, patients will receive fewer unnecessary and repetitive tests, and more access to preventative education and well-checks.
Health Exchanges
The Affordable Care Act sets up a system of private sector “Health Exchanges” to make health insurance more affordable to those who do not get it through their employers, or for people who wish to supplement their coverage (the exchanges are not to be confused with a government run-program like Medicare). The Health Exchanges in the ACA utilize and encourage private businesses, allowing them to flourish locally, providing more jobs. Beginning in 2014, Coloradans will be able to purchase their insurance directly through these exchanges. Under the law, the exchanges will not be allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender or pre-existing conditions. Under Colorado law, tax credits will be available to those who wish to buy their own insurance.
Colorado was originally given a grant of $1 million to plan for the improved health insurance marketplace, and then received a $17.9 million grant to build it. Coloradans can expect it to be launched to the general public sometime in late 2013 or early 2014.
Myths, Lies and Distortions
Religious organizations will not have to provide, endorse, or subsidize the delivery of contraceptives, contraceptive counseling, or abortions, to qualify for the tax credit.
Exorbitant Capital gains taxes have not been built into the Affordable Health Care Act. There is a small feature that affects a very tiny percentage of Americans. Under the ACA, if a couple making more than $250,000/year sells a home and makes a profit in excess of $100,000 on the sale, there is an approximately 3% tax on the gains over $100,000. The resulting small tax increase affects a small fraction of one percent of Coloradans in any given year.
Future Changes to the Affordable Care Act
Senator Udall commented that the Affordable Care Act “is not perfect” but it is a great start to raising the bar in quality health care. When asked, he said he would like to see continuing innovations in alternatives in health care, at times quoting T.R. Reid’s book, The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care.
Udall: “Healthcare is a human right. The Supreme Court decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act was the right one. If the United States is going to lead the world, we need to have the best health care in the world.”
More Information
For more information about the U.S. Affordable Care Act, visit Healthcare.gov. In Colorado, check out Getting Us Covered.org.
2012 General Election Preview: Take Back the House Edition
(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: Obamacare, Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court
UPDATE #4: Courtesy FOX 31′s Eli Stokols, local statements:
U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner: “Today’s decision is very disappointing. The Supreme Court effectively granted Congress unprecedented power to tax people who don’t spend money and buy what Congress wants them to buy.“But just because something is deemed constitutional does not make it good policy. Our fight to curb the overreaching power of government will continue. While today’s decision may have been a setback, the vision of our Founding Fathers and their notion of limited government still lives in the hearts and minds of many Americans.
“This ruling only energizes us for November.”
U.S. Sen. Mark Udall: “The Affordable Care Act has expanded health coverage for thousands of Coloradans and made preventive care more accessible and affordable for millions of Americans across the country. I am pleased to see that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the bill’s constitutionality.
“We have already seen the positive impacts of the law, including keeping prescription drugs affordable for our nation’s seniors and prohibiting insurance companies from denying health insurance to children with pre-existing conditions. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues, and the administration, to ensure that this important law continues to be implemented in a smart and effective manner.”
Click through to read more, including boilerplate from Majority Leader Amy “Amycare” Stephens, and comment from Sen. Irene Aguilar, MD. We’re not expecting anything from Rep. Janak Joshi, since doctors who have surrendered their license are not really the best commentators on health care policy. True, that hasn’t stopped him before…
—–
UPDATE #3: Our first local statement today comes from the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, one of the principal in-state advocates for both federal health care reform and the statewide health insurance exchanges passed into law last year with bipartisan support.
In a victory for affordable health care for all Americans and Coloradans today the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Obama administration’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act. The following is a statement from Dede de Percin, Colorado Consumer Health Initiative executive director:“This is the best economic news we could have heard. Coloradans will have more money in their pockets because we will continue to reap the benefits of increased access to more affordable health care.
“Colorado families now will have the peace of mind that they will be able to get the care they need when they need it. Sonji and Nathan Wilkes of Parker know that their insurance company will never cut off the treatment their 7-year old son Thomas needs for severe hemophilia because of arbitrary coverage caps. Evergreen’s Dustin and Ariane Speck will not be denied health care coverage due to the pre-existing condition of Dustin’s suffering a stroke at age 41. And 24-year old David Taft in Summit County can continue on his parents’ insurance plan while he searches for a job with health benefits. And small businesses like CAP Management will be able to earn tax credits by providing health care insurance to their employees.
“Colorado has already begun expanding Medicaid coverage because as a state, we believe families should be able to get the health care they need. The Medicaid finding on reimbursements will not effect us.
“And not only has the Court upheld the law but Colorado has spoken – voters rejected an anti-health reform initiative and passed bi-partisan legislation to establish an health benefits exchange. We will continue to move forward with increasing access to quality health care for all Coloradans.”
—–
UPDATE #2: A window for some local Republicans to make lemonade from today’s ruling?
We don’t call him “Teflon” Cory Gardner for nothing, folks.
—–
UPDATE: A link to the decision.
—–
We’ll be back with updates soon; looks like a pivotal win for President Barack Obama today.
Full story: BREAKING: Obamacare, Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court
Forget the Primary…Let’s Talk 2014!
The Colorado Statesman has some good gossip online about the 2014 Senate race (Sen. Mark Udall’s seat). There are a few particular items that we thought worthy of further analysis:
In no uncertain terms, state GOP boss Ryan Call wants to demolish the notion that he might be considering a run for Democrat Mark Udall’s U.S. Senate seat two years from now. That’s right: He’s not running, not even maybe.
We don’t think Ryan Call would be a particularly strong candidate for the GOP in 2014, but it’s interesting that his name came up enough to garner reporting from the Statesman. When you see or hear someone’s name being floated for a particular office, it’s almost always with at least implied consent from said person. This says a lot about Call’s future ambitions, but what really stands out is the relative weakness of the GOP bench; if Call’s name is being taken even slightly seriously, then Republicans have little hope of taking out Udall.
The Statesman writes that Rep. Mike Coffman’s name might be cooling off significantly as a 2014 Senate contender. As we have noted in this space many times, Coffman has been trying to put down his marker for the eventual Republican nomination for more than a year now. But if it’s not Coffman?
The most likely Republican candidate for Udall’s seat, top Republicans tell us, is a name familiar to friend and foe alike: former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, who gave up a congressional seat six years ago to launch what most agree was a stumbling campaign for governor, which he lost to one-termer Democrat Bill Ritter.That’s right, Beauprez, a former state party chairman and nearly constant fixture at major state Republican events in recent months, is weighing a run for the U.S. Senate what would be eight years after his last race.
We’re more than a little surprised to hear the name Beauprez being mentioned with any shred of truth. We’re talking about a guy whose 2006 campaign for governor is on the short list of worst statewide campaigns in Colorado history.
We still think that Coffman will eventually be the Republican nominee unless he crashes spectacularly this November. But even if it isn’t Coffman, we’d be absolutely floored to see Beauprez emerge as the GOP favorite.
BREAKING: Most of Arizona SB-1070 Immigration Law Overturned
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
Open Letter to Joe Miklosi
Dear Joe,
Recently I received a direct call from you asking for a ridiculous amount of money. I tested you on your stance of Mike Coffman’s American Exceptionalism quote and you failed miserably. The quote:
“Coffman went on to say in his written apology: “However, I don’t believe the president shares my belief in American Exceptionalism. His policies reflect a philosophy that America is but one nation among many equals. As a Marine, I believe America is unique and based on a core set of principles that make it superior to other nations.”"
Your response regarding your priority was the need to defend the president, a task he is more than capable of without any help from you. My advice to you, fire your DC staff and replace them with solid Colorado Liberals who understand the international implications of such pure, inflammatory, unadulterated jingoism by the sitting Congressman in the 6th CD.
Joe, you are vanilla in a world that cries for rocky road. You missed an opportunity to bring about a dialogue on an issue that requires 13 aircraft carrier groups to defend and enforce, not to mention financed by our great grand children. World peace is not only desirable but also imperative and the key to a future where we finally beat swords into plowshares and remove the yoke of our indentured servitude to a heartless plutocracy.
Playing it safe does not play well, people are screaming for leadership and you are presenting to them a fence straddling, can’t we all get along, Mark Udall, let’s all sit together with the likes of Joe Wilson, John Boehner and that gecko look alike, Mitch McConnell. The reality? I don’t want you to go to Washington to make friends with the other side, I want you to go and make war, breathe fire with your eloquence and sense of justice for all and become a leader without the advice of handlers that wouldn’t know an issue if you slapped their Blackberries out of their lily white hands. Man up, Joe and attack Coffman with Bulldog ferocity at his most vulnerable spot, his ideology.
Mike Collins
www.ranger25.com
www.collinsforcolorado.com
Mark Udall: Indefinite Detention Hurts America
It hasn’t attracted a lot of attention here in Colorado, but we’ve taken note a few times of Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado pushing back on continued expansion of law enforcement authority to combat terrorism. In March, we discussed Sen. Udall sounding the alarm about Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which is the subject of secret legal opinions that interpret this provision very broadly–much more broadly than understood by most Americans.
Today, Sen. Udall writes an opinion column for CNN.com with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), in support of their legislation to require civil law enforcement and civilian courts take charge of persons captured in the United States:
Recently, a federal judge blocked the enforcement and implementation of the indefinite military detention authority that Congress passed late last year as part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. It’s a welcome sign from our courts that constitutional safeguards still exist.When this provision was debated last year, we argued that it was an unwise expansion of law that jeopardized the freedoms of all Americans. We were heartened that the court has wisely chosen to block this policy for much the same reason we opposed it.
However, this federal court injunction is only temporary, and the debate over whether the military has the authority to indefinitely detain individuals captured on U.S. soil without trial is far from over.
Earlier this year, we introduced legislation, recently co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Michigan, that would require that civilian law enforcement, including the FBI and civilian courts, take the lead with respect to those captured or detained in the United States.
Some, however, have argued that this approach to national security — one that involves law enforcement and not solely the military — is tantamount to ceding ground to al Qaeda. This argument, designed to paint members of Congress as “soft on terror,” is wrong on two fronts.
Sen. Udall says that for one thing, terrorists aren’t going to be persuaded or dissuaded from attacking an American target based on what kind of authority would arrest and prosecute them, because suicidal attackers really don’t care. It’s much more important, argues Udall, that we protect the rights of American citizens. He also notes that to dis civil police and our court system is a slap against civilian law enforcement “who have kept us safe since 9/11.”
Bottom line: Sen. Udall deserves more credit for these principled stands in defense of the civil liberties of Americans than he ever gets from local media. It almost seems like local press is disinterested in what Sen. Udall is doing, whether out of ignorance or simply because they’re overwhelmed with so many politicians up for election this year. Udall will deserve recognition for his perseverance on domestic civil liberties in 2014, and we hope he gets it.
Hard To Argue With That
A joint press release from Sens. Mark Udall of Colorado (D) and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (R):
Senators Mark Udall and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today will introduce a bill that would prohibit the use of Presidential Election Campaign Funds (PECF) for party conventions in the elections occurring after December 31, 2012. Additionally, it would allow funds dispersed before that time to be returned to the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of deficit reduction.“Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to maintain the integrity and fairness of the presidential nomination process,” Udall said. “Over the past several decades, political party nominating conventions have become elaborate celebrations devoted to partisanship. The American taxpayer should not be responsible for footing the bill for these partisan events. I chose to cosponsor this bill because it is a common sense, bipartisan proposal that will save taxpayers millions of dollars at a time when we need to exhibit more fiscal discipline.”
…Despite our $15.6 trillion national debt, political parties received a $36.6 million check ($18.3 million per party) from taxpayers to pay for the costs of political conventions occurring this summer. The funds that are used to cover these conventions come from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF). According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Federal law places relatively few restrictions on how PECF convention funds are spent, as long as purchases are lawful and are used to ‘defray expenses incurred with respect to a presidential nominating convention.’” Besides funding the event itself, the money is used to pay for entertainment, catering, transportation, hotel costs, “production of candidate biographical films,” and a variety of other expenses. These events will be weeklong parties paid for by taxpayers, much like the highly maligned GSA conference in Las Vegas.
It’s fine with us, Denver just had a convention and the one before that was 100 prior. It’s safe to bet that we won’t be getting another one anytime soon. It’s also pretty hard to argue with this as an example of a place to show some fiscal discipline–at some point, a convention that actually involved some drama would probably change that. For now, political conventions really are a taxpayer-subsidized party, even if private funds pay many of the bills.
This does not mean we’re ungrateful for 2008, however. Our local economy still thanks you all.
PPP: 62% of Coloradans Favor Civil Unions Legislation
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
County Party Resolutions Don’t Screw Around
UPDATE: From a reader–no recording “of any kind” allowed in the Jefferson County GOP Assembly yesterday. Doesn’t this sort of thing just make operatives try harder?
And instead of banning recording devices, wouldn’t it maybe be better to not say embarrassing things into a mic as a party official or a candidate? Perhaps it’s just easier this way.
—–
County party assemblies have in some cases already happened, but in many other cases are getting underway this morning all around the state. Being gatherings of the most ardent party loyalists, it’s a good place to take the temperature, if you will, of what local political activists are talking about. One thing we wouldn’t consider these folks, with all due respect, is particularly representative of “the mainstream.” We think this is to some extent true for both sides.
There are plenty of examples we could cite but here’s just one–resolutions already approved by Douglas County Republicans at their county assembly. A few excerpts convey the mood:
1. We call for a smaller Federal Government. PASSED with 97% (301 / 9)2. We call on the Federal Government to reduce the national debt and to freeze/reduce spending until the debt is below 10% of the GDP. PASSED with 89% (267 / 34)
3. We oppose all “bailouts” for private sector business enterprises by the Federal Government. PASSED with 89% (274 / 34)
4. We support the elimination of the Dept. of Education. PASSED with 80% (250 / 61)
5. We call for entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare, to be reformed to reduce the overall level of spending. PASSED with 87% (263 / 40)…
8. We oppose all Federal Government subsidization of individual business enterprises (e.g. Solyndra). PASSED with 86% (260 / 43)
9. We support repeal of the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” PASSED with 91% (278 / 26)
Standard stuff, though we doubt you’ll hear many of these mentioned beyond the most generic platitudes during the general election. Moving on to some of the more interesting:
26. We support the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). PASSED with 77% (235 / 71)27. We support the elimination of The U.S. Department of Energy. PASSED with 71% (208 / 86)…
47. We support requiring all candidates for office to verify they are eligible for the office they are seeking. PASSED with 95% (291 / 14)…
59. We support adherence to the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1; only candidates who have been formally vetted for proof of their natural born citizenship be eligible to the office of President. PASSED with 95% (290 / 16)
That would be not one, but two “birther” resolutions passed by the Douglas County GOP. Other passed resolutions you shouldn’t miss are #36, the anti-“AmyCare” resolution, and the anti-Sharia Law and “UN Agenda 21″ resolutions (#69 and #76 respectively). Which is not to say you’ll laugh at all of these, like the ones that call for the repeal of laws infringing on protections against unlawful search (i.e., PATRIOT Act), as well as recent controversial provisions for detaining American citizens–where they line up to their surprise with Democrat Mark Udall.
We’re interested in hearing about resolutions passed by your county party, or being voted on–like Larimer County Republican Resolution #30 up today, affirming “the Larimer County Republican Party supports efforts by all citizens working to stop forced medication through the public water system.” Which probably just means fluoridation, but you really don’t know, do you?
Post ‘em if you got ‘em, and of course anything else fun that happens today.
Colorado’s Political Powerhouse 2012
CHAMPIONSHIP: We’re down to the Final Two — Sen. Mark Udall vs. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Click here to cast your vote. Skip the Facebook prompt and it will take you to the brackets.
—–
ROUND 4: Whoops! We are already at the Final Four. Make sure to make your selections. Click here to cast your vote. Skip the Facebook prompt and it will take you to the brackets.
—–
ROUND 3: We’re nearing the Final Four.
—–
ROUND 2: The second round of the tournament has begun. Click here to cast your vote. Skip the Facebook prompt and it will take you to the brackets. We also updated the brackets (after the jump).
—–
UPDATE: We neglected to post images of the brackets previously. You can see the bracket matchups in full after the jump. Don’t get too worked up over the seeding numbers — we played around with those to make the matchups more interesting.
Click here to cast your vote. Skip the Facebook prompt and it will take you to the brackets.
—–
Last year Democrat John Hickenlooper made it through our political tournament bracket to be declared Colorado’s Political Powerhouse for 2011.
We’ve created a new bracket for 2012, and there are several rounds of voting. The first round begins today, with Round 2 on Friday. Make your selections for each round with a theoretical statewide matchup in mind.
