Jared does not support vouchers

10 thoughts on “Jared does not support vouchers”

1. As you assert, petty name calling does nothing

   “And lastly, calling him a dilettante is pathetic. … If you want a robot for CD-2, vote for somebody else. And that’s fine.”

   With respect for A-41, many us think Jared rammed this down the voters throat without taking into consideration the unintentional consequences that have occured. He (and common cause) was warned many times by legislators from both parties as to what could happen. It’s being viewed that Jared pushed so hard to use it as a campaign issue, without taking serious the consequences. It’s unfortunate that it passed and that Jared can only say he ‘regretted that the the language was poorly written’ after the fact, while he had plenty of warning before the fact.

   As for the USPS, It’s just some of us are having a hard time understanding JP’s positions, especially towards the privitzation of the commons, which I believe is the greater threat to the middle class in this country.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Blue, I wont argue with “unintended consequences” of the bill being of importance and relevant to lawmaking and politics.  Nor that the timing of the bill, in the end, helps Jared’s cause. But most importantly I value having an ethics law.  I  don’t really think that a scholarship, or grant, or funding will be lost to anyone who deserves or earned them.  Am I wrong? But having an ethics law is a big deal, especially for democrats.
      And at first the USPS thing threw me too. Struck my democratic chords.  But it was a position paper, demonstrsating new approaches.  He’s not trying to privatize everything.  And he stated he wouldn’t want to act without the cooperation of the unions.  Frankly I can understand anybody’s hesitance in embracing what resembles republican philosophy, but I personally need a change cuz what we have now aint workin.  It’s a big reason I support Jared.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Yes, many of us here believe 41 was a stupid, poorly-thought-out amendment.  It’s not like 41 supporters didn’t have time to legally vet it before submitting it. It’s not like they weren’t told before its wording became final.

         If an otherwise necessary measure also unintentionally legalizes infanticide, is it still important to pass it and then “fix it” later?  And how do you “fix it” when it winds up in the Constitution?  Yes, the example’s extreme, but the concept is still the same – you do a lot of unintentional harm and it’s almost impossible to fix without going through the whole process again.

         Log in to Reply

2. When something doesn’t comply with your current goals, you just say the news media was lying. If a credible news source such as the Boulder Daily Camera isn’t enough, here is a quote from Westword (which incidentally I would suggest reading this whole article if you are considering supporting him, it is a profile of him done mid-2004).

   “That makes sense, since Polis isn’t in lockstep with traditional Democratic positions on education. In 2003, for instance, he voiced his support for vouchers as long as laws concerning them are initially tailored to assist disadvantaged youth — a position not far from the one espoused by conservative icon Bob Schaffer.”

   For anyone that missed the Boulder Daily Camera quote it is this:

   “In his political career on the state Board of Education, Polis has been known as a supporter of charter schools and vouchers, aligning him at times with conservatives on
   the board and in the Legislature.”

   http://www.jaredpoli…

   Log in to Reply

   1. ..that he’s going to hell?

      Log in to Reply

      1. It just means that his supporters on this website are bending the truth if not breaking it. Polis did support vouchers not that long ago. If he doesn’t now, then I suppose the name of this thread is not a “lie.” But the implication has been that he never supported vouchers, and that is just plain incorrect.

         If you don’t believe the news media, Polis himself wrote an op-ed piece supporting Colorado’s voucher law.

         In short, if you like vouchers for private schools, then of course you wouldn’t hold this against Polis. If you don’t, then I think there are some legitimate questions to be asked…namely what prompted the change in position?

         Log in to Reply

         1. Could it be the Union money he’s going to need?

            Log in to Reply

3. Despite the fact that it could have been written better (what law couldn’t?), Amendment 41 was a great thing for Colorado. We now have a anti-revolving door policy so legislators can’t immediately become lobbyists and an independent ethics commission. Hopefully the lobbyist gift ban will survive a court challenge.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Yeah, that’s exactly what we needed in our constitution. It’s the most pressuring issue in Colorado! I’m more concerned with how funding is being trickled out of Education, into Transportion, and away from providing health care. As far as I can remember, there is not a looming revolving door problem or lobbyist gift-buying situation in Colorado to merit such as incompetenly written law. They piggy-backed this measure on the problems perceived by Congress, not Colorado legislators.

      I’m getting real tired of apologists for yet another badly written amendment to our constitution. It’s as if you have never learned from all the existing amendments that clutter can cuase serious harm to our state, that were passed by misguided voters who only after the fact become aware of the unintended consequences.

      Log in to Reply

4. Before I respond let me repeat that I aplaud his philanthropic efforts and his work to support the party.

   1. Jared support (or not) of vouchers.  It is not a baseless position.  I was relying on sources I had read. I remembered it from the westword article, googled it and found the camera article on one of his websites.  Since it was on his site, I accepted it as credible.  Maybe he’s changed his position, maybe all the reporters got it wrong, but then he (or his staff) shouldn’t post “poor journalism” on his site.

   2.  The jet.  If you reread the post I originally asked IF he was required to report this as an in kind.  I am a lawyer but it isn’t my specialty.  It was only after being egged on that I went and read the relavent laws, rules and cases and said that he would have to report it.  I never even intimated he had broken the law.  In fact I indicated he couldn’t have broken the law this quarter, since he hadn’t filed.

   3. 41 is a bad thing.  70% of the public was for the Iraq war, so that must have been an even better.  41 was poorly written. I agree that the sentiment was good, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  If the goal is to level the playing field, self funding undercuts his message–since not everyone can self fund.

   4. Your point about him running a dozen companies, a campaign and you didn’t even mention his philanthropic operation actually makes my point about being a dilettante.
   According to Princeton (his alma mater) word net a dilletante is a dabbler.  He can not be an expert in everything indicating he is a dabbler.  This wouldn’t be bad, legislators need to be conversant in many topics, except….

   5. My point about administration.  He doesn’t seem to listen to anyone.  People told him that 41 was poorly written, but he didn’t listen.  He can not be an expert on everything.  He may have the pathology common amongst men who have success young: over confidence.  He seems to have a lot of people around him, but he probably needs a strong consigliere.  Somebody who can say you’re being stupid.  We all do dumb things, and we need people around to point out our failings.  41 is a failure, but it didn’t need to be if he had just listened to his friends.

   In an effort to hold down the rhetoric I will leave it at that.

   Log in to Reply