U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 24, 2009 06:40 AM UTC

My lunch with Ali

  • 74 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

(Where does the Master of the Bad Press turn when he needs some good press? Why our own DavidThi808 of course – promoted by redstateblues)

I had lunch today with Ali Hasan. This is the first time I have interviewed someone who has posted a lot on the blogs and the difference between the impression from Ali’s posts and Ali in person is substantial. It made me realize that we get a very two dimensional picture of people from their blogging.

Ali is incredibly personable. Talk to him for any period of time and you are going to like him. You may disagree with him, but you are unlikely to dislike him. He is also very positive and vivacious (a description you rarely hear for a politico). That combination is very powerful for a politician.

He also tells you what he’s thinking. Part of this is his youth, but part is also the way he is. It means he says things he later regrets, but it also makes him a lot more interesting. Some candidates use focus groups to remove every little bit of personality and edge and in so doing become almost a non-entity. Ali is at the other extreme. You could say he’s our state’s Arnold Schwarzenegger – and if he continues with his movie efforts, he could come to follow the Governator’s career.  

So let’s jump to the key question – is Ali going to run for treasurer? When politicians say they haven’t decided yet, for many they have – they’re just waiting for the right time to make the official announcement. And for many others they may believe they have not decided but as they talk it becomes clear that they have made the decision, they just don’t realize it. But for a few it is clear that it is just an option they are considering. Ali definitely falls in that last group. If I had to bet, my bet is he will not run. However, things could play out so that he does. Or we could see him running for something else in the future.

He sees the treasurer’s race as being in the hands of others. The most significant determiner being how the economy and Obama are doing and secondarily the races for Governor and Senate. I think he gives those other races more import than they deserve because McCain’s disastrous stance on the economic meltdown took his numbers from ahead to behind in his House race (according to his polls).

With that said, when I told him that I thought this would be tough for anyone because Cary Kennedy had done a good job with the state investments in this economic climate, he immediately pulled out some documentation and then proceeded to tear into many of the investments and how Cary reacted to the meltdown. Now hindsight is 20/20 but it can also be an effective campaigning approach against an incumbent. It also shows that he has put in quite a bit of effort already about how he would run for the office of treasurer.

The other really interesting part of the conversation was what didn’t happen. Many times it starts with the politician asking me about me – building up the rapport, showing interest, etc. But then it jumps in to what they are working on politically – the issues, their efforts, their outreach, their estimate of what is happening. It’s all politics. This is not a bad thing and is to be expected. But in Ali’s case, the conversation was all over the place. It was a really interesting conversation and we discussed a myriad of issues. But politics was just one of the topics. Ali is not all consumed by politics which makes him a more well rounded human being, but possibly a less effective campaigner (although maybe not).

With that said, he is justifiably proud of the effort he put in running for the House, especially the 22,000 doors he knocked on. He said when the campaign ended he was in such bad shape that they had to put an IV in him. And the worst was standing on the street corners waving, breathing in all the exhaust fumes. He’s definitely shown he will put in the grunt work to get elected. He also said that when he runs again he will put in a serious effort to fundraise as he sees that as an important component to winning.

He then talked about his goal of seeing a high-speed train, one from Ft. Collins to Pueblo and one from DIA to Grand Junction (with a stop in Vail of course). To me the key part of this is it indicates that Ali is old-school Republican. He sees the importance and value in the government making investments in our system. Ali will work to sell his maglev train, but in doing so he will also be selling the idea of the government increasing its investment in the state.

Ok, so in Ali we have an interesting person with some good political talents and a nice bank account. Depending on the mood of the state, who else can run, etc he could win a seat or two. Someone who will have an impact, but nothing major. But as I kept returning to our conversation a thought started germinating and the more I considered it, the more it seems like a distinct possibility.

Organizations rarely radically change themselves from the top down. And the instigators of the change are rarely the “old men” who have been there for years. Ali is a pro-gay rights, pro choice, pro state investment Republican who is very personable and has good political skills. He also has a very loud personality, says what he’s thinking, and has a ton of energy. He could be the Colorado GOP’s Howard Dean – the person to take over the party if they do as bad in ’10 as they did in ’08 – and bring them out of the wilderness of wingnutville.

Or he may go make films for 10 years and then come back and consider politics.

Will Ali run for treasurer?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tweet
Share

Comments

74 thoughts on “My lunch with Ali”

  1. This was really a kind write-up, David – thank you!!!

    FYI folks — I told David that I would make a point of answering any questions on this article — if any of you have a question, please post and I’ll do my best to answer as the article stays active

    FYI 2 — I hope David doesn’t mind me saying this, but I couldn’t be more impressed by David — we’re all very lucky to have him as such an engaged activist

    I won’t go into specific detail, but David is clearly a business leader and pioneer in the industry he works in — you would never guess based on how effortless his posts come across — David is also a cancer survivor, which we bonded over, as my I lost my grandmother recently to breast cancer — lastly, David spoke at length about his daughter and mother, showing me that he’s a good son and a good Dad… as a Momma’s Boy myself, I liked that

    anyways – looking forward to all your questions – peace and love all!!!

    ALI

    1. Are you running for state treasurer?

      Also, what do you think of Walker Stapleton as a candidate? Do you think you could beat him in a statewide primary election if you did run?

      1. Honestly – David articulated it perfectly – it is an option right now that I’m seriously considering

        I, potentially, have some excellent options with filmmaking — if I can properly balance my filmmaking goals with running for Treasurer, then I will do both — I strongly feel that Colorado needs bolder leadership at the Treasurer position and that’s what’s motivating me to strongly consider it — more on my feelings at this Face The State video interview –

        http://facethestate.com/articl…

        As far as Walker Stapleton goes….

        I met Stapleton this weekend at the Republican Assembly and I think he’s a nice guy that genuinely wants to help Colorado

        With that said, it is very difficult for me to support any candidate that hasn’t personally knocked on at least 10,000 doors begging for votes (I have the same problem with Michael Bennet and many other candidates, both GOP and Democrat)

        For me, knocking on over 20,000 doors was a TRANSFORMATIVE experience…. to stand on someone’s door step and have them honestly tell you what they think of you, your Party, and America’s problems…. it’s mind-blowing experience that will CHANGE you

        Had I won the House seat, my votes and leadership qualities would have been much different, after knocking on so many doors — with that said, I want the majority of my elected politicians to be people that have knocked on 10,000+ doors, at least once in their political career, campaigning for themselves, not someone else….. knocking on doors builds a sense of humility, intelligence, and most importantly, shows that person/candidate is not detached from America

        A candidate can have all the money and political consultants in the world….. but no ‘knocks-on-doors’ is a sure path towards detachment

        1. How many doors will you knock on? You knocked on 20,000 doors, and 34,000 total votes were cast in HD-56, which is well over 50%.

          Approximately 1.5 million votes were cast for Treasurer in 2006. That’s a lot of sore knuckles.

          I definitely applaud your hands-on approach to campaigning.

          1. For State Treasurer, I may not knock on any doors, as I feel that the 20,000 I’ve knocked on has already given me a very strong glimpse of Colorado’s needs — and above, I said that all candidates should knock on 10,000+ doors at least once in their political careers, but not necessarily every race

            However — I will say this –

            I have consulted with some great strategists, in addition to already running some data on the race

            My team and I have constructed a campaign plan that would BULLDOZE any competitors (both primary and general election) and none of it would involve corrupt 527’s or dirty/mud-throwing — and literally, we would BULLDOZE over the competition

            It is a VERY VERY grassroots plan that relies on old campaign styles, with great innovation thrown in

            If I do run, you’ll see this plan debuted, and believe me, you’ll be impressed — much of this plan is based on the lessons I learned in running for HD56 — what worked, what didn’t work, etc

            For HD56, I used everything —- in the final weeks, we had a staff of 15+, tons of radio ads, newspaper ads, knocking on doors, street corners, etc — nobody knows what works better than me, and this new plan will exaggerate the best parts and leave out the ineffective parts

  2. clearly we’re going to some budget problems.  Are you the “tighten the belt” guy, or would you consider a more permanent fix?  Knowing you’re a big TABOR fan, maybe you could support a plan bringing it more in line with the original (voter’s) spirit?  Like fixing the inflation rate.

    1. You are correct – I have often said that there are FOUR religious documents in my family – the Torah, the Bible, the Quran, and TABOR – and I celebrate that notion

      First off – TABOR already takes into account inflation — the grand formula is inflation + growth — so there is no need to add any kind of component of inflation

      Second – my favorite part of TABOR is the following –

      “Article X

      Section 20. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

      (4) Required elections. Starting November 4, 1992, districts must have voter approval in advance for:

      (a) Unless (1) or (6) applies, any new tax, tax rate increase, mill levy above that for the prior year, valuation for assessment ratio increase for a property class, or extension of an expiring tax, or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to any district.”

      What this means is that if Colorado politicians WANT to spend more money, then they have to put those items on a statewide ballot and get it passed by the populace

      I was STRONGLY against REF C primarily because it was completely non-specific in what the additional taxes would be spent on — I would never be against any efforts to put a spending bill on the statewide ballot though, provided that the allocation of monies is SPECIFICALLY noted — I think the people should VOTE on items freely

      And if we do face budget shortfalls, and attempts to get specific spending measures on a statewide ballot fall short, then certainly, as a State Treasurer, I would be very vocal in what programs need to be cut

      With that said, if we face a budget shortfall, I would immediately recommend spending cuts — from there, I would also do my best to make sure that any proposed spending measures (like a REF C or REF D) specifically address where allocated monies would go

      I am not afraid to cut spending — I would be more than happy to defend any kind of spending decrease

      1. I think the Monorail can be made without a tax increase

        However – if tax increases are needed, then I think the measure should be sent to a statewide ballot, like any state project

        Some would accuse me of being a bad Republican, due to my advocating for such a project, however, I would argue that my goal of having any public project approved over a statewide ballot, by voters, is demonstration of my love for TABOR

      2. so, basically, you don’t trust the Leg.  All monies should be budgeted by the general voters.  So when we allocate money by constitutional amendments, it is necessary to have a general election in order to change the allocation.  Speaking fiscally, that’s not conservative, that’s pinning ourselves into one spot.  Flexibility in a changing market is a key element in good business management.  I’d like to see any documentation on this prescription as having worked…

          1. I am responding to “I would also do my best to make sure that any proposed spending measures (like a REF C or REF D) specifically address where allocated monies would go ”

            Clearly, Hasan feels that only targeted allocations are the only kind that should go in front of voters.  In the long term, this will tie the hands of government, as we have already seen w/ SB1 (?), the school funding amendment (23?), Ref C, the rejected Ref D, and it seems like countless others.

            I agree that there can be a balance, but I don’t see anything in the interview or the replies here that would even hint at such flexibility from Hasan.

            I, for one, have had more than my fill of ideological budgeting.

            Plus, I got a big yuk out of the last line, “I am not afraid to cut spending — I would be more than happy to defend any kind of spending decrease.”  But I can’t find any reference to the suggested items to decrease.  Kind of smells bad to say “I can find the money” but not make any suggestions.  Reminds me of McCain during the campaign, and that didn’t work out too well.

            1. Good responses

              It’s exactly how David said it — the Legislature has a huge responsibility in allocating general funds, in addition to any additional monies that come from growth+inflation

              From there, yes, the taxpayers should approve any increases in spending and it should be specific — no experiments that it doesn’t work? Last I checked, Colorado has usually had some of the least amount of debt, amongst all states, during economic downturns – that’s enough to tell me that TABOR works great

              Again – if the state needs more money, then put it on the ballot and let the people decide – it’s pretty easy

              My apologies for not spelling out budget cuts — I believe that Bill Ritter has hired way too many state employees and for now, I would say that those are the first things that need to go

              From there, we have way too many criminals arrested on drug charges alone — put GPS bracelets on those guys and send them home on house arrest and probation for a certain amount of time — we are wasting money by keeping those guys in jail, as well as destroying their families

              hope that helps!

              1. Which ones? Which departments do you feel are overstaffed? There’s been a hiring freeze in place for a while — with a few exceptions here and there — would you maintain that or start cleaving into actual programs?

                And really, you want to put drug dealers back in our neighborhoods with GPS devices attached? Is that so their customers have to stop by their houses?

                1. Good concerns RedGreen

                  First off — Governor Bill Ritter and the Democrat-controlled legislature, in my opinion and I believe, according to 2008 appropriation records, added around 1,450 state jobs in 2008

                  State Planning and Budgeting had over 200 new jobs, Judicial Branch had over 200, and Corrections (Prisons) had over 250, among many other departments

                  I would go back and suggest that we consider cutting those jobs and going back to the State Employee numbers we had in 2007

                  Second — regarding drugs

                  There is a HUGE difference between drug USERS and drug DEALERS — in my above post, I suggested sending drug users home — now drug dealers, the law and penalties should stay the same — but I’m addressing drug users here –

                  Our criminal system is heavily biased against drug users, at the severe cost to the state — I think it is crazy that someone guilty of a DUI is probably not going to go to jail, whereas a marijuana user gets the book thrown at them

                  Worst of all, sending a drug user to jail is a quick way to turn someone into a career criminal — and all of this at the cost of feeding them and giving them shelter, when they are in jail

                  If we are really going to spend money on drug users, then send them home, pay for some rehab, and clean them up

                  Our ghettos and barrios (as I use to tyro-teacher public school) are getting ravaged, due to so many young adults and adults being sent to jail for minor drug offenses — this has significantly lead to many children being brought up in single-parent households, making it tougher on the family

                  Overall – we are wasting too much money jailing drug users, where many become worse criminals, costing us more money, and further contributing to the deterioration of our ghettos and barrios — send those folks home, on probation and house arrest, with a GPS bracelet, with mandatory rehab, according to their sentence

                  Drug dealers, on the other hand, the policy should stay the same

                  1. but you didn’t say “drug users,” you said “way too many criminals arrested on drug charges alone.” There’s possession, possession with intent, and distribution, all “drug charges alone.” I happen to agree with you about users and decriminalization of small amounts of just about any drug, but you could’ve saved the lengthy explication about the barrios if you’d said what you meant the first time.

                    Having said that, how’s that position play with mainstream Republicans across the state?

                    1. I was pretty sure that I had specified — forgive me

                      Don’t underestimate Republicans — I’m confident the Republican electorate is willing to hear innovative ideas and solutions

                  2. The number of judges needed in our District and County courts (and the requisite accompanying staff) is directly related to the crime rate and to citizens needing access to the courts to resolve civil issues.  For some types of cases, e.g. criminal, there are laws governing how quickly various types of hearings must occur, so appropriate staffing is necessary.  Just as with the rest of state government, the judicial branch has had a hiring freeze for months, and is doing what every other agency is doing to reduce expenditures to meet the revenue shortfall.  And remember, the requirement that the State of Colorado not deficit-spend was put in place prior to TABOR, if I recall correctly.  That alone is a powerful restraint on state government operations.  

          1. Thank you for your responses, Ali.

            You do realize, right, that the cost of providing government services rises faster than the CPI — because it’s almost exclusively work, employing Coloradans, that can’t be outsourced? That’s the same reason health care and education costs rise faster than the inflation rate, because the cost of goods figured into the inflation rate never rises as fast as the cost of skilled labor.  

          2. There is a mathematical computation error in Tabor.

            Growth+inflation is not the mathematically correct formula for keeping spending at a constant level in real per capita dollars.

            The state treasurer should understand basic mathematics–or rather arithmetic.

            If you need help I suggest comparing 2+3 and 2X3 to determine the correct formula for maintaining constant per capita $.

            1. I’d also like to see a breakdown by age groups, baby boomers are going to cost a ton.  Those little things and TABOR would not only be almost workable, but it would also be much closer to what the voters wanted.  Control vs. killing.  

              Don’t bother complaining, Dems.  Getting rid of it just isn’t an option for now. : (

              1. I understand there is some frustration with TABOR, but I feel that TABOR is fine

                At this time, the only EDIT I would suggest to TABOR is strengthening it, so that it makes it increasingly difficult to change any of it

                I’m a deep believer in TABOR and I believe it to be the cornerstone of Colorado politics — every state should have TABOR — I know that’s not a popular opinion here, but I am being honest and not tap dancing on this one

                2. It already takes a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment to change anything about TABOR — how could you make it harder? Are there any other provisions in the state constitution you’d erect more barriers around, or is TABOR really the most sacred part of the document?

                  1. I would support any efforts to make it more difficult to edit any parts of TABOR, whether it be Legislative editing or statewide ballot initiative editing — I wasn’t thinking about erecting barriers, but I was thinking of a Constitutional Amendment that would call for 70% of the public vote to edit TABOR through statewide ballot, rather than 50% — ditto for the legislature

                    Making it difficult to edit TABOR strengthens it — I hope that answers your question?

                    2. A huge supermajority to “edit” (or amend) TABOR and TABOR only?

                      Making it that difficult to change TABOR doesn’t strengthen it, it only displays how little faith you have in the voters of this state to decide their destiny by a simple majority vote, same as they have been for nearly 100 years.

                      And you do, um, realize the legislature can’t “edit” TABOR, right? You sure you’re prepared to run for state treasurer?

                    3. When I refer to strengthening TABOR, I’m only talking about TABOR, not the entire Constitution

                      RedGreen – Legislators can strongly endorse ballot initiatives, in getting them onto a statewide ballot; Legislators can also vote on bills that will eventually become a statute that undermines TABOR — for Republicans, the mil levy freeze would be an example of such a thing — that’s what I was referring to in mentioning “Legislative editing”

                      You have a solid point in not entrusting TABOR to the general electorate — however, I would still support an Amendment that made it more difficult to edit TABOR on the basis that TABOR, to me, has prevented overspending, as well as prevented us from suffering the deep deficits that many other states are feeling — some would say this is close-mindedness on my part, but I would say this is a core conviction for me

                    4. that many on here are, but that sounds like a dangerous can of worms, requiring an unusually large super-majority to pass bills that might undermine TABOR (because, as you know from the last few years, there is no clear agreement on whether particular bills affect TABOR or not).

                      If your intent would be to paralyze government by throwing basically any bill that anyone could complain “undermines” TABOR to the courts before the legislature can vote  — good job!

                    5. I believe that TABOR keeps our legislature more transparent and honest – empowering TABOR, in my mind, is never a bad thing

                      With that said – strengthening TABOR is a secondary priority, behind many other important goals as Treasurer, which would be –

                      1. Reorganizing our Treasury Pool/Portfolio and divesting from companies that have requested bail-outs, in an effort to strengthen our Pool — this is mostly highlighted in the Face The State interview that I marked above

                      2. Introducing a fiscal plan to get a high speed transit/monorail built in Colorado

                      3. Making sure that TABOR is enforced as the current rules apply

                      Anything after that is secondary to the above goals

                    6. 1. Wait, I thought the bail-out was proposed by a Republican president and Republican secretary of the Treasury — in order to make the firms viable. So you’d invest our money based on punishing firms that took TARP money, regardless of the return, to prove what point exactly? Would the firms that are making a show of returning TARP funds get extra state investment to thank them or did they disqualify themselves when they took the money in the first place?

                      2. Um … what that has to do with the office of state treasurer, I’m not sure. Is that like how the lieutenant governor gets a pet project, like childhood immunization or prairie dog amelioration? If the high-speed monorail bypassed your home town, would you still be as interested?

                      3. That would be the current rules including the recent Supreme Court ruling, right? Or will you pick and chose which rules you believe in?

                    7. 1. BAIL OUT –

                      You are correct – although many Democrats supported it, the bail out was pushed by a Republican President and the Republican Presidential nominee — they should have NEVER introduced or supported such a plan and any Republican politician that voted for the bail out needs to publicly apologize for it — I personally did not support the bail out and I’m proud of that

                      With that said – Treasurer Kennedy has been investing in bail out funds for quite awhile now, and according to the Treasury Pool report (as of Dec 25th 2008, I believe) a highly significant amount of Colorado taxpayer money is being invested in HSBC, Wachovia, Ford, Daimler Chrysler, CitiBank, CitiGroup, Bank of America, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae, among many others

                      Bail out stocks are not performing well and for good reason, as any good investor is unlikely to invest in an entity that, despite getting billions in government help, still cannot perform well — add into that equation the fact that most of these bail out companies were not required to substantiate how they will come back to being profitable, in addition to being controlled by a large Federal Government, creating a recipe of disaster, investment-wise

                      Thus, investing in companies that have received bail out funds is a terrible investment and Treasurer Kennedy has wrongly allocated a significant part of our Treasury Pool in these stocks — my goal to divest from these funds is not based on a grudge – it’s based on good investment sense

                      2. MONORAIL –

                      If you’re referring to a high-speed monorail from Fort Collins to Pueblo (I-25) and from DIA to Grand Junction (I-70) as a ‘pet project’ then you are gravely mistaken

                      Similar to East Coast states, I believe close to 90% of Colorado’s population lives within a few miles of the highway corridors of I-70 and I-25 — the birth of a high-speed monorail, on both corridors, would deliver us into a new state of efficiency, alleviating our transportation problems and reducing reliance on cars, parking lots, and highways

                      In addition, construction could not happen at a better time — due to the fiscal crisis, labor and construction costs are at all time lows and could stay here for awhile

                      Now, good point on what the Treasurer has to do with this — traditionally, the office of the Treasurer mainly oversees the Treasury Pool, but as Treasurer, I would personally use the leadership position to push for the construction of a high-speed monorail system

                      The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority will come out with their recommendations this summer, most likely including technological recommendations, as well as construction logistics

                      I deeply believe that this monorail system could be built without a tax increase — and as State Treasurer, I would be in a position to architect a fiscal policy that I could share with the Legislature and electorate, showing how we can realize the funding for such a project in a fiscally responsible way — no one should know Colorado’s budget better than the Treasurer, thus, any budget recommendations coming from the Treasurer’s Office will always be taken with strong note

                      I believe that we will see a monorail initiative on a statewide ballot within 5 years — if the State Treasurer supports such an initiative, citing a responsible fiscal plan, then the Treasurer’s support will become crucial in Colorado’s voters approving such a plan and trusting its fiscal soundness

                      In all, the Treasurer has a huge responsibility to take on the promotion and birth of major projects in Colorado, should he/she decide to use the Office for such a responsibility

                      Lastly, the monorail going through Vail has no bearing on my personal feelings — Colorado’s transportation infrastructure is extremely weak — if we are setting the goal to improve our infrastructure, as well as reduce pollution, then high-speed monorail is the finest option

                      3. COURT RULING

                      I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, as do other courts below them

                      However, I deeply respect our State Supreme Court — the best I can say right now is that I disagree with the court’s decision  

                    8. Wow, do you not know that the state is not invested in any stocks?  And further that “divesting” from current fixed income holdings would loose the state money?  Also that state pool investments in this worst possible time, under Treasurer Kennedy, have not lost ANYTHING?  

                    9. However – I completely disagree

                      A link to our Treasury Pool Summary can be found here –

                      http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Sat…

                      We can get technical and claim that our State is not invested in any stocks, however, we are invested deeply in outside corporations and companies — thus, the health of our Treasury Pool is still based on the companies that we have decided to invest in

                      I would disagree that we have not lost “anything” — according to NYSE (http://www.nyse.com/) reports, the companies we have invested in have lost a tremendous amount of money, especially the ones that received bail-outs — again, we are heavily invested in CitiBank/Citigroup, Wachovia, HSBC, Bank of America, Daimler Chrysler, Ford, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among others

                      We knew these companies were going to receive bail-outs (back in October, November, and December) and that their value would plummet, yet, we kept our money with these companies, as of December 31st 2008, according to the report I linked above — worst of all, had these companies not received any bail-out funds, they would’ve folded, leaving our investments with them at ZERO — the fact that Treasurer Kennedy did not divest from such funds shows that she’s playing roulette with our Treasury Pool — we should’ve divested from these risky investments

                      Lastly… perhaps we do not know the entire amount of money lost because the Treasurer’s reports have not been updated since December 31st of 2008, according to the report above, and sadly, I’m sure the value of our Treasury Pool has decreased since that last report

  4. but following I-70 will make it expensive as hell, particularly a new bore for the Eisenhower Tunnel (and maybe another one under Vail Pass) and likely special construction through Glenwood Canyon.

    Hmmm… Maybe it ought to stop in Vail. Hitting the major ski resorts between Denver and Vail is great, but would there be a lot of people wanting to go all the way to GJ? Even if you account for locals?

    1. All good points!

      As far as construction goes…. I’m, personally, looking more at the financing of the project…. my friends over at the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority, including Harry Dale (who is AWESOME), are much more into the construction logistics

      When the times comes, they’ll be able to competently address such questions — however, I’ve asked similar questions to Harry Dale and his response was that most mass-transit systems could bypass the Eisenhower Tunnel by traveling over Vail Pass, which would then feed skiers more easily into A-Basin and Keystone…. thus, such a path might be more desirable anyways

      Regarding Grand Junction —- a mass-transit system to GJ is actually VERY important as GJ is the epicenter of all oil and natural gas drilling operations and their transportation connections to Denver get more important everyday

      The goal is to get as much traffic off of I-70 as possible — mass transit from Denver to GJ, depending on how we do it, can possibly alleviate much of the traffic between Denver and GJ — this would include putting cargo-cars on the mass transit track, or simply putting greater emphasis on making sure that oil-workers use the mass transit system, rather than their cars

      Overall – because of our OIL economy – mass transit between GJ and Denver is a HUGE need

    2. My understanding is that hauling stuff is where railroads really work.  Moving passengers is good, but hard to make a profit, especially in competition w/ cars.

      I don’t know how the model works in Europe with their train system …

      1. We really don’t know what the logistics would be at this time, however, I’m pretty sure that MagLev can handle cargo, so it’s important to keep that notion in mind

        The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority should be wrapping up their mass transit study this summer, so at that time, it’ll be easier to give answers to this subject and I hope they consider cargo (which is why I’m pushing it publicly so much)

  5. I’m mainly in agreement with President George W Bush when it comes to abortion –

    1. I completely agree with the Federal Ban on 7 to 9 month abortion

    2. I would likely support a ban on 6-month abortion, depending on how the legislation is written

    3. In quoting President W Bush — I don’t think America is “ready” for a ban on 1 to 5 month abortion — and I don’t know if we will ever be ready, but for now, I would not pursue putting any penalties on such a procedure – people should pursue their own destiny on this major decision, not the government

    So I think you could call me semi-pro-choice

    1. I agree A-Bob — we’ll have a shot again at HD56

      I think my campaign manager, Kaye Ferry, would make a terrific State Representative

      After that, some of the activists that I like most would include Ric Amico or Dan Ulmer in Summit, Betty Benson or Mary-Ellen Thoren in Lake, and in Eagle (alongside Kaye Ferry) I’d love to see Debbie Buckley or Ed Woodland consider it, in addition to Kaye Ferry

      This is just off the top of my head — there’s handfulls of others that I’m sure will emerge

        1. Thanks A-Bob

          Tom Stone is my friend and he did a solid job as a County Commissioner in Eagle

          With that said, I’m standing by the candidates that I listed above — I think they would all make excellent State Representatives — in addition, I have not heard Tom Stone express any interest in the seat

          I would probably throw Mark Hurlbert into that above list, as he is an excellent DA and very active in our communities — however, I’m pretty sure he’s staying focused on being our DA

    1. Thanks for the question

      For Governor, I would LOVE to see Minority Leader Mike May run — he’s a terrific leader and a hard working Republican — he would make an excellent Governor

      For Senate, honestly, I would love to see Bob Schaffer run again

      Those are my picks for now

      1. I think the campaign did a horrible job of getting the message out and his name out. That would hurt him. Every phone call I made at the Republican HQ when asked about Schaffer (only 2 months to a week before the election) no one new who he was.

        1. I think the campaign could’ve done a much better job of Latino outreach and Western Slope vote outreach

          That said – I think Bennet is EXTREMELY weak — Schaffer has already been through the campaign, his NAME ID is higher than any other GOP candidate, and most importantly, he’s a terrific leader — those are my reasons for wanting him to run again

          We’ll see what happens —- who are you tentatively supporting?

          1. I like him the only vice is that he doesn’t have a lot of experience which includes campaign experience.

            For Governor probably McInnis and if Maes turns out to be a amazing person then maybe I’ll go for him. I think we have a lot of good possible gubernatorial candidates.

    1. I met Maes over the weekend — he’s very kind and very personable

      My only criticism would be that it is EXTREMELY hard to run a statewide campaign if you’ve never run for office before — but if he works hard traveling the Lincoln Day Dinner circuit and meeting Central Committees then he’ll get a shot

    1. I would be very humbled if I was asked and I would love to serve in a capacity that helps the State – so yes, I’d be happy to take it on

      However – I think there are politicians on both sides of the aisle whose qualifications far outweigh mine, so I would be surprised to be on any kind of LT Governor list…..

      1. if all the qualified people are running for something else. In 2010 everyone’s going to have to announce a running mate to boost them in the primary.

        So don’t be surprised.

          1. however I may have handed out a Tom Stone card to you and not noticed you. I handed out a few hundred so there was a likely chance you got one 🙂

            You learn a lot about people’s personalities when at that meeting and I can cross off a few dozen people I’d never vote for.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

133 readers online now

Newsletter

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