(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
UPDATE: Irony not lost on Wonkette: We are assuming this will be the first case of the NRA and Gun Owners of America agreeing that this law-abiding citizen should not have access to a gun! It should be an easy call, being a Democrat. —– As the Las Vegas SunВ reported yesterday: A Democratic assemblyman is […]
In May of this year Colorado PERA retirees will elect a new trustee to represent their interests on the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees. This election provides an opportunity for PERA retirees to place a member on the board who will remind the board that Colorado PERA pension benefits are contractual obligations of PERA-affiliated employers. (PERA’s legal staff has neglected this important duty.) Colorado PERA Board members must realize that the protections of the U.S. Constitution also extend to citizens living in small western states.
I believe that the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees and the Colorado PERA administration would benefit from the presence of PERA Board members who regularly call attention to the contractual nature of public pension benefits in Colorado. Such trustees should encourage PERA’s administrators and lobbyists to routinely and emphatically communicate this contractual status of public pension benefits to members of the Colorado General Assembly. Rather than serving as a discussion forum for potential means of breaching PERA pension contracts, the Colorado PERA Board should work to protect the contractual rights of Colorado PERA members.
Such trustees should have the backbone to withstand attempts by self-interested parties to enact PERA pension reforms that are unconstitutional on their face. Such trustees should insist that PERA-affiliated employers meet their annual required pension contributions, and cease the irresponsible accumulation of their pension debts. Every communication that Colorado PERA Board members have with elected officials should begin with a reminder that the State of Colorado is currently in breach of contract. In conformance with their fiduciary duty, members of the PERA Board should remind members of the General Assembly that $4.3 billion in annual required contributions to the PERA trust funds have been skipped by the General Assembly in the last decade, and that these skipped payments accumulate as public pension debt of Colorado PERA and PERA-affiliated employers.
Colorado PERA Board Trustees should be present at annual PERA presentations to the Joint Budget Committee, Joint Finance Committees, and Legislative Audit Committee to remind state legislators that state expenditures to meet contractual obligations take precedence over discretionary expenditures. PERA trustees should remind state legislators that, although former legislators and Colorado voters have slashed state revenues (Colorado now has the lowest state revenues per capita in the nation), under the Colorado Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, the State of Colorado will never be able to welch on its contractual public pension obligations.
From the Colorado PERA website:
“Board of Trustees Election Slated-Candidates Sought
In May 2013, Colorado PERA will hold an election for seats on the Board of Trustees for the following positions:
One State Division position
Two School Division positions
One retiree position (to be elected by School, Local Government, or Judicial Division retirees)
Candidacy packets may be obtained by writing to:
Colorado PERA
Internal Audit Division
1301 Pennsylvania Street
Denver, CO 80203-5011
To be placed on the ballot, a candidate must fulfill the requirements explained in the candidacy packet. Requests for candidacy packets should include the name, PERA Division of membership, mailing address, daytime telephone number, and signature of the candidate.
Candidates will be subject to a background check.
Members from the State Division who are interested in being a candidate must also indicate whether they are a member of the PERA defined benefit or defined contribution plan.
Ballots will be mailed in early May to the following:
Members of the State Division
Members of the School Division
Retirees from the School, Local Government, and Judicial Divisions
Returned ballots must be postmarked by May 31, 2013.
PERA will be holding elections for the seats currently held by Maryann Motza from the State Division, Scott Noller and Marcus Pennell from the School Division, and Carole Wright, a retiree, whose terms expire June 30, 2013. All positions are for four-year terms.
The Board of Trustees meets at least five times per year and is responsible for adopting the rules and policies for the administration of PERA. Elected Board members serve without pay, but are reimbursed for necessary expenses.”
http://www.denverpost.com/news…
Link to PERA announcement:
UPDATE: At least a bungee-jump off the so-called “fiscal cliff” now likely, CNN:
The feared fiscal cliff was at hand Monday night, with nothing expected to pass Congress before a combination of tax increases and spending cuts starts to kick in at midnight.
A deal to avert that combination, which economists warn could push the U.S. economy back into recession, was “within sight” on Monday afternoon, President Barack Obama said. And in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told members that they were “very, very close” to a deal, having worked out an agreement on taxes…
In the House, GOP sources said there’s little practical difference in settling the issue Monday night versus Tuesday. But if House Republicans approve the bill on Tuesday — when taxes have technically gone up — they can argue they’ve voted for a tax cut to bring rates back down, even after just a few hours, GOP sources said. That could bring some more Republicans on board, one source said.
—–
As the clocks ticks down to midnight, Politico reports:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Vice President Joe Biden engaged in furious overnight negotiations to avert the fiscal cliff and made major progress toward a year-end tax deal, giving sudden hope to high-stakes talks that had been on the brink of collapse, according to sources familiar with the discussion.
McConnell and Biden, who served in the Senate together for 23 years, are closing in on an agreement that would hike tax rates for families who earn more than $450,000, and individuals who make more than $400,000, according to sources familiar with talks…
After loud Democratic protests on Sunday, Republicans agreed to take off the table a controversial provision that would have cut Social Security benefits. But more hurdles soon emerged, including over automatic spending cuts set to take place next year, and the rates for estate taxes that are set to balloon if no deal is reached by the new year.
[T]he talks hit a ditch on Saturday night when McConnell made a proposal that included switching the formula used to calculate Social Security benefit payments. Using the chained consumer price index, or “chained CPI,” would curb the growth of the program’s cost-of-living adjustments.

Democrats slammed it as a poison pill and warned there would be no last-minute deal to avoid tax hikes if Republicans insisted on entitlement reform, which Democrats had assumed was off the table at this late stage.
The dwindling scope of any potential deal with Republicans is the biggest reason why Democrats have refused to include the so-called “chained CPI” reductions in the future growth of Social Security benefits–a concession President Barack Obama himself had offered at an earlier stage of negotiations in hope of a much larger agreement. Mitch McConnell’s quick retreat on that proposal shows which side has more to lose from the failure to reach an agreement, and (finally!) seems to acknowledge the tremendous public opposition to cutting Social Security.
It’s not even known at this point if the deal that’s ultimately reached–if any–will include rescinding, or at least delaying, major cuts set to go into effect tomorrow to a multitude of domestic and military programs known as the “sequester”–cuts mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act compromise on raising the debt ceiling. Also unknown is the status of extending unemployment compensation, the so-called “doc fix” for Medicare reimbursement, the estate tax, and many other issues up against deadlines. And of course, whatever they cobble together in the Senate must pass the House, which is, as you know, a more or less dysfunctional body.
We’ll update throughout the day as (and if) necessary.
Truth-Out Article – Pensions: A Promise is a Promise . . . Unless it’s Inconvenient.
Legal Scholars: “What the states are trying to do is change the ground rules in the middle of the game.” “The state is just trying to find any argument that allows them to get out of their obligations and that will stick in court.”
(These politicians are class acts.)
In 2010, a majority of Colorado state legislators, Colorado PERA public pension administrators, PERA trustees, and PERA and public sector union lobbyists – all conspired to perpetrate the greatest theft in the history of our state. Colorado news media largely supported the theft and have accordingly attempted to bury the story.
A recent article (December 23, 2012) by the organization Truth-Out places Colorado’s breach of public pension contracts in perspective. It is one of the best articles I’ve seen addressing state attempts to breach public pension contracts.
Read this article by Truth-Out . . . and realize the depravity of the crime committed by Colorado legislators in 2010.
Link to Truth-Out article:
http://truth-out.org/news/item…
The Truth-Out article addresses the taking of contracted retiree COLA benefits by the State of Rhode Island in 2011, the resulting litigation, the impact of the Rhode Island pension theft on the state’s public sector retirees, and comments on current public pension litigation by the nation’s foremost public pension legal scholars.
As we have seen, Rhode Island’s 2011 taking of public pension benefits was supported by the Arnold Foundation. According to Texas AFT, Enron Billionaire John Arnold is funding “attacks” on public pensions across the United States:
” . . .the big-money man behind the attack on state and local pension funds, from California to Texas and beyond, is one John Arnold, a billionaire Houston hedge-fund operator who walked away from his role as an Enron trader with millions of dollars in bonuses before that notorious company went bankrupt.”
Link:
http://texasaftblog.com/hotlin…
“John Arnold once was renowned for his lucrative natural gas trading at Enron. He never was implicated in wrongdoing at the now-infamous company, but Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California once criticized him for allegedly refusing to answer, during a deposition, whether he had manipulated West Coast energy markets. A committee representing former Enron employees sued Arnold and other top traders for receiving huge bonuses, including $8 million for Arnold, right before Enron collapsed. Arnold and the committee settled on confidential terms, according to court records.”
Link:
http://californiawatch.org/dai…
Colorado media have attempted to bury the story of the state’s attempted theft of public pension benefits in 2010.
This fact is clear from the lack of coverage by Colorado media of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling last October. In October, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Colorado PERA retiree pension COLA benefits are indeed contractual obligations of the State of Colorado and other Colorado PERA-affiliated employers.
The court case Justus v. State, involves BILLIONS of dollars of Colorado state and local government contractual public pension obligations. Yet, the October decision in the case by the Colorado Court of Appeals was the subject of a single news story as far as I can tell.
Unfortunately, this single news account of the October Colorado Court of Appeals decision was a work of fiction by Denver Post reporter Tim Hoover. Have a look at Tim Hoover’s article published in the Denver Post on October 12, 2012:
Link:
http://www.denverpost.com/poli…
For some reason, Hoover declared the Court of Appeals confirmation of the contractual nature of PERA retiree COLA benefits as a “win” for Colorado PERA. I addressed this Denver Post article in an earlier blog post:
The Denver Delusional Post.
In the case, Justus v. State, Colorado PERA retirees (plaintiffs) are suing the State of Colorado and the state’s pension administrator Colorado PERA (defendants) for the breach of retiree public pension contracts.
The October 12, 2012 Denver Post article proclaims the recent ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals a “win” for the defendants in the case Justus v. State.
Fact #1: The pension administrator Colorado PERA (defendant) was quite content with the initial 2011 Denver District Court determination that Colorado PERA COLA benefits were not contractual. Fact #2: The Colorado Court of Appeals has declared that Colorado PERA COLA benefits ARE indeed a contractual obligation of PERA and PERA-affiliated employers.
So, how is it possible that Tim Hoover of the Denver Post in his October 12, 2012 article construes this outcome as a “win” for Colorado PERA? (Wishful thinking or clueless? Having read many Hoover articles relating to Colorado public affairs, I assure you the answer is not “clueless.”)
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruling has received scant mention in the press nationally. If it were not for the efforts of our dogged public pension rights bloggers in the United States (bless them), the “powers that be” may very well have succeeded in suppressing news of this important public pension decision! (Colorado PERA officials have been hoping that many other states will attempt pension COLA theft. Where a crime is ordinary, the conscience of the criminal is assuaged.)
Now to the excellent Truth-Out article, a few excerpts and my reactions:
“Then, in 2011, the Rhode Island legislature, claiming that the state’s retirement system had become unsustainable, passed a sweeping law – euphemistically dubbed the Rhode Island Retirement Security Act – that made drastic modifications to the pension scheme.”
(My comment: The 2011 Rhode Island act included breach of public sector retiree pension COLA contracts.)
“The revised system will remain in effect until the pension fund reaches an 80 percent funding ratio . . .”
(My comment: In their 2010 pension COLA-theft legislation, Colorado state legislators propose to steal public pension benefits until a 100 percent actuarial funded ratio is achieved. It occurred to the proponents of SB 10-001 . . . well, if we are going to be thieves anyway, let’s GO BIG! As we know, Fitch Ratings considers public pensions with an 80 percent actuarial funded ratio to be “well-funded.)
Rhode Island retiree Glover:
“I had my plan in place,” he said. “I did everything that I was told to do and made my plans based on everything I had been told. Then the state changed its mind and decided to pull out. I just don’t think that’s fair.”
“The state made a promise to me,” he said, “and now it’s reneging on that promise. That isn’t how it’s supposed to work. When I grew up, a promise was a promise was a promise.”
“Our whole system of economics in America is based on trust and contracts,” he said. “I just think that to allow the state to get out of its promises like this runs against that entire idea.”
Rhode Island public employees and retirees sued over the breach of their pension contracts in 2011:
“The Rhode Island constitution, like the federal Constitution, prohibits the state from passing any law ‘impairing obligation of contracts.'”
“The argument put forward by the Rhode Island officials who are named in the lawsuit – including Governor Lincoln D. Chafee and State Treasurer Gina Raimundo – is that the promises the state has made to its workers about their pensions do not constitute contracts, and are thus not legally enforceable.”
(My comment: The Colorado Court of Appeals has found that Colorado PERA retiree pension COLA rights are contractual, from the October decision: “We consider McPhail and Bills dispositive [indisputably bringing to a conclusion a legal controversy] of whether plaintiffs here have a contractual right to a particular COLA.” In the cases McPhail and Bills, the Colorado Supreme Court “found a contractual right based on members’ provision of services and contributions to the retirement fund.”)
Comments from public pension legal scholars:
“‘The entire public pension system is built on the understanding that pensions are legally protected promises,’ said Richard Kaplan, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law. ‘That idea has been foundational for at least the last half-century.'”
“Since the middle of the century, however, courts have generally acknowledged that states cannot promise pension benefits to their employees as an inducement to get them to work for the state and then renege on those promises. The large majority of states have protected pensions under the theory that the promise of a pension represents a form of contract . . .”
“The legal understanding has been, ‘That is your money, and the state can’t take it away.'”
“The vast majority of states – 41 – apply a contract theory to their employees’ pension rights. All of these states have constitution provisions that – mirroring the contract clause of the federal Constitution – prohibit the passage of any law that impairs the obligation of contracts.”
“‘It cuts against decades of precedent,’ Kaplan said, ‘not to mention basic, commonsense notions of what pensions are and what’s fair.'”
“According to Secunda of Marquette University, a shift back towards a gratuity model would be ‘disastrous.’ ‘What the states are trying to do is change the rules in the middle of the game,’ he said.”
(My comment: Here’s a link to Paul Secunda’s paper on public pension law:
http://scholarship.law.marquet…
“They’re saying, ‘We’ll play by a certain set of rules until the game is not in our favor anymore, and then we’ll change them.’ Try explaining that to a five-year-old and see if they think it should be allowed.”
“Kaplan agreed. ‘What the states told these workers was that ‘if you do x, you’ll get y.’ You can be sure that the states didn’t say, ‘if you do x, and we feel like we can afford it, you’ll get y.'”
“Joseph Slater, a professor of law at the University of Toledo and a labor historian, explained that, historically, states and local governments have used the promise of secure pensions to justify paying public employees less than they might earn in the private sector.”
“‘If they knew that that promise didn’t really mean anything, people might have made different decisions about what job to do,’ he said. ‘This is part of the reason why they decided to dedicate their lives to public service.'”
“According to Richard Kaplan, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, proving that reneging on their pension obligations is necessary to achieve an important public purpose is a high bar to reach, because that argument implies that the state’s ability to raise taxes to keep its promises have been exhausted.”
“‘That argument might make sense if the state is really in extremis, if we’re talking about going without teachers and firefighters,’ Kaplan said. ‘But even in that case, the state would have to convince the court that raising taxes was somehow off the table.'”
(My comment: Rather than retaining its revenue stream in order to meet its contractual obligations, the Colorado General Assembly has deliberately slashed its available revenues in the last decade. Further, the General Assembly has pumped one-half billion dollars into public pension funds that ARE NOT its responsibility . . . those of Colorado local governments [Old Hire Police and Fire pension plans]. Finally, the General Assembly continues to make $100 million discretionary grants of property tax relief in spite of the fact that it is in breach of contract. It is perfectly clear to me that the Colorado General Assembly has not one iota of respect for its contractual public pension obligations.)
“According to several legal experts, the argument that pensions enjoy no contractual protections can best be seen as a tactical decision on the part of the states to try to get around what they originally intended when they promised certain pension benefits to their employees.”
“The state is just trying to find any argument that allows them to get out of their obligations and that will stick in court.”
“Stein agreed, and added that the context for the Rhode Island lawsuits and several others around the country was that past lawmakers persistently failed to make their necessary contributions to the pension system.”
(My comment: As we have seen, the Colorado General Assembly has skipped billions of dollars of “annual required contributions” to the Colorado PERA pension trust funds in just the last decade.)
Link to Truth-Out website:
Truth-Out wiki link:
“As an organization, Truth-Out works to broaden and diversify the political discussion by introducing independent voices and focusing on undercovered issues and unconventional thinking.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…
The National Public Pension Coalition is drawing attention to this Truth-Out article. “Since 2007, the Coalition – representing millions of teachers, nurses, police, firefighters and other public sector employees – has worked to protect the financial security of working families who rely on public pensions. NPPC works with a national network of state and local coalition efforts to achieve this goal.”
Link:
Empty U.S. House chambers.
With the country teetering on this fiscal cliff of deep spending cuts and sharp tax hikes, the philosophical differences, the shortened timetable and the political dynamics appear to be insurmountable hurdles for a bipartisan deal by New Year’s Day.
Hopes of a grand-bargain – to shave trillions of dollars off the deficit by cutting entitlement programs and raising revenue – are shattered. House Republicans already failed to pass their “Plan B” proposal. And now aides and senators say the White House’s smaller, fall-back plan floated last week is a non-starter among Republicans in Senate – much less the House.
On top of that, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday that the nation would hit the debt limit on Dec. 31, and would then have to take “extraordinary measures” to avoid exhausting the government’s borrowing limit in the New Year.
Adds the Washington Post:
If anything, hope for success appeared to have dimmed over the Christmas holiday. The Republican-controlled House last week abdicated responsibility for resolving the crisis, leaving all eyes on the Senate. But senior aides in both parties said Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have not met or even spoken since leaving town for the weekend…
With no sign of urgency, aides in both parties predicted that failure was not just a possibility – it was rapidly becoming the most likely outcome. No significant movement was expected Thursday: Obama was scheduled to be in the air traveling back from his Hawaiian holiday for a good portion of the day, and the Senate wasn’t set to convene for votes until the evening.
Even if some miraculous breakthrough in the Senate could be achieved, another round of winter weather in the Washington, D.C. area this weekend could well disrupt air travel, making it difficult for House members to reconvene in time for a vote before the new year–and that assumes the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a body capable of passing anything the President would be able to sign. After the failure before Christmas by Speaker John Boehner to pass his “Plan B” alternative measure, a red-on-red disaster abetted by at least two Colorado Republican members of Congress, dysfunction seems to be the rule.
The public is becoming increasingly, undeniably aware of who is to blame for the impasse, as a poll released yesterday shows once again–Huffington Post reports:
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats got a moderate boost in approval ratings for their handling of the crisis. Obama’s rating on the negotiations rose to a majority 54 percent, while approval for Democratic leaders in Congress jumped to 45 percent. Republicans did not see similar gains, with their number holding nearly steady at 26 percent. [Pols emphasis]
Any shift in approval didn’t appear to affect the desire for bipartisan deal-making. Just 22 percent of people said either side should stick to its principles, while 68 percent called for a compromise.
And this is the key: President Barack Obama has already compromised. A casual look at the offers the President has made, both increasing the threshold of income at which higher tax rates would apply, as well as offering entitlement rate-of-growth cuts that have genuinely upset liberal Democrats, and there’s no question which side has offered more to get a deal. We don’t really think the administration can offer much more without putting itself in a situation similar to that faced by Boehner–a fact made even clearer by the intense public opposition to cutting institutions like Social Security and Medicare. One small upshot is that as the scale of what can be achieved with an intransigent GOP-controlled House diminishes, so do the cuts.
Politically, it’s critical to understand that this is not 2009. There is no upwelling of conservative opposition brewing as was the case with the then-incipient “Tea Party.” The country has been through years of exactly this kind of obstruction and brinkmanship since Republicans retook control of the House in 2010. The voters want solutions. They are tired of rhetoric. What the polls show is a growing fatigue with Republican intransigence, and a growing understanding that it is Republican intransigence at the heart of much of their frustration with government.
It is not “bias” to acknowledge when one side is plainly losing.
Sometimes KNUS’ Steve Kelley seems embarrassed by his own morning rants and rages against Obama and the nasty Democrats. The other day he asked, “Do you really want to hear a rant from middle-aged white guy?”
Kelley’s current behavior looks different from what you heard during of his 19-year career at KOA, where he at least acted like he didn’t have the answers.
But Kelley’s more level-headed roots return when he conducts interviews, which usually feature straight-forward questions you’d want, but don’t expect, from someone seated behind a microphone.
This morning, for example, during his Kelley and Company show, he asked Rep. Cory Gardner this really good question:
Kelley: Why do you guys [Republicans] seem to be losing the PR battle [on the fiscal cliff]? I mean, it’s so easy to blame a Republican, but it seems to stick to you?
Gardner: Well, you know, it’s tough. We’ve got to do a better job of messaging and explaining to people who are in the middle class, people who are lower income earners, that people who will be affected by this tax increase are people like you, people who are working hard to make ends meet, people who are struggling to pay the mortgage, because their business are going to be hard hit. That’s going to result in lower take home pay because the businesses they work with are suffering and struggling to bear the burden of the tax increases. That’s the bottom line and so the President controls the bully pulpit, regardless of who it is in the White House, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican. They have a tremendous opportunity to shape the outlines of the message.
Listen to audio of Rep. Gardner talking fiscal cliff on Denver radio station KNUS 710 AM on 12-11-12
Kelley was on the right track, but to get to the heart of the GOP’s fiscal-cliff PR/substance problem, Kelley should have contrasted Gardner’s head-spinning response with Obama’s crisp lines on the topic, which he delivered at a rally Monday:
Obama: “We can solve this problem. All Congress needs to do is pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income,” he said. “When you put it all together, what you need is a package that keeps taxes where they are for middle class families, we make some tough spending cuts on things that we don’t need, and then we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a slightly higher tax rate.”
In another question, which Kelley didn’t acknowledge actually related to his previous question about the GOP’s PR problem, Kelley asked Gardner whether he’d compromise on a tax increase:
Gardner: “We cannot agree to a tax increase. That is not the solution. That is not going to solve our $16 trillion debt. That’s what I am urging our leaders, Speaker Boehner and others, to make sure they are adhering to…I think he knows that the [Republican] conference does not support a tax increase, that there is no will to increase taxes amongst the Republican Party and the House majority.”
That’s obviously part of the Republican PR problem on the fiscal cliff, but Kelley didn’t get into the fundamentals.
Roll Call has an early rundown of where the 2014 Senate races are ranked in order of competitiveness. Colorado is listed as “Likely Democratic” among the 33 Senate races, which puts Sen. Mark Udall’s seat well outside the top tier:
The early read from both sides is that Udall is in a strong position for re-election. Even Republicans concede that he has deftly positioned himself as a moderate on fiscal and social issues.
But the DNA of Colorado is a swing state, and midterm races are typically difficult for the president’s party, especially during a second term. Republicans fell just short of ousting Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet in 2010. Therefore, the GOP is optimistic and several names have already surfaced. The Republican who strikes the most fear in the hearts of Colorado Democrats is Rep. Cory Gardner.
Other possible challengers include 2008 Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, former Rep. Bob Beauprez and state Attorney General John Suthers.
Nothing new there (at least not to readers of Colorado Pols). Republican Rep. Cory Gardner is mentioned as the “scariest” potential GOP candidate, and also picked up a mention in a similar story on The National Journal (subscription required).
Is Gardner really “The Republican who strikes the most fear in the hearts of Colorado Democrats?” On the whole, of course not. But this is all relative to other potential GOP candidates, and with that background Gardner is definitely the one that would be most worrisome for Udall.
Gardner’s relative strength is key in this discussion, because Udall would still be a heavy favorite for re-election if Gardner was the GOP candidate. And that is exactly why Gardner won’t run for Senate in 2014. He’s doing the smart thing by letting his name float out there for 2014, because any discussion of Gardner as a Senate candidate only enhances his name ID and perceived strength among Republicans.
Gardner won’t run against Udall because it is too big of a political risk. He can hold his current House seat for as long as he wants, so there’s no rush to move up. If he did decide to run against Udall and lost, Gardner would be out of elected office without having had time to grow his political network (a Republican would likely replace Gardner in CD-4, which would preclude him from trying to retake his old seat in 2016).
Gardner is in a great position to be mentioned as a top Senate challenger, which is only happening because the GOP has no bench in Colorado. He won’t run, but for now there’s no benefit to officially removing his name from the rumor mill.
Republican Attorney General John Suthers is apparently giving (semi) serious thought to running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Mark Udall.
We really don’t believe that Suthers will end up as a candidate for Senate, but it makes sense that he would have early discussions about the possibility. In 2010 Suthers was heavily recruited by Texas Sen. John Cornyn (Cornyn was the head of the NRSC in 2010 and 2012) to run against Democrat Michael Bennet. Suthers declined and instead ran for re-election as Attorney General. Two years later, Suthers remains one of the few remaining high-profile Republicans in Colorado, but running against Udall would seem to be much tougher than challenging Bennet in 2010; Bennet was a top-tier pickup opportunity for Republicans in 2010, but Udall is lower on the list in 2012 for a number of reasons (name ID and the fact that he is a true elected incumbent, to name two reasons).
As we discussed last week, Republicans can count the number of top GOP names on one hand, which means someone like Suthers will be wooed early. But while Suthers has at least expressed some interest in the Senate in years past, we’d be very surprised if he actually decided to jump in the race for 2014.
An insightful story in Sunday’s Durango Herald by reporter Emery Cowan:
La Plata County voters favored the president by a margin of 57 percent to 41 percent four years ago. This year, 53 percent of voters supported Obama and 44 percent of voters supported Mitt Romney…
Only one La Plata County precinct supported Obama in 2008 but favored Romney in 2012. Precinct 29 in the northern Animas Valley supported Obama 54 percent to 45 percent in 2008. In 2012, 47 percent of voters supported Obama and 51 percent supported Romney. No precinct that favored John McCain in 2008 went for Obama in 2012.
The county’s Democratic tilt in every other race, from county commissioner to state representative, reverses a rightward drift in 2010 and more closely mirrors how the county voted in 2008.
The county favored Democratic candidate Mike McLachlan for the state House of Representatives by a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent. McLachlan, of Durango, unseated incumbent Rep. J. Paul Brown, of Ignacio.
Sal Pace, candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives who was beaten by incumbent Rep. Scott Tipton, won the county by a margin of 49 percent to 46 percent.
What you have in La Plata County are several factors that should favor Democratic election wins going forward. Arguably the biggest is the growing population and affluence of Durango, one of the state’s most educated cities. The county as a whole is likewise experiencing economic growth–both in liberal-favored industries like tourism, and energy development. But notwithstanding somewhat softer performance for Obama this year than in 2008, the trend toward electing Democrats in La Plata County shows little sign of slowing in the long term.
Among other things, that’s important because Rep. Scott Tipton’s CD-3 seat is, at least on paper, quite competitive. Tipton won more easily than expected this year, and that may make Democrats think twice about competing for his seat in 2014. That said, CD-3’s principal Democratic base is Pueblo, while Republicans more or less own Mesa County. Tipton’s ties to nearby Cortez are of course a strong point in La Plata County, and in a diverse district like this one, it’s important to not lose too badly in the places where you’re destined to lose. That can be as important, in fact, as running up the score in your base regions.
But even with that hole card in play, this is a battleground increasingly favorable to Democrats. Perhaps that will catch up with Tipton, or his successor, as it did J. Paul Brown.
State Senator Michael Johnston just keeps adding to his profile as something of a legislative wunderkind, yesterday earning the loftiest of encomiums from Forbes magazine.
From a piece entitled (we kid you not) “The Best Speech About Education — Ever:”
Mike Johnston (Mississippi Delta ’97) – State Senator, Colorado from Teach For America Events on Vimeo.
Every now and then a speech comes along that reminds me why public speaking is still essential and why I said back in 2003 that the only reason to give a speech is to change the world.
I had tears in my eyes by the end of the speech, and you will too. Johnston’s dedication to education and the real progress he has been able to make deserve to be celebrated. Watch the speech and reaffirm your faith in teaching and teachers – and most of all students.
[T]his speech will have you standing up and cheering for education by the end. It’s 21 minutes that are worth spending on the future of our children. Watch it, and tell everyone you know about it. And thanks, Mike, for your service to education.
It would, of course, be more surprising if Johnston didn’t give a good speech. After years as a state senator, high school principal, and three Ivy League degrees, he should know exactly what to say and how to say it.
Still, this particular Forbes write-up, alongside a 2010 column by Waiting for Superman director Davis Guggenheim proclaiming him one of the “world’s most powerful educators,” only underscores the fact that Johnston’s political star is rising faster than almost anyone else in Colorado state government.
Where it shoots to next is anybody’s guess. His close ties in the Obama administration offer Johnston the opportunity to shape national education policy if the president scores a second term, but Johnston may just opt to stay in office here in Colorado.
Doing so puts him on the short list for CD-1 — although incumbent Diana DeGette probably has at least a decade left on the hill — and gives him the chance to keep pushing for reforms in Colorado.
Which, while exceedingly controversial at home, should earn him plenty more national press — not to mention keynote addresses.
BY: kwtree
IN: “Vance Remorse” Shows How The Political Landscape Has Shifted Again
BY: NOV GOP meltdown
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Chickenheed
IN: “Vance Remorse” Shows How The Political Landscape Has Shifted Again
BY: NOV GOP meltdown
IN: “Vance Remorse” Shows How The Political Landscape Has Shifted Again
BY: harrydoby
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: “Vance Remorse” Shows How The Political Landscape Has Shifted Again
BY: Early Worm
IN: “Vance Remorse” Shows How The Political Landscape Has Shifted Again
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: “Vance Remorse” Shows How The Political Landscape Has Shifted Again
BY: harrydoby
IN: “Vance Remorse” Shows How The Political Landscape Has Shifted Again
BY: NOV GOP meltdown
IN: After Calls to Resign, CO GOP Chair Paid Himself in Advance
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
