Liberal and Loving It

My vote at the CD-2 convention

In CD-2 we have an embarrassment of riches with the 3 amigos. Up until now I have enjoyed that luxury, three contenders any one of which I would be happy to see representing us in Washington.

But now we come to the flip side of this choice - I have to pick one. And as a delegate to the Boulder county convention, I have to pick now, not in August. Although I don't think much will change between now and then.

First off, here is how I see them:

Joan Fitz-Gerald: Joan is another Nancy Pelosi. I expect to see Joan in the leadership within 10 years and using that position as an effective liberal voice. I think her leadership time here in the state Senate, first in the minority, and then with a slight majority, with both Republican and Democratic governors, makes her ideally suited for this role. And she will get things done.

Jared Polis: Jared is a wild card. He will work for many goals that are impossible, and will concentrate on issues where his passion takes him (education will get a lot of that). Jared will have a higher failure rate because of his impossible goals. But he will also have some successes on goals that no one thought had a prayer. He will bring a unique voice that does not see limits.

Will Shafroth: Will is Mark Udall redux. Will will perform the blocking & tackling of being an effective representative for our district. He will do the most for our district and the residents here from bringing home the bacon to constituent services. And he clearly will concentrate on environmental issues. It doesn't get the spotlight but this is exactly the job we need most representatives performing.

So to me the choice is not which one is "better." Nor is it who's policies are closer to mine, they are all pretty similar in how they would vote. It's what approach I think will be most useful not just for our district, but for our country.

I will be voting for Jared Polis at the County convention. There are way too many people in Washington who see the limits on what is possible, on what should be attempted, on what should be addressed, and work within those margins. Jared won't even notice those margins.

I am also impressed with how Jared in his campaign has continued to try very innovate ideas, and has learned how to frame them better so they don't cause him blow-back. He's been hammered for those innovative attempts and keeps riding forth to slay the dragon. I expect to see some amazing successes from Jared.

Not to mention, it will help to have someone who actually understands the high-tech world in Congress.

Update:

In the high tech start-up world the rule of thumb is try 100 things, 90 will fail. Keep doing the 10 that work, try 100 new - rinse, lather, repeat. If we could have more spectacular success with no increases in failures people would of course do that.

This is akin to FDR with The New Deal - if you really study it you find that they had a lot of failures as they kept trying. But they also had a lot of successes and saved the country. So yes, I am voting for someone who will have a higher failure rate, because it is the only way to also have a better spectacular success rate.

Jared will get some good laws passed that otherwise will never see the light of day.

We get the worst government we are willing to accept

Our founding fathers, in particular James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, designed our government, not to appeal to the better nature of their fellow man, but to take in to account the self-centered, rationalizing, worst in each of us. Federalist Paper 51 (James Madison) is devoted to this subject - that we are not angels.

What does this mean? It means we are a government of men (meant gender neutrally). Those in government are imperfect human beings where even at our best will make mistakes and at our worst will govern for maximum personal advantage.

Like so many things in life, this means we get the lowest common denominator. Yes many in government try to do a good job, and some strive for excellence. But there is much to be gained for those who will turn the system to their advantage. And so we also get those who corrupt for their personal gain. And many others who cut a few corners for some advantage.

So what stops the system from degenerating into a total mess? First the many people in government who do a good job. That is the foundation. Second is the voters who demand a given level of competency and integrity. When it gets too bad (ie G.W. Bush) the voters finally say enough and throw the rascals out.

But the voters differ from location to location. Voters in New Jersey and Louisiana accept behavior that, here in Colorado, leads to resignation or at a minimum the end of a political career. The voters are the final arbitrators of how good a government we will have.

This is why the Crystal Gray issue matters. Will we accept a politician who defrauded her employer (which without a rebuttal from Crystal is the assumption most of us are making)? If we leave Crystal in office, then we have lowered the acceptable level for the political class here in Boulder.

Congrats to Suzy Ageton for trying to address this. The other 7 council members took the easy way out and accepted the degradation of our acceptable level of political behavior. A political system does not become corrupt in 1 day. It is a myriad of little steps and this is an additional step in that direction.

The worst part of how this has played out is the political elite has closed ranks around Crystal to protect her and say her behavior was fine. This sets the precedent that if you are part of the political elite, your actions are above reproach (ie McLean/Stevens).

If 10 years from now Boulder is facing the same corruption issues that have so recently dogged Jefferson County, then Richard Polk, McLean/Stevens, and Crystal Gray will be viewed as the initial steps on that long road to a debased political sphere.

My hope is the voters of Boulder will bring enough pressure to bear to, if not force Crystal off the council, to have the council censure her and remove her as deputy mayor. I'm an optimist and I believe in the ability of the voters to act when it matters.

But we will have to wait and see...

Has RLB ever been correct?

Ok, Real Liberal Boulder has another post up lying about me. Or I assume about me as he/she/it is upset about a David Thielin - I'm David Thielen. But spelling has never been one of RLB's strengths (nor has logic, clarity, or the facts).

First off, I am not a Republican. I have been a registered Democrat since age 18 when I first registered. And while I have donated to numerous Democratic candidates (including John Edwards and Barack Obama), the only two Republicans I can recall ever donating to are Al White and my mom.

Second, I am a committed Obama delegate. I gave my word in my caucus that I will vote for Obama and I will do so. I have also been a strong advocate for him on numerous blogs, have donated to his campaign, and dropped off snacks at the Boulder Obama headquarters two mornings in the run up to the caucuses here.

Third, as to RLB's comments about Suzy Ageton, Suzy is the one member with nothing to be embarrassed about. She stood up to do the right thing and, in cases like this where doing the right thing is unpopular, she showed very admirable qualities. The fact that the rest of the council-members ran away from this issue does not make Suzy wrong. And Suzy is not alone, there are many many people in Boulder that think Crystal should resign.

Finally, it's easy to cast wild accusations from behind a cloak of anonymity. I have a question for RLB - do you believe in your own statements enough that you are willing to put your name to them? (Your unwillingness to face people is amply demonstrated in that you turned off comments on your blog when the initial comments were almost entirely negative towards your posts.)

At present, RLB remains a mouthpiece parroting the viewpoint of the powers that be here in Boulder. Illiberal, intolerant, petty, and engaging in ad-homium attacks while avoiding the issues.

Today in Boulder

Well, it was a big news day in Boulder today. Lets take a look at the highlights.

The City Council gave Crystal a pass on her having to quite her job in Adams County. Kudos to Suzy Ageton for bringing up the issue. Macon Cowles - if I rob someone and then immediately admit it and give them back the money - does that resolve everything? And Susan Osborne has her standard answer for any criticism that she doesn't like - it's "creepy."

Yes the council will ignore this if they can - no big surprise there. They're willing to point the finger at others but not to look in the mirror. That's an all too human reaction although the council seems to have it worse than most. But based on the number of emails I am getting on this, as well as the Google search hits re Crystal that hit my blog - this has legs. I think the Richard Polk case has screwed the pooch for Crystal. She can stay on council but this issue will keep dogging the council - as it leaves all of them looking like they don't understand unacceptable behavior.

ConocoPhillips has bought the STK facility. This is incredibly good news - additional high-tech jobs and a diversification from the industries we depend on in this area. Hopefully a lot of the effort will be on alternative energy generation as well as oil & gas. But either way, a large boost for the area.

Bruce Benson is the next president of C.U. - Bruce, I don't know if I should say congratulations or condolences. It's a tough job and everyone is shooting at you. With that said, I am hopeful that you can be a very effective president, not only in fixing the school's finances, but also running the system better.

Yes a school is different from a regular business. But teaching, learning, etc as effectively and efficiently as possible is a very important goal. And in that sense, while the results are somewhat different, a lot of the methods are similar between a school and a business.

Happy Wednesday all.

Live blogging the Boulder City Council meeting

Well I'm here! Not much happening so far but there are a lot of "only in Boulder" types wearing IMPEACH placards on the front of their shirts. I'm assuming it's Bush, not Crystal Gray that has them so worked up.

We're starting - 6 of 9 are here. Crystal Gray is here - I guess she is putting in a full shift tonight.

Public participation has started - apparently the biggest issue facing the Boulder City Council is a recommendation to impeach G.W. Bush. Crystal and Lisa are smiling listening to this while the other 4 look bored. This is bizarre - apparently the impeachment is tied to how were are not properly taking care of our open space.

Now we have a supporter for Crystal. She's upset that Crystal was "stalked" and if we blame Crystal for bad hours then volunteers would have to punch timecards.

Later:

Ok, I had to stop - it was just too painful. There were a couple of fairly logical, even eloquent speakers (Rob Smoke surprisingly one of them). But most of them were up there totally knowing that this must pass, that it was then only way to stop Bush's continuing crimes.

People, Bush doesn't give a rip what you think. Why? Because he is every bit as certain that he is right as you are certain of his crimes. Like you, he has zero self-doubt. So increasing the number of cities from 91 to 92 that want him impeached - zero impact.

As to Congress? You need a 2/3 vote in the Senate to impeach. And passing it in the House to die in the Senate would cause tremendous political damage to the Democrats for no positive gain.

But here's my big question for everyone there - why today? If this was so bloody important, if the future of our children and grandchildren depends on the Boulder City Council passing this legislation - why are you so late to the party? Why over 7 years into the Bush administration?

My theory? Well one possibility is that Crystal Gray needed the focus moved from her to something else. And it did do that. If not for this issue, the public period would have been ripe for comments about Crystal's job performance in Adams County.

Maybe it was just a lucky (for Crystal) coincidence. But...

And finally, I have a lot more understanding for Mark Udall's not showing his face in his district. If that is what he gets hammered with each time - ouch. It's not like most of the people speaking are willing to listen - they know that the world depends on this. I still think as a rep Udall should show up regularly - but I do understand.

And a final note - Live blogging of the council meetings - not worth it. At least the public speaking part. Repetitive and much of it illogical. My condolences to the council-members who have to sit through it with a smile plastered on their faces.

Don't get too clever Andrew

I've heard from numerous people that Andrew Romonov's Romanoff's (oops) approach to fixing the contradictions in our state constitution is to pass an amendment that undoes the "only one issue" amendment restriction, just for a specific amendment. Then 2 years later, we would have the one magic amendment to un-contradict the constitution.

This approach won't work.

When the politicians get too clever, the voters almost always say no. When this "cleverness" requires two consecutive votes, 2 years apart, the odds drop to about 0. This is akin to FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court - the voters and many in the Senate supported FDR's laws that the court was overturning, but they would not countenance a change so fundamental.

But we are left with a state constitution that is inherently unworkable with the various contradictions in funding requirements. Ref C let us put the day of reckoning off a little, but the root problem remains and me must address it.

We need to have a constitutional convention. This is the proper way to address the fact that the constitution has become an unmanageable conglomeration of individual special interest clauses. It is the only way to clean up the entire mess. And it is a straightforward approach that is sell-able to the voter of this state. Just show them how long the existing constitution is - that alone makes the need for wholesale revision clear.

But what if the new constitution is worse? That is the big fear from many in the political elite. The short answer is - trust in the judgment of the voters. Voters pay attention when they feel it is necessary and, for a new constitution, they will put in the effort.

First is who they elect to the constitutional convention. (Disclaimer - if this occurs I probably will run for the convention.) When electing a state rep or senator voters want someone who will fight for their specific interests. But when electing someone to the convention, many will take the view that this requires people who will take the approach of what is best for the state as a whole.

Second, the new constitution needs to win in a general election vote. The odds are stacked against it as every special interest group that has it's own little clause in the existing constitution will be fighting it. The only way it has a prayer is if the new constitution meets two criteria. First, it is significantly better. Second, that it doesn't change much.

The big fear should not be will be get a constitution that's worse. The big fear is will we get one that can pass. So the downside is minimal. The upside is we fix the problems that exist in the constitution and clean the entire thing up at the same time.

Crystal Gray - Will the Council do its job?

This upcoming Tuesday is the first City Council meeting since the 7 News story about Crystal's work hours in her recent job in Adams County as Director of Parks & Recreation. So we are about to discover if the Council, which is so quick to pass judgment on Rob Smoke, Adrian Sopher, and apparently George Bush - is also willing to look at one of it's own when the circumstances merit.

I have sent the following email to all of the council members, and will post replies I receive below:

Hi All;

First off, I realize this is rough for all of you. You work closely with Crystal and she is a very nice person. But that relationship cannot mean that councilmember’s actions are never reviewed.

I have two questions for you on if you intend to address the issues about Crystal’s job performance in Adams County as raised by 7 News.

When Rob Smoke wrote something “inappropriate” on his personal blog, the City Council found it an important enough issue to discuss if he should be removed from the Human Rights Commission.

When Adrian Sopher’s actions were determined to be legal, but to give the appearance of impropriety, there was a vote to determine if he should be removed from the planning commission.

1. With the questions raised about Crystal’s job performance by 7 News, do you think the City Council should investigate this to make it’s own determination as to what occurred? Why?
   1. If your answer was yes, what action if any do you propose to take at this Tuesday’s council meeting?
2. If there is an investigation and it finds that Crystal was working less than half time at a full time job as alleged by 7 News, should the council take any action? Why?

I look forward to your responses.

Thanks – dave

And I have sent the following email to Crystal and will post her reply here also:

Hi Crystal;

First off, I understand that this whole thing is difficult for you, and I do think you’re a nice person. But I also think that as an officeholder the 7 News report raises questions that are germane to your fitness to be a city councilwoman.

1. Will you address this issue at this Tuesday’s council meeting? If no, why?
2. Are you going to give the voters of Boulder your side of the story on this issue?
   1. If not, why?
   2. If so, when and will it include supporting documentation?
3. If the 7 News story is accurate (or you decide to not discuss the story), do you think this impacts your moral authority as a councilmember? Why?

I look forward to your response.

Thanks – dave

I understand that it is difficult for the council to look critically at one of its own. And Crystal is well liked by the other councilmembers. But we did not elect the council to take the easy road, we elected them to step up and face the hard decisions that come before them. They need to do their job and the 7 News report raises credible allegations that they need to address.

I hope to live blog from the council meeting this upcoming Tuesday. Please come back here during the meeting for updates.

Replies from Councilmembers:

none so far.

Fighting the Big Lie

To avoid invoking Goodwin's Law I won't name the person who said - "repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it." But we see this approach used again and again, most recently in the constant stream of lies emanating from the White House on issues from Iraq to FISA to the U.S. Attorney firings.

The anonymous poster surfrider on the Daily Camera site seems to have made it his/her purpose in life to respond to every post of mine with two posts lying about me (documented here).

The quandary is how to respond to it. I don't want the Daily Camera comment sections to veer off-topic with surfrider's lies and my response as surfrider tends to respond to my posts with additional even more wild accusations. Yet if I leave the accusations unanswered, then they become accepted fact.

Why does he/she do this? My guess is that some of the powers that be here in Boulder find this blog a bit of a pain and are trying to drive people away from it. It's standard politics - if there is no legitimate response to the message - shoot the messenger.

So I am trying the following (and I am open to suggestions for a better way to handle the Karl Rove of Boulder). I will list his lies below and then the facts of the situation. And note, the issue here is not disagreeing with me, several commenters disagree with me, one even posted that "she doesn't like me" (and I appreciate that honesty). It's the lies I am addressing here.

1. "thielen you were one of them. illegal delegate." [claiming I am a Republican elected as an Obama delegate]
   You can look me up at the County Clerk's office. I am a registed Democrat and have been so since 1974 when I first registered as a voter and a Democrat, here in Boulder County.
2. "you tried to put 25 assorted cookies, trackers, referers and ads on my computer"
   If you want to see what cookies my site puts on your computer, go to the directory (change dave to your username) C:\Documents and Settings\dave\Cookies and look at the contents of dave@davidthielen[1].txt where you will see 1 cookie. And that cookie can only be used by my site - it is not a cross-domain cookie and therefore is no threat. (This is what amazon uses to track your shopping cart.) The term "tracker" has no specific meaning technically so I assume that is another way of saying cookie. You cannot put a referee on a computer - a referee is the website that you came from when going to another website and every website does this - it is part of the http spec. And finally my site puts no ads on your computer - if it tried you would get the prompt from your browser asking if you wanted it done.
   So 1 cookie, tracker is meaningless, referee is part of the http spec, and 0 ads.
3. "if you visit his site ensure after you do, to click on (in ie) tools, delte browsing history, and delete all."
   This shows the technical illiteracy of surfrider. Your browsing history is a list of the websites you have recently visited. This allows the browser to auto complete urls when you type them in and show the history with the down arrow button. The thing is, that history is accessible to your browser only and has zero security implications. So even if my site did all the things surfrider claims, this action would not undo anything.
4. "Theilen[sic], you have aroused no passion in me. I just believe that using these forums for your own personal gain is not correct. Directing people to you website where your little "clicks and ticks" make you money is not what this forum is about."
   No one gets paid for people coming to my website. Once someone is on my website, if they then click on the ads there my daughter gets paid and that payment is averaging $2.41/month.

On 2/16 surfrider posted the following:

Not true. Next time i visit i will make a list. It is 25 files, cookies trackers, referers etc. I will send them to you.

But to date, no supporting information from surfrider. I'll update here if/when I receive the info from surfrider - but I'm not holding my breath.

The Daily Camera shout out

I personally have found the Daily Camera comment sections to be more people shouting past each other than a reasoned discussion. Seems to play into the Boulder psyche that everyone knows what is right and any difference of opinion is to be corrected, not discussed.

So as an experiment I pulled out the number of comments by person (love regular expressions) and dumped them in to Excel (download spreadsheet). I picked these because of the large number of comments so the results are more statistically valid. Feb 8 (96) and Feb 13 (92) Letters to the editor, Crystal Gray story (111), Land Grab story (267), and the Impeachment story (134). (And my totals - 2, 1, 6, 1, 0).

What jumped out at me was there are a couple of people who, between them, tend to monopolize the conversation. In the letters to the editor about 50% of the comments are from just 4 people. Even the Land Grab story with 267 comments from 108 unique logins, 4 people were over 25% of the comments.

This isn't a conversation, this is 4 people preaching.

I've also noticed that surfrider's comments tend to be twice my number. I wonder if he/she thinks the two of us are in a comment quantity contest (if so dude - you win). (Click graph for larger copy.)

So there you go - a small picture of who is commenting, and how much.

Cindy Carlisle - a feather in the wind

Yes I tear into our various political figures in my blog here. But at the same time I understand that these people are human, they will make mistakes, and they will have weaknesses. I don't expect perfection and I do appreciate those that learn from their mistakes.

Claire Levy is a recent case in point, she made some false steps in the McLean/Stevens land grab case but they are (were?) good friends of hers and that is rough. But she did figure out that what happened was wrong and signed on to legislation to fix the law in question. All in all, impressive in how it turned out.

But there is the occasional politician who just seems truly clueless. Hillary Hall is one in her ability to utter two sentences that totally conflict with each other, and does not realize the disconnect. It's no surprise that voting continues to be a mess here.

Well Cindy Carlisle seems determined to take the crown from Hillary. It's not just her abject pandering on the issue of Bruce Benson, it's how incompetently she does it. Wow! Lets take a look at her letter in today's Daily Camera.

When the CU Presidential Search Committee met with the regents Jan. 30, I was dismayed Bruce Benson was put forward as the single finalist for the job, and doubly dismayed by the only alternative we heard -- a "second tier" of two entirely unacceptable candidates. Grudgingly, I voted to move the process to the next phase of evaluation of Benson by the university community.

...

Because the single-finalist process is so defective and polarizing, and has sown such division, and stained the committee's and regents' and candidate's credibility, constrained CU's options and violated the openness and accountability that I value, and that President Brown values, I must vote against Bruce Benson and for a renewed search.

Cindy - what changed? By your own words the process was bad when you voted for Bruce, before you then voted against him. Couldn't you make up something that changed?

...and learned a great deal of new information from nearly a dozen people who worked closely with Benson in higher education. A number of these supported Benson's candidacy going forward. A greater number did not. And nothing, it turned out, could repair the polarizing harm caused by the process itself.

Are you telling us that your vote is determined on the majority opinion of a group of less than 12 people? What happens if we elect you to the Senate and you meet a group of 20 people? Will you do whatever they ask?

This single finalist process is a throwback to the dark, bunkered days of CU secrecy I've spent five years working as regent to pry open.

And yet you voted to move his candidacy forward? If you give up this easily on your major effort, what will we see from you as a Senator?

It is also the end result of a disastrous decision -- spearheaded by a Denver regent -- to move the CU system, and hundreds of Boulder jobs, from our flagship campus to a downtown Denver office building. With help from Pete Steinhauer, I fought to keep the president here, but lost. What we're left with is a diminished presidency.

Huh? What does any of this process have to do with moving the presidency to Denver? You make assertion after assertion here but with absolutely nothing to back any of it up. Come on, throw us a bone here.

Nothing could be more important to me than the health of the Boulder campus.

Even to the exclusion of the rest of the University system? Does this mean as a Senator the health of the City of Boulder would come before the rest of your district? Good for us but sucks for the rest of the district.

I was not one of Benson's three nominators, as has been misreported, but did write a short letter stating that I thought he should be among a group of finalists meriting consideration.

Are you claiming that Heath Urie in this article is wrong when he says "writing a Jan. 8 letter of support to the presidential search panel and later seconding and supporting a motion to have Benson be the sole finalist."

Like a lot of people who caucused Feb. 5, I yearn for a politics that transcends partisanship.

WHAT??? Ok, a lot of us are looking to find compromises and even when possible transcend politics. But that wasn't the mindset at the caucuses. Last Tuesday night was a joyous celebration of the resurgence of the Democratic party and a discussion of which candidate could best kick Republican butt this November.

Because the single-finalist process is so defective and polarizing, and has sown such division, and stained the committee's and regents' and candidate's credibility, constrained CU's options and violated the openness and accountability that I value, and that President Brown values, I must vote against Bruce Benson and for a renewed search.

Good job pulling Hank Brown's name into this. Your credibility is by now so small I'm not sure the electron microscope at C.U. could detect it. Grab yourself some of Hank's credibility. But back to your reasons - you don't say a single thing against Bruce Benson, just against the Regent's process. Ok, maybe it does need to be redone - but in that case take some responsibility as it's your process that led to this and you voted for it down the line. Own up to your mistakes.

In recent days I learned for the first time that at least two candidates for the CU presidency not only had strong academic credentials but were leaders of large state university systems with more students and more campuses than CU. I have no idea why they were never presented to the board.

Did you have George Tennant running the search process. Do you ask George Bush for advice on how to govern? You have no idea why they weren't presented to the board? Do you think maybe you should try to find out? Just a thought. Or are you going to sit on your ass and hope that this time things will work better?

Now I urge my fellow board members to regroup, to examine what went wrong, to reopen the search, and to name two or more finalists with experience running multi-campus university systems for evaluation as finalists by our community.

Gee, if only a regent had voted for this at the start. Oh wait, that could have been you. Why didn't you do that at the start?

Cindy - politicians pander. And we all complain about it but they do it because it works. But you missed a key point - you have to do it well. This is just pathetic.