Liberal and Loving It

My breakfast with Pat

I feel sorry for the Republicans in this state. Many of their elected officials are mediocre and they appear to have a monopoly on cringe-inducing ones. Now add to that the comparison of state chairs, Pat Waak vs Dick Wadhams. It's like the L.A. Lakers against a middle school basketball team.

Pat is the party den mother. She clearly views her job as making sure everything gets done, is done correctly, and everyone is working well together. And the proof of her effectiveness is that you don't see or hear of any intra-party fight here. Yes occasionally someone is bitching but she does her job so well she makes it look easy.

Pat has been in politics forever, working at the federal level as well as the state level. She has a boatload of experience, not just in campaigning, but in accomplishing things. She exudes the quiet confidence of someone who knows how to get the job done.

What most impressed me was here is someone who is totally devoted to politics, living it every day, and not a word, not a peep about any preference in the CD-2 or SD-18 primaries. Her goal is the success of the party. I saw her do the same thing speaking to the Obama delegates before the CD-2 convention where she did a great job of not disagreeing with the leaders there who wanted to have all except the anointed delegates drop out, but still encouraged people to run.

She has this ability to stay neutral and yet encourage people in a certain direction.

She takes a lot of pride in getting ref C passed. 2006 was a good year all-around for us Dems here in Colorado and there is a lot to point to. So it's interesting that she looks at the issue that was key to the state's future more than any specific candidate. I take that as indicative of someone who views her role as doing what is best for Colorado first. And I think that is a good thing, not just for our state, but also for the party because long term success comes from our doing what's best for the state.

Trying to sooth the hurt feelings of the Clinton supporters came up repeatedly. I have a feeling that this is taking a lot of her time right now. Back to the den mother role, that's a key part. And again, based on the fact that very little of that conflict is making it into the media, I'd say she is doing a good job of working this out.

She also talked a lot about working out exactly how the Obama campaign will fit with the State party. A lot of what she talked about was making sure it was set up to work well, what positions were key to fill, and having people situated so that communication naturally flowed between the various groups. She's definitely not an empire builder.

Her official focus is Obama and Udall and she did talk at length about both of those campaigns and what they are doing to make those successful. And she kept coming back to that both of these require a lot of hard work to be successful. So she is definitely not taking anything for granted.

She also talked about Betsy Markey, Joe Whitcomb, and Hank Eng. She thinks Betsy and Joe have very good chances and that CD-5 is possible. Unlikely maybe (CD-5), but possible. In other words, she is not turning the state party into an Obama-only machine. Nor into an Obama/Udall-only machine. She's running a Colorado Democrats machine.

I wonder what she will do next. She has been heavily involved in politics forever and clearly loves the work. My guess is that she will be given a job in the Obama administration and we will hear nothing about her in that job - because what she manages will work efficiently, effectively, and with no drama.

We've got a really good state party den mother chair.

The voters aren't buying what we Dems are selling

The Democratic candidates, the Democratic party, the netroots - all claim that while the Republican party does not provide the policies that most people want, that the Democratic party does. That voters are switching to the Democratic party because of what we offer.

Except not. The actions of our candidates, the actions of our party - both scream out that they believe that the voters do not want what we represent. And actions speak much louder than words. We crucify the Republicans for saying one thing and then doing something different - but we are guilty of the same sin.

Exhibit 1: We are told repeatedly that the Democratic Congress cannot attempt many of our goals until we get more Democrats elected. That the act of trying to get certain bills passed will hurt our chances in November. This argument only makes sense if what we want to see passed is not popular with the majority of the voters. Because if our elected officials believed that these policies will be popular, then bringing up bills to implement them would improve our chances in November, not hurt them.

Exhibit 2: Yes there are limits to what can be done with the present balance of power. To pass a bill requires a bi-partisan effort, crafting something that either George Bush or a lot of Republican congress people find acceptable. But there is much that can be done in the present environment.

James Madison gave congress the power of the purse and gave the house, as the people's body, the exclusive power to initiate budget bills, for one over-riding reason. Because the power of the purse is the power to wage war. Remove funding and you remove the ability of the King President to wage war. This is not some convoluted dubious rationalization, this is a fundamental part of our separation of powers and is clearly discussed in The Federalist Papers.

With a Democratic majority in the House we can end the war today. We could have ended it a year ago. All that was required was to not put any bill forward to continue funding the war. Yes there would need to be funding for a staged withdrawal, but all of that could have been done if the House had refused to fund the war.

If the Democratic leadership truly believed that the country wants us to exit Iraq, this would have been a political winner. The actions of the Democratic leadership make it clear that they do not think this policy is what the voters want.

Exhibit 3: The recent craven capitulation by the House on the issue of FISA. Again, the Democratic party claims that protecting our constitutional rights and protecting the rule of law are critical. But again, if the party leaders believed that this policy was popular with the voters, why did they choose to give George Bush everything he wanted in this bill? Only if the leadership believes that George Bush's policies are more popular than the ones our party espouses does their action make sense.

Exhibit 4: The Congress was clearly given the authority to investigate the executive branch. This is clear in the constitution itself as inherent contempt was written in to give the Congress absolute authority to compel testimony. And again, from the Federalist Papers, it was clear that it was expected that the Congress would investigate the executive and by definition that this investigation would not be welcome by the President.

So what has this Congress done when members of the executive have refused to even show up when served a subpoena? They've asked the Attorney General, who pre-announced he would take no action, to take those individuals to court. In short, they choose to do nothing.

We have ongoing corruption. We have clear evidence of lawbreaking on the part of the executive. We have a Democratic leadership that says they will aggressively investigate this. They have the tools to compel testimony. But they choose to not do it. Again, the only explanation that makes sense is that they believe the voters do not want to see this happen.

Exhibit 5: Where's a real comprehensive energy/climate change bill? For the past year this has been a "top priority" for the Democratic party. We have had everyone saying we need a "Manhatten Project" to address this. Yet we have no bill. Not we don't have one Bush will sign. Not we don't have one that can pass the Senate (and a good bill would pass the Senate). We've got bukus, nada, nothing. Again, if the party believed that the voters wanted to see action here, they would have moved on this. If nothing else, they would have a bill totally marked up and ready to be voted on in January 2009.

I can go on, and on, and on. (Guantanamo could have been shut down by defunding it.) But that's not the point. The point is our party leadership, and many of our congress people, clearly believe that many of the fundamential policies of the Democratic party are political losers.

I personally don't think that is true. I think if we proudly legislate as we talk, and we then loudly speak to why we did what we did and why that was the right thing to do, that the voters will embrace that. That it is a political winner, as well as the right thing to do.

And if it's false? If the voters don't want what we're selling? Then lets not be a bunch of hypocritical liars like the Republicans. Lets own up to what we say and at a minimum be the party that acts as it speaks. Because voters will respect integrity.

My vote in SD-18

Ok, we have 2 good candidates running for SD-18. I will be fine with either one representing us in the legislature. But when we get the ballot we have to choose. And the ballots get mailed soon.

First off, here is how I see them:

Cindy Carlisle - Cindy is a firecracker. Tremendous energy and that will make her one of the most active Senators under the dome. And she is ready to go in and solve our energy and health-care issues in the state. Not tweak things a little - but fix the damn things. Will she come up short? Probably. But she will find out exactly how much is doable by trying for everything. And with her energy level, she might just pull it off.

Rollie Heath - Rollie takes things one step at a time. And his background is from an executive perspective, both in the jobs he has held and the race he ran (for governor). This makes him take the high-level view of issues as opposed to diving into the details. He leans towards finding consensus in solutions. He will accomplish more of his goals, but he will not push the envelope as much.

But there are two other issues that I think bear strongly on this race. The first is experience. Candidates do not spring from the womb as exceptional politicians. Regardless of native talent, it takes practice and practice, and even more practice to get better. Cindy & Rollie are both good, but neither is great. In my interviews with most of our elected officials, I have found that as you move up the food chain, they get better. That makes sense as they have run for more offices, have spent more time in office - they have a lot more experience at this.

This office is Rollie's swan song. He clearly has no intention of running for anything after the Senate. Now there is value in that as he will put 100% into his job in the Senate. But his improvement stays there.

Cindy is on a roll. If she does well in the Senate, I have no doubt she'll be running for something else when her terms in the Senate end. It could be the U.S. Congress. It could be Secretary of State or Treasurer or ???. If we elect Cindy, we build up our bench. I think with a couple of terms in the Senate she could be a very good politician. We may not care about that tomorrow - but we will care a lot in 8 - 12 years.

Second, Cindy's clear commitment to liberalism. Mark Udall's noxious vote on FISA brought home how important it is on some questions to do what's right rather than what's expedient. Cindy will fight the good fight even if she's going to lose. Rollie will be compromising to craft legislation that can pass. Sometimes compromise is called for. But sometimes it's not. And with Cindy we will see the principled stand, maybe too often, but better too often than almost never.

I am voting for Cindy Carlisle.

Update:

Cold Mountian in a post on ColoradoPols put this very well:

On the issues, Rollie and Cindy are Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Only in this case, Tweedledee is an edgy rottweiler while Tweedledum is a goofy golden retriever.

I disagree on the issue part, as I think Cindy will serve us better on the issues. But I think the rottweiler vs golden retriever is an excellent description of the significant difference between the two. When it comes to representing me in the legislature, I want the rottweiler.

My 30 minutes with Ken

As I work my way up the food chain of our Democratic officials I am more and more impressed. I always wondered how Senator Salazar did so well as a politician because at the mass-media level he is good but nothing spectacular. But one on one he is exceptional. One of the best I have ever met. Both in terms of his grasp of the issues and how he comes across.

To me one of the signatures of a smart self-assured person is their willingness to ask questions on subjects that they are supposed to know. We spent the first 5+ minutes with him asking me about the blog-o-sphere. He clearly understands that it now matters a lot. But he also clearly has not been visiting (and we all have such great insight available for him). Very curious, very aware that it matters, and very insightful questions digging in. I would not want to be questioned by him if I had something to hide.

So what drives the Senator? 'Ohana. 'Ohana is Hawaiian and the best translation is family but it is much more than that (see the movie Lilo & Stitch for a good definition). His parents, his family history, his culture, his background, that permeates everything. It's what drives him, but it also is the responsibility that he has to live up to.

He, and all of his siblings, are the first generation in their family to go to college. He grew up poor on a farm, is Hispanic, and now is a U.S. Senator. (Similar to LBJ who also grew up very poor on a farm.) Ken Salazar is living proof of the the truth of the American Dream and he knows that and treasures it. (His parents clearly did an amazing job raising their kids.)

He definitely takes the Senatorial view of the issues. The biggies to him are getting us out of Iraq, resolving the energy problem, and health-care. And he also wants to get Rocky Mountain National Park designated a wilderness area. So a focus on the big issues we face as a country and one state level issue.

Energy is the one he talked about at length. He used the standard "Manhattan Project" for how to approach it. But he was on top of it discussing different technologies, the output we can get from solar and wind farms, the use of saw-grass (and no mention of corn), etc. So he clearly is doing homework on this issue. No mention of nuclear or any hydrocarbon technology.

I asked him about the FISA bill and what was real interesting about his answer was that he said that the bill addressed a number of issues that need to be codified in law and that we need to get it taken care of so we can move on and address other issues. (He said he needed to read the bill before deciding if he would vote for it although his discussion of what he was looking for makes a yes very likely.)

What I found interesting about this was his focus on the Senate getting the job done. That the law addresses a number of items that need to be in statue. Not if the law was perfect, but that it was necessary to legislate and that requires that the Senate come up with an acceptable bill they can pass so the work is accomplished.

I think this speaks to what we have seen from Senator Salazar from the "Gang of 14" to today, an effort to find an acceptable compromise that can pass. By definition he's going to have people more upset with him than the average Senator because a good compromise tends to have everyone equally unhappy. But the legislators who accomplish these compromises are absolutely essential to the legislative process.

The Salazar family have been called the Kennedy's of Colorado. I'll wait to see some from the next generation before saying that myself but it would not surprise me to see it play out that way. If so, I think we as a state will do very well by them.

BVSD - Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics

Chris King and Helayne Jones claim that BVSD is improving the performance of our children based on measuring the CSAP scores using a "continuous weighted index." What is this CWI?

The CDE's Weighted Index: "Average of performance levels" when valued as follows.
Advanced = 150
Proficient = 100
Partially Proficient = 50
Unsatisfactory, Not Tested = -50
Ex: If all students were proficient, average index = 100.

Now this has the following downside compared to the measure I used in my previous post, namely if the change from year to year is as follows:

YEAR 1 Level CWI proficient 100 proficient 100 proficient 100 proficient 100 proficient 100 average 100

YEAR 2 Level CWI advanced 150 advanced 150 advanced 150 partial 50 partial 50 average 110

So in year 1 all 5 students are proficient and go on to C.U. We're doing good. The next year 3 students are advanced and go to Stanford, but 2 students are partial and do not go to college - not as good a situation. But the average has increased.

Ok, so better to use my measure of students that are proficient and above? Nope, it has a problem that if the district moves lots of students from unsatisfactory to partially proficient and moves a lot more from proficient to advanced, my measure does not show that.

Both are very legit measures. The district seems to be looking for a single magic number (like the GPA they assign to each student). But I think they need to have at least 2, if not 3 or 4 good measures of changes in performance.

Tracking it the CWI way - doesn't add up:

I took the numbers BVSD sent me earlier for CSAP scores. The numbers I have are not broken out by ethnicity or income level - they're for the district as a whole. And I had to copy & paste all these numbers into this spreadsheet so I may have made a mistake somewhere. And what did I find?

First of all, the BVSD numbers don't add up. Look at the percentage categories for grade 3 writing in 2002 - the percentage for all 4 categories adds up to 95%. So 5% are somewhere else - not sure how that plays out.

Second, I get somewhat different numbers from what Chris/Helayne's powerpoint presentation show. Their numbers are not always better either so I don't think it's cherry picking, but I do think they are calculating these numbers differently - and that difference may allow them to weight them to show a larger improvement.

Third, I think they are making a large deal out of small increases

So what do we have (click on image to get a larger version)? Reading dropped and they brought it back up. Writing has a small improvement. Science is all over the place. And Math rocked in the last 3 years.

But before we break out the champagne on the Math scores - the last 3 years is when they added 3rd and 4th grade to the Math CSAPs and it's the 3rd and 4th grade addition that gives us the big boost there. Remove the 3rd and 4th graders and no big jump. (I assume this is because the 3rd and 4th graders have a test that it's a bit easier for an average student to pass.)

So lets dive into Writing (picked because it shows a steady improvement). Note that the above graph has a range of 70 - 100 while this one has 0 - 100 so the changes will not be as pronounced.

What we see here is the advances here are made up of very slight changes in the measures, mostly proficient increasing and slight decreases in unsatisfactory and partially proficient.

But again, before we break out celebrating, these changes are minuscule. Keep in mind a 100 is not great. 35% of the students are unsatisfactory or partially proficient. We're failing 35% of our children here.

Now if BVSD can effect an improvement of 3% in the average every 10 years, then in a century they'll get us up to 95% passing. I don't know about you but I find this rate of improvement totally unacceptable. That's 5 generations of children where we are not providing for all of them.

And keep in mind the first improvements are always the easiest. It's unlikely we can see a boost of 3 - 5 points every 10 years ongoing. Arguably BVSD is improving ever so slightly. But it is barely above just holding it's ground. So yes, by the CWI measure Chris & Helyane can claim improvement - but barely. Definitely not at a rate that portends any significant increase.

And the bottom line in today's economy is that, with rare exceptions, if you don't get a college degree, your job prospects suck. Equality of opportunity does not exist for the 35% we're failing. And saying that in another 10 years we'll only be failing 30% - that is still abysmal.

I do want to note that I don't think our present school board is composed of people who want to fail 1/3 of our children. I think each and every one would make the district work if they could. I just think they have no idea how to go about doing it. I do think the school administration bears some culpability, but again, it's not clear they know how to do a better job. And without direction from and support of the board, it's hard to effect change.

As for the bozos at BVSD CAPE - get over yourselves. Some schools were closed. It may have been a dumb decision. If they had kept Washington school would we be sending more kids on to college? No. If we take an ineffective system with incapable managers and split it into 2 smaller districts - all the same problems exist. If you truly want to help, look at doing something useful.

What we need to do is elect a competent school board. Until we do that, anything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And make no mistake, we are throwing 1/3 of our children overboard, with no lifeboats, to drown in an economy that wants a college degree.

Rep Udall does the right thing on the FISA bill

From Representative Udall's statement on the FISA bill we have:

The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world. Today's vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do. That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.

And this is a very brave thing for Udall to do as he is running for Senate.

Of course, it is Representative Tom Udall that did the right thing even though it may hurt him in his Senate race.

And a note to Mark Udall - the most important thing you do in Washington is how you vote on key issues. The key component of your race is you will vote differently than Bob Schaffer.

Well in this case Milquetoast Mark voted identically to how Bob Schaffer would have voted. If Udall will sell out the constitution and the rule of law to get elected, is there anything (other than winning) the he actually considers sacrosanct?

Is there a single example of a vote in the last 2 years where Milquetoast put doing the right thing ahead of getting elected? If so, I'd sure like to know about it.

Just one example, that's all I'm asking for.

We are a nation of laws, not block parties

We have another adverse possession case here in Boulder. Who knew this went on so much. So now we have a case between the Salims and the Marshalls. So how do they handle this? Yes they are taking the go to court route. But now we also have, via letters to the editor, both parties appealing to the populace here in Boulder to support their side.

We are a nation of laws. And for very good reason. Do you want every civil case decided by who can attract more people to their block party? Do you want what you own to be at the whim of the crowd? That is not Democracy, that's populism run amok.

When something as egregious as the McLean/Stevens issue happens then public indignation is appropriate. Because that indignation led to the law being reviewed. And in that review, the law was improved. Equally important, the legislature took a careful view of what was the best law, they did not viscerally react to the specific case. So the law was truly improved.

But equally important, the law moves forward in determining how the law should best be applied in each case. Not who had more people at their block party, but the application of the law.

At the same time we need to differentiate between what is illegal and what is immoral. The law can address what is illegal. The law cannot address what is legal, but immoral.

And we absolutely should not be stepping up to throw competing block parties every time two neighbors get into a civil lawsuit. The legal system exists for that very purpose - to take a careful dispassionate look and make a determination on the law, and nothing but the law.

Two of the greatest figures in our law, Justice Holmes and Judge Learned Hand, had lunch together and afterward, as Holmes began to drive off in his carriage, Hand, in a sudden onset of enthusiasm, ran after him, crying, "Do justice, sir, do justice." Holmes stopped the carriage and reproved Hand: "That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law."

My lunch with The Speaker

When I do these "my lunch with..." things I listen. I may ask a question or two but mostly I just listen. And every politician is happy to spend an hour talking. It's the nature of the job, and with an hour to fill, the real interesting part is what they choose to discuss.

Except Speaker Romanoff. He answers questions quietly and succinctly. And that's it. He also isn't selling anything. Granted he's not running for office this November but he has an initiative for the ballot. He's supporting numerous Dems actively. And no sales job at all.

This is a person 100% focused on making the system work. There's no "me, me, me" in The Speaker. I think this is key to his success and to the great respect he's held in. And at the same time he's a very engaging speaker.

He takes a lot of pride in referendum C, primarily in working with everyone involved to get enough support, and all the critical key players, on-board. What the basic compromise had to be was pretty obvious to most, but convincing everyone that this is the best that was acceptable to all - that was an amazing effort. They say success has a million parents while failure is an orphan. But Romanoff was a key player in making this happen and he views that as one of his major accomplishments, as he should.

He talked at length (meaning more than 3 sentences) about how the recently passed budget meant more money to fund critical programs, and the individuals this reached and how much it meant for them. He sees how what they do in the legislature can mean the world to those we help. Having legislation make a difference clearly drives him.

He also talked about the mess we have with TABOR and the other spending requirements in the constitution. It was interesting listening to him talk about this, the various approaches to fixing it, the trade-offs with each approach, and the ramifications of each solution. He definitely knows this subject very well. Even more important, he's clearly open to working toward a whatever solution will work & can pass rather than being locked into a single solution.

How to govern kept coming up and he clearly views the job of legislating as a responsibility to work together to craft solutions. He clearly was bothered that the budget passed on a party line vote (1 Republican in each house also voted for it). He takes pride in moving good Republican sponsored legislation forward rather than using the Republican party approach of killing anything with a Democratic sponsor. Again, taking his responsibility to legislate seriously.

At the end I asked him if he had a magic wand, what would be his one wish. He said to get a guaranteed level of adequate funding for education - pre-school through higher ed. What's interesting is education funding came up at most tangentially throughout the conversation before then. And I had assumed his wish would be to untangle the TABOR/etc mess. So interesting answer.

He's definitely a rock star. A very likable rock star. And an exceptional legislator.

ps - I asked him what he's going to do next. I got the standard "I have no idea." He's concentrating now on getting Dems elected in November, his initiative, and graduating from law school (1 last class this fall).

How do we get an Obama/McCain debate here?

Both candidates made it clear that they want an open debate not run by anyone. Sounds good to me.

So how do we get them to do one here in Denver? It seems to me that the way to pull this off is to offer something like Folsum Field, fully staffed and paid for - but with an empty stage to be presented and run however the campaigns want.

The question is, how do we pull this off? Where do we get the money to cover the costs? And where do we get the right set of Dem & Repub big-shots to extend the invitation?

BVSD split - bad idea

Update: Helayne Jones will be sending me the data she based her op-ed on ASAP. As soon as I get it I will post it up here. My guess is they cherry-picked but if it's legit then I owe her an apology on my summation of her claim below.

Lets start with the management of BVSD, we have this article by Chris King and Helayne Jones where they claim:

We disagree with petition advocates' assertion that BVSD has made no progress over the past decade in closing the academic achievement gap between minority and majority students or between students in poverty and more well-off students. When CSAP scores are examined from the first date at which the testing program was near to its present configuration, clear evidence of closing the gap in BVSD exists. Much work remains to be done in narrowing the achievement gap, but BVSD has made demonstrable progress.

Now a simple review of the data shows the above statement to be totally false. So Chris & Helayne are either stupid or are lying to us. I've met Chris several times and he's not stupid. I'm willing to give Helayne the benefit of the doubt and say she also knows what's actually going on. So they're lying to us.

The existing BVSD administration has also made it clear they have no respect for the constitutional rights of their students. How on earth can they teach our children to protect our freedoms when they are so quick to trammel them? (And to this day, the promised statement from BVSD has never been forthcoming.)

I could go on but what's the point? None of this is a surprise to any of us. A district that has shown no improvement, management pretending that they are effecting improvement, teaching students the wrong lessons in their actions. Yes the BVSD board & administration is an incompetent disaster. Yes they need to be replaced.

The proposed BVSD split is not the answer.

Why? Two reasons. First the simple one - this is from a group unhappy with how the district is handling old school buildings. This is not the big problem we face and forcing an election because of some buildings being torn down diverts efforts from the key problems rather than addressing them.

But the major reason is this - a mechanism exists to resolve these issues. It's called the school board election. The district can be improved by electing a competent board. Yet there has been no effort to do so.

Lets say we split the district in two. Ok, then we then face electing a competent board in both new districts. If the people behind this effort cannot stir themselves to put forth a slate for one board election, how on earth will they do so for two?

This proposal is not about improving the district. It's about punishing the existing district for selling Washington School and tearing down Louisville Middle School. When it's all over, if the election succeeds, we have the same people, the same problems, the same system.

Now if there is an effort to elect a competent slate to BVSD at that slate is well supported in the Eastern half of the district while the Western half wants to continue with the present Nimrods, then there's a good argument for splitting.

But first let's see if this group is willing to do the difficult essential part of trying to get a competent slate elected to the board. I'm not saying they have to succeed, but let's at least see a credible effort. That's step 1.