Liberal and Loving It

My coffee with Joe (Rice)

First off, we have too many elected officials named Joe. Ok, on to Joe Rice. I had coffee with him Friday morning and he is another example of the incredible depth of the Democratic bench here in Colorado.

Joe is that rare beast in politics where he is there to make the system better - and that's it. He does not view this as a stepping stone to higher office. He does not view this as a way to impose his philosophy on others. He does not view this as a way to get some grand program implemented (or stopped).

Virtually the entire conversation was about two things; first finding where the legislature can help people. The law he is most proud of is the cold case law. And as he explained it, it seems to me that the gigantic value of that law is it tells the family & friends of the murder victims that they are not forgotten. And that is an important thing. He also talked about a number of others including removing the requirement of fund-raisers to collect sales tax (apparently my daughter's soccer teams were violating the law when they made $50.00 selling cookies).

Second was listening to constituents. If someone emails or calls Joe, he emails or calls them back. If a group invites him to speak, he's there. He does town-halls all the time. And he walks his district, hitting every door. This is a tremendous effort but it is invaluable for our democracy. Our state reps are probably our most accessible elected official - if they are willing to put in the effort.

Joe knows what the people in his district want, and he discusses those topics with them. He may not always agree with them. When he agrees he may not work on that particular item. But he listens and discusses it - and that is invaluable in terms of the voters feeling that their government is responsive.

One sign of this, Joe says that when people are testifying on bills half the committee members are not there and many of the remaining ones are on their laptops or talking to others. And you have people there who have never testified before who have come down to the capitol for this one bill. He always pays attention to the person speaking so they feel that the legislature is listening to them.

I think this is what makes Joe special, he respects the voters and he shows it. It shows in his efforts to communicate with them. And it shows in his telling them when he does not agree with them, and why. This is incredibly powerful, not just for Joe but it also brings credit to the institution of the legislature itself.

Diving into some specifics, TABOR barely came up. I mostly listen and occasionally ask a general question so it could be that we just never hit it. But he is the first state legislative member or candidate that I have talked to that did not bring it up as the biggest problem facing the state. (His one discussion of it was if we shifted some taxes by eliminating the business property tax, a TABOR election would probably be required even though the total tax hit would not change.)

I have no idea why this did not come up in our conversation. It may be that the conversation never got there. It may also be that what he has focused on is not impacted by TABOR and therefore it's not central to his efforts. And it may be that he's ok with how it works. (I should have asked him at the end - bad job on my part.) But it is interesting regardless...

He did talk about health-care and energy use. In both cases it was pretty general where he discussed some basics that need to be in place for both, but not detailed specifics or a given approach. I think this is good in that he has some basic requirements he knows we need to meet on both but is not locked in to a specific approach.

On the flip side, I don't think he will be leading either effort. Because if he was, he would have a lot more detail on what all goes in to this. That's fine, we have a part-time legislature we pay a pittance and that means each legislator can, if they are independently wealthy, concentrate on one major issue. But Joe will be there helping craft a solution.

I've talked to a number of state legislators (House & Senate) now and without exception they have all discussed that they need to address health-care and energy in the upcoming session. Now maybe they're the only ones who think this way, but that's unlikely. So my guess is the three biggies in '09 will be transportation, health-care, & energy.

My final question to him was if he was told that he could bring forward any bill and it would be immediately passed and signed by the governor, what would it be. And his answer was a comprehensive transportation bill. His reasoning was that it is vitally important for the state, yet never gets the attention it requires.

He talked about a fire concerning a wooden bridge where two firefighters died because the bridge was wooden (they would have lived if it was steel). He sees the direct specific impact we have due to not properly handling transportation. He also discussed how the gas tax which funds all of this has been the same amount since 1970(?). So we're funding transportation expenses with drastically reduced revenues.

I think this goes back to Joe's root purpose which is to make the government work well for the people. Transportation was clearly the biggest failure this past session, where the legislature - could of, should of, but didn't. I would not be surprised to see Joe take a lead on this, both for what should be funded now and fixing the funding mechanism for transportation.

All in all, a really impressive legislator - quiet & effective.

Will Shafroth - just say no

In my discussion of the 3 candidates running for CD-2 I stated that all three are really good candidates and that we would be happy with any of the three. In that discussion I said the following about 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.

The statement is still true. But it's no longer a compliment. Mark Udall has shown that he is willing to take any position, pander any issue, and piss all over the constitution to get elected. His most recent "indistinguishable from a wing-nut Republican" action was his vote for the FISA legislation.

So how is Will running? Every piece of his recent direct mailers has stressed how he will work with Republicans. How he will look for the compromises that the Republicans find acceptable. This is the centerpiece of his campaign.

Well, give him credit for being honest.

But the way the Republicans compromise in Washington right now is to let the Democrats make a few inconsequential changes, and then pass the Republican bill. This country is in a world of hurt. We need to undo the damage the Republicans have inflicted on us. And that won't happen if we work to craft legislation that these same bozos find acceptable.

Joan & Jared are both good candidates (I prefer Jared). Both will work diligently to turn our government around so it is working to help everyone instead of just the ultra-wealthy. Will won't.

My breakfast with Diana

We have a number of reasons for the Democratic resurgence here in Colorado. But I think there is one major reason that is never discussed, the large number of great politicos we have. Especially when compared to total embarrassments like Marilyn Musgrave & Doug Bruce. Quality is a very powerful argument in the political contest.

Remember those cartoons where there is an incredibly complicate machine and there is a person constantly working to keep it running, oiling it here, adjusting a dial there, taking a hammer to it elsewhere. The constant ongoing effort to keep it running. Well think of the machine as the federal government and that person working to keep it running is Congresswoman DeGette.

She talked about a number of things, but the underlying thread through all of this was making government work well for people. What should be improved, how can it be improved, making the change happen. It's a difficult under-appreciated job that is absolutely essential. (Maybe we should only elect moms as representatives as they already live that life raising their kids.)

She also sees that it takes a lot of time to accomplish anything in Congress. Some efforts she has been working for 9+ years. And she sees going forward that what she takes on can take 9 years from today. She's in there for the long haul, which is key if you are going to get legislation passed. Some reps are there as a stepping stone (anyone think Ed Perlmutter is not going to shoot for something higher in the next 8 years?) while others see what they can accomplish if they are in it for the long haul. Congresswoman DeGette is in it for the long haul. And because of that, she will continue to be effective in getting legislation passed.

She is presently working on major legislation for both consumer safety and food safety. Boring little things that will get no press, but will save many many lives from here forward. (Why is it Paris Hilton gets more press than all of this basic legislation put together?)

I asked here if she was worried about a veto and she was basically flip with her response that we have a new approach, they pass it, Bush vetos it, they override the veto. The way she said this was when she won me over - it was just that it's an extra step, but no big deal. She clearly sees that the emperor has limited power.

She also talked a lot about how not only did Bush take on a lot more power than is good for our government, but that Congress was actively complicit in this shift. It's rare to have a politician own up to what they should have done better - usually they point the finger elsewhere. She talked quite a bit about specifics where Congress should have done it's job, from the PATRIOT act to FISA to a number of other items.

She talked not only about these mistakes, but about how Congress in the next session needs to fix these problems. Clearly she sees this as one of the major jobs of Congress in 2008.

She talked about stems cell research some, but not a lot. It clearly will be a slam dunk come January and she realizes that. So she's just waiting till then (that knowledge again that these things take time) and is very assured it will then pass (it will).

She also made a comment almost in passing that she needs to figure out what will be her major effort once this passes. I think by January everything she has been working diligently on for the last couple of years will be in law. I took how she said this that she does not have anything that strikes her as her next big effort (yet). So if there is something that you think is really important and it will take a major effort over several years to accomplish, it might be a good time to talk to the Congresswoman.

I asked her about her opinion of inherent contempt and she said she did not know what it is. It's interesting that something that has been a major theme on the net for over a year, and is a constitutional prerogative of Congress, is apparently still news to many in Congress. Strange.

She then closed up talking about her book. The inspiration for it came when she dove in to what drove the Republican war on science and she found that it really came down to a Republican war on sex. (For a party that has David Vitter and Larry Craig to name a few, the Republicans sure are hung up on sex.) I asked her if she's ready for her Daily Show interview and she said yes, then asked if I thought she would get on. My reply was with a book about Republicans and sex, how could they not invite her.

I have a lot of respect for the legislators who just work day in and day out trying to improve the country knowing they will never be the rock star. Because they are the ones that do the vast majority of the work.

Rollie is not Josie

I've talked to a lot of people about the Cindy vs Rollie race here. I've had a lot of people tell me that they don't know much about either. I've had a lot of people tell me they find them comparable with the big difference being their approach to the job. I've had a lot of people tell me that they support Cindy and they then talk about what she has done, how hard she fights, and what she wants to do.

I've also had people tell me they support Rollie. But in this case the reasons fall in to 2 categories. The most common is they really respect Josie (Rollie's wife) as a person and for what she did in office. And Josie Heath did do a good job and is worthy of our thanks. So send her flowers or write her a thank you note. But voting for a relative because of the job another did is a statement that you are voting for family & clan rather than for the most competent person. That approach does not serve communities well as it builds an entrenched political class defined by family.

The second reason I hear is Rollie deserves our thanks for running against Bill Owens when Owens was going to beat whoever we Dems put up. Rollie ran a good campaign up to the end and that reflected well on our party and we do owe him a thank you. But just as we did not turn around and run Walter Mondale a second time (and when he was tapped in Minnesota to replace Paul Wellstone, he lost), this is not a reason to vote for someone.

We are electing a Senator to represent us at the state capitol. This is an incredibly important job and this person must be an effective energetic advocate for solving the gigantic problems we have facing the state. We must fix TABOR. We must drastically improve education here, both K-12 and higher-ed. We may find the states largely responsible for solving the health-care crisis.

If this was a ceremonial position then by all means, voting for Rollie to thank both Josie and Rollie for their work would be well considered. But for 1 of 35 Senate seats, and for the most liberal district in the state, we need the person who can make the most effective use of that seat.

And by any measure, Cindy Carlisle will be the more effective legislator.

Hillary Hall - continuing to impress

I wonder how many weeks after election night we'll get the results from Boulder County? So far, indications are it's going to be sloooooow.

Ok, I mailed in my ballot Monday (go Jared & Cindy) so Boulder County received it Tuesday. So I go to the election site to verify that they have received my ballot. Apparently 2 days is just not enough time to process a ballot.

What's also weird is the Clerk's office has verified that this is where the info is available - but there is no line on the page for the ballot status. Now granted, the inter-tubes are a tough concept for Hillary so it may just be that she needs another couple of years to get this working...

Update (from a friend):

Dave,
Carlos Webb [BoCo elections division] and I finally spoke.  He acknowledged that there was not a field in the voter information page to determine if they have received your ballot.  Only after they process the ballot is something added.  He spoke with the webmaster and they are going to tweak the voter information page to make it more obvious when your ballot is received.  I'll verify next week.

This is crazy - the ballots are out, many are coming back, and now they're starting to work on this? Things were too busy the last 10 months in the election division to get this completed ahead of time? Are we destined to always have our county clerk's office managed by Larry, Moe, & Curly?

Update 2:

The main election page now has this:

Ensure your mail-in ballot was received and processed beginning Wednesday, July 23.  Please allow five business days after mailing your ballot.

So apparently it takes the election department 4 days to track that they've received your ballot. This reminds me of a very old Saturday Night Live skit by Charles Grodin where he did a PSA asking businesses to hire the incompetent, because if they didn't - who would.

CD-2 Election Resources

I think I have all major on-line resources here. If I've missed anything please post a comment and I'll add it here. A good place to start is my short summation of each candidate.

Update: A copy of the letter Joan sent to Summit County attempting to preserve the use of cyanide in gold mining.

Candidate websites:

• Joan Fitz-Gerald
• Jared Polis
• Will Shafroth

News media in-depth:

• Boulder Daily Camera Q & A
  • Joan Fitz-Gerald
  • Jared Polis
  • Will Shafroth
• Colorado Daily candidate comparison
• My lunch with...
  • Joan Fitz-Gerald
  • Jared Polis
  • Will Shafroth
• Endorsements
  • Boulder Daily Camera - Joan Fitz-Gerald
  • Boulder Weekly - Jared Polis
  • Denver Post - Will Shafroth
  • Rocky Mountain News - Will Shafroth
  • Liberal and Loving It - Jared Polis
  • Vail Daily - Joan Fitz-Gerald

Debates:

• PLAN Boulder debate
• On-line debate

Other

• Which one will get us off the island
• Why I recommend No on Will Shafroth

And for the Cindy Carlisle vs Rollie Heath smackdown - why I am voting for Cindy.

Lost & Clueless

Once again, we have candidates answering the Daily Camera's what 3 things do you want on a deserted island question. And in the case of the Carlisle - Heath Smackdown, we have, uh... , it's not good.

The question is: "If you were stranded on a deserted island, what three things would you want with you?"

Cindy Carlisle : Lots of water, a solar-powered laptop and a surf-fishing rig for long casts with line kites beyond the breakers.

Grade C : Ok, Cindy is going to survive on the island, and have something to do. Good thing as she's never going to be rescued. As to the solar powered laptop, playing solitaire is going to get real old after the first couple of years...

Rollie Heath : Solar powered cell phone, flares and a good book.

Grade F : Ok Rollie, you have a cell phone that won't lose power. What are you going to do with it. It's a deserted island - there's no cell towers. It's like owning the first fax machine ever made - it's useless. Also, with no food, no water, and no way to get any, you're going to die very quickly. On the good news side, you only need 1 good book as you won't last long enough to read the second.

Cindy's answer is ok, but she definitely thought about how to best live with a tough problem rather than how to eliminate it. That's like drilling for more oil and increasing auto gas mileage rather than finding a way to use something other than oil to power cars.

But Cindy's answer is fantastic compared to Rollie's. One of Rollie's 3 choices is useless. And the other two basically assume if he sits there, he will be rescued in a couple of days (I assume the flares are to attract a ship or plane before he dies of thirst). Doing something useless and waiting for someone else to solve the problem is not being effective.

I think this answer does illuminate what we get with each candidate. The fact that it's non-political and different gives us a picture to each candidates problem solving approach. With Cindy she won't look to eliminate a problem, but she will look to craft an effective way to handle it.

With Rollie we get... nothing useful.

A 3 hour tour

Anyone remember Gilligan's Island? Even a group as clueless as that was focused on getting off the island. You're stuck on a deserted island - primary focus is getting off the damn island. Why is that so hard to figure out?

Ok, the 3 amigos were asked the standard Daily Camera question "If you were stranded on a deserted island, what three things would you want with you?" And the answers range from poor to excellent.

Joan Fitz-Gerald: A good, thick book, sun block (SPF 45+) and a raft.

Grade F : Either she is going to lie on the raft anchored near shore until she starves to death as she has no tools to help her hunt food. Or she will push off from shore on the raft to float aimlessly until she starves to death. A raft doesn't spell rescue - the ocean is gigantic and islands are few and far apart. Terrible answer.

Jared Polis: My computer with a universal wireless card so I could blog about my experiences; a solar panel for my computer; and a boat to get back home with.

Grade A-- : Ok, Jared will return home safe and sound with a boat. So he got the key issue right. But a universal wireless card? Last I heard, there are no cellular towers on deserted islands, nor in the middle of the ocean. A sat-phone, yes. But a universal wireless card - that's as useful as a microwave oven on a deserted island. (And Jared's technically literate, he knows this.)

Will Shafroth: A survival kit -- with fire-making materials, water filter, space blanket, knife, journal and a deluxe inflatable mattress. A fishing rod with lots of hooks and lures. A complete set of James Michener's books.

Grade C : Will is going to be able to live indefinitely on the island. And that's a good thing as he's never going to get off the island. Nothing. No thought to getting home.

So what does this question tell us about the thought processes of the three candidates? Well if they approach legislation like they approached this question we get:

Jared Polis will look outside the box to find a way to eliminate the problem, and then add on some useless items.

Will Shafroth will stay within the perceived constraints of a problem - but will then craft a good response to mitigate the worst of the problem.

Joan Fitz-Gerald will also come up with a solution to eliminate the problem - but her solution will fail - badly.

With Jared you get home. With Will you live. With Joan - sorry...

Hawaii Political Report

No effort is too arduous for your on the spot reporter. So this morning I was at the annual 4^th of July parade in Kailua, Hawaii. It's a rough assignment but I sucked it up and flew out here for 10 days.

First let's talk awesome political skills. On the flight out I asked the stewardess to announce it was my oldest daughter's birthday on the flight. When I gave her name she asked if she was related to Cynthia Thielen. When I told her yes she replied "we love her." I wore one of her shirts for the parade today and had a bunch of people tell me "we love her." I marched with the Obama group for a bit and they said she's the one Republican who's shirt I could wear while marching with them. I don't know all of what she does and how she does it but I think she would win even running against Jesus Christ or Santa Claus.

Ok, back to today's pre-parade. Hawaii still is pretty small and low-key when it comes to politics. This parade has been around since the end of WWII and Senator Inouye has been in it every year except one. He missed it for the 2nd time today. But hey, he's newly married so we'll cut him a break. But we did have the Gov, Lt Gov, Rep Abercrombie, and all the state reps and senators in this area.

I went with my mom to the VIP prep area. I was there 2 years ago and ended up talking to all the big shots for 5 - 10 minutes each, back before I was blogging. So it was discussing politics and other stuff but just for fun and a way to kill the time. This time it was with an eye toward blogging.

First was Representative Neil Abercrombie [D]. Is Abercrombie running for governor in 2 years? Official answer is "he hasn't decided yet." He's running. I asked him what he would do as governor and he reminded me he had to get elected first. So I asked what he would do if elected and I got a long discussion. He did throw out the caveat that nothings for sure in the future and so it's not a done deal that he will run. But unless something major occurs, he will run.

So what would he do if he is elected Governor? His whole discussion was process. That the governor needed to work with the legislature to find consensus and together address the problems Hawaii faces. He did concede that some of what Lingle faced was inter-party obstruction. But he also said part of it was Lingle not being able to work with the legislature to find workable compromises.

I think key to all of this is Abercrombie has been a legislator all of his political life, at the state and federal level. And in that he has looked for compromise that will get a strong majority behind it. In that world, the process is important and the cooperation is important. But as an executive, that is, I think, a secondary issue.

What was lacking is specific things he wants to accomplish. If you enter the office without the 2 or 3 things you want to see change, then not much is going to change. Yes the system runs smoothly, but it doesn't get much better (nor granted, much worse).

I then talked to him about what the Dems have not done in the U.S. House. Wow! It was a joy to hear him on this. He voted against FISA and was disappointed at the Dems who voted for it - very disappointed. He voted to stop funding Iraq and wanted to continue with that approach.

What was even more impressive is he saw the probably obstruction in the Senate and/or a Bush veto as irrelevant to what they did in the House. That as legislators their job was to craft good legislation and send it to the Senate. Because a bill that is dead today can resurrect tomorrow and suddenly move forward.

He also discussed the problem that there are 435 agendas in the House and that does impact what is possible in the House. If 20 Dems will vote with the Republicans on an issue, then it's not going to pass. And so there is a need for compromise within the House just to move legislation out of the House. That is needed for step 1.

But it was refreshing to hear a Representative who champions crafting good legislation and moving it forward to the Senate. And to hear a Representative who clearly is passionately voting his conscience even though "moving to the middle" would help him in 2 years if he runs for Gov.

Hawaii - keep this guy in the House - we need him there!

I next talked to Lt. Gov Duke Aiona[R]. He is running for Governor in 2 years. He's got a tough road as a Republican but Lingle is very popular and he is the Lt. Gov so he's got a decent chance. He was a bit arrogant about his odds as his reply was to point to Neil Abercrombie and say that Abercrombie was the one that had the hard climb. I guess an essential part of running is to believe that you have the better odds but I think this will be a tough race (for both candidates).

I asked him what he wanted to do and got an immediate answer - renewable energy. And he then shot into the details of what can be done and how jumping from geothermal to wind to solar (and after a reminder from me - wave),

His official approach is a certain percentage from renewables by a certain year but it's clear his true goal is to have Hawaii 100% on renewables. Keep in mind this is the Republican candidate - politics in Hawaii is upside-down on a lot of issues. I think with Lingle's strong start on this effort (she has done a number of good things), if Aiona's efforts can match his intent, we could see Hawaii close to energy independent at the end of his 2 terms.

His second driving issue is helping families. He discussed domestic violence, education, etc - a lot of specifics. But the key to him was helping families. It was a really interesting approach to how he framed a number of issues and, I think, a good way of finding a strong common thread to drive solutions.

We also had the standard discussion of the corruption inherent in a one party state and the financial and policy disaster that is the Democrats here. All true, but his answer is a Republican governor and while that's great for him, it is not a sustainable solution and the legislature is so Democratic that it makes the veto an empty threat.

One other thing struck me about Aiona - he's got his official persona and that is what you get. Now all politicians try to stick to their official persona. And the very very good ones have it appear so natural that you think you're getting the real person. Aiona is like John Edwards - you get what he wants to show you. I think if he gets just a bit better at it, it will appear 100% natural and he will then be a very powerful campaigner - and even at present - I would guess that he is a very very good campaigner.

It was a short discussion but I think he will be a very credible candidate in 2 years. And if the Democrats want to have a chance, they better make sure their candidate can talk from the heart about what they want to accomplish if they are elected.

Next was Fred Hemmings who has been in the State Senate forever. (The Kailua parade may be the one political event in Hawaii where the Republicans outnumbered the Democrats.) Ok, the State House has 7 Republicans out of 51 total and the State Senate has 4 out of 25 total.

Alright, so their totals suck. But the mindset is worse. The blog for the house members is houseminority.wordpress.com - that's right, their blog url assumes they will be the minority party forever.

So Fred is happy to talk about why the Republicans offer better government here than the Democrats. He's happy to talk about the corruption inherent in a one party government and the rampant corruption between the unions and the Democratic party here. And he's right that it's a major problem.

But when discussing what the Republican party can do and will do to increase the number of seats it has - no interest. We Dems took back Colorado because a large number of very talented people did a boatload of work to find quality candidates, teach them how to campaign, scaring up money, etc. It's a lot of work and it takes a couple of elections, but it can be done.

I asked Fred about this several times and there is no interest on his part to put in the effort. This is identical to the Republican party in Boulder - lots of talk about why people should vote Republican but no interest in putting in the effort to accomplish the change.

We're not going to see any real change in the composition of the state legislature until the Republican party gets serious about effecting change. And that's not going to happen anytime soon - in either Hawaii or Boulder.

Governor Lingle showed up as the cars were about to take off for the parade. So no time to say anything more than hi and ask her what she's going to do in 2 years when her term is up. I of course got the same answer as everyone else - "no idea." I'm sure she gets tired of being asked this but that is the single biggest question in Hawaii politics and so it will probably continue to be the first question she gets asked in every interview. (Governor, when you do decide, call me first!!!)