Liberal and Loving It

My sit-down with Josh

I got the chance to interview Senator Penry today down at the capitol. He was very gracious and generous with his time. And he comes across as a down to earth person. I can see why he's a rising star in the GOP.

The big constant through all of the discussion is that the Democrats are in charge, they are going to do it their way, and the Republicans don't have the votes to affect that. This wasn't a "we're whipped" response. And there was zero whining about it. Rather it was just facing the fact that in our representative government we Dems have the votes to pretty much do as we want. In other words, Josh Penry is dealing the hand he has been dealt.

He also gives major credit to Brandon Shaffer in how he has run the Senate for the Dems just about perfectly. He clearly has great professional respect for how well Brandon does his job. I'm also guessing he's taking copious notes so he can do the same if the GOP gets the majority.

We started off with him asking about my mom. I guess Colorado doesn't look that bad for the GOP compared to the GOP's seats in Hawaii. I think he appreciated that things could be a lot worse. And he then asked me about my blogging and if I do that for a living. That is a common question on these interviews – I think most politicians don't realize that 99.9% of us bloggers have real jobs and we just do this for fun because we have no life.

Ok, so what did he talk about? He jumped in about the Governor's race. He clearly sees Ritter as being very beatable. He sees Ritter's two big weaknesses as Ritter's rolling over for the unions and his fighting the Oil and Gas companies. He understands that is not sufficient to beat Ritter, but he sees that as bringing Ritter within range. And he says the entire GOP sees Ritter as vulnerable and that is why McInnis and others are looking to run.

He also talked about how he still needs to discuss this with his wife and if it is worth the financial and emotional hit that comes with running. We discussed how it is usually worse for the family than the candidate when the mean things get said. I think the odds are that he is going to run, but I don't think it's a done deal yet. With that said, I do think the one issue remaining is his family.

So then we got into the legislative session. And in terms of major initiatives coming from him – not there. This is where Josh dived in to what I discussed above, that we Dems are running things and the Democratic side is not willing to compromise far enough for the Republicans to get onboard on much of the major legislation. He clearly is willing to compromise if it's a compromise of equals. And he understands that there is no need for the Dems to compromise that extensively as they have the votes without it.

But he then did dive into many of the specifics. On transportation, A/B and a couple of other issues he discussed what the Repubs proposed and clearly would have preferred to do it their way. But accepted that "them that has the votes gets to pass the legislation." This impressed the hell out of me because if I was in his position I would face that with less equanimity – a lot less.

But he then dived into areas where the Repubs are able to have an impact. And there were quite a few. The issue on which he spent the most time and that clearly had the most importance for him was education. He was very complementary of Peter Groff and Chris Romer and not just the great work they have done on education, but that they have challenged the overlords (no he didn't use that word) of the Democratic party – the AFT. He is very positive about the improvements in education that the legislature is working on.

And it did sound good to me. I think education is where we desperately need bi-partisan efforts. And it's good to hear that we have a number of people, from both parties, concentrating on improving the terrible state of our schools rather than using the issue for partisan advantage and leaving the kids to a life of educational failure. Here's hoping this remains a focus of everyone figuring out how to improve things.

He also talked about the Oil & Gas industry. Ok, we all have our blind spots. Josh Penry clearly feels that the Oil & Gas industry is getting short shrift in this state. Yes the Oil & Gas industry has tremendous sway over the GOP but this was not someone paying homage to those that pay the bills – this was clearly emotional. For whatever reason, this is a hot button issue for Josh.

His other major issue he wants to address is getting the rainy day fund institutionalized. He sees right now when there are no taxes available for it as the perfect time to set it up, because the funding is in the future. And I think that makes a lot of sense. He prefers this to lowering taxes when we hit the good times again and with this stance he is clearly standing up to a significant chunk of the GOP base on one of their core issues. One good measure of a politician is will he disagree with his base on a key issue – and Josh Penry passes on that measure.

So what do we have with Josh Penry? We have someone who is doing a good job as Senate minority leader, both opposing the majority party and remaining an opponent looking for chances to compromise rather than as an enemy looking for every advantage. And I think Josh's realization that it is the Dems ballgame until the next election means they are left mostly as the party of no (although he never put it that way).

And I do think he will be a good candidate for governor in terms of the GOP primary. He clearly is willing to speak up on the issues he cares about and so it would be a robust discussion. And boy does the GOP need that.

My lunch with Ali

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Show and the future of news

For those who have not seen it, here is the full interview (more than just what was broadcast). Required viewing.

Part I, Part II, Part III

And from the HuffPo we have this spot-on observation:

You see, Stewart's real critique wasn't about Cramer, it was also only marginally about CNBC. Instead, Stewart's real rage comes from the role the modern media has created for itself: the role of cheerleader instead of watchdog, of favoring surface over depth, of respecting authority instead of questioning it.

It's the same critique that some have about the New York Times (and the rest of the media) in the leadup to the war in Iraq; the same critique lobbed every time a TV reporter does a stand up in front of the Apple Store before a product release; the same critique leveled every time a sensational murder steals a headline from a corporate crime: is this really the job we want the fourth estate to be doing?

So here's the million dollar question. When cNBC has aborogated actual reporting for corporate cheerleading and the ones to call them out are a comedy show - is it a bad thing that we are seeing a total upheaval in what existing media companies will continue to exist and in what form?

We had a pretty static system from WWII till the '80s. First cable and then talk radio wrought some changes. But in hindsight these changes were not major. They added a couple of players and diversified the voices we heard a bit. But by and large it was variations on the same old theme. CNN was more similiar to the NY Times than it was different.

But now we are seeing a radical change. The daily newspaper may survive in some mid-sized markets like Boulder, but baring radical effective change, my guess is not only the Post history, but most of the other main papers in Colorado.

And I think we face the same thing with TV News. I think TV News will continue to exist, but it will be celebrities, sports, weather, and some "be afraid" story. But the real news which is a lot more work will not be worth the cost.

But the key issue to remember is that people do want news. The Daily Show interview with Jim Cramer is being watched by a boatload of people. The problem is that people are not getting the reporting they want.

I think one major issue is that over the last 70 years journalism got locked into a "professional" approach that limits what people in the industry are willing to consider.

For example, no "real journalist" would take John Stewart's approach of equal helpings snark and facts. They wouldn't lower themselves to have a public namecalling spat with a news subject.

Yet this is the approach that reaches people. It may be better, it may be worse, but it is clearly what works. And by definition it is one, and just one of many many paradigm changes, that we will see our news presentation go through.

And I think we're going to end up better off. We will look back on what we had as a system that was very good for about 40 years but that then got set in it's ways and no longer evolved. And as Darwin said (or should have said), evolve or die.

The key point is that rather than bemoaning the loss of the old known system, we should be embracing the changes coming our way searching for what works best. Because fighting change is to lose. But those who take best advantage of the change will be our new media powerhouses.

Update 1 - Speaking to a comment on what the new mode will be:

The best single reporter on the war in Iraq & Afghanistan is Michael Yon - supported 100% through donations. One of the best in Washington is TPM - supported 100% by click ads and doing their own original reporting.

Both are free and direct. I think we'll have paid too, both direct and indirect. But I don't think there will be any single model.

Update 2 - Speaking to a comment about the "quality" of the present approach:

I agree.

But first off, the fact that it will be a loss is irrelevant. If it does not make economic sense, it is going away - just like house calls by doctors.

Second, while we have seen a lot of superb reporting, we have also seen even more cases of phonin it in or going with the flow. Bob Woodward is a great example where he doesn't report anything that will threaten his access and holds much of the best for his books.

We are presently harmed as people assume that no stories about potential prolems means no problems. The present system for the MSM totally failed on the run-up to the financial crisis and mostly failed in the run-up to the Iraqi war.

We also have been greatly harmed with the existing journalistic requirement for "balance." What this does is allow one side (or both) to state blatant falsehoods and those are reported as the opposing view. When the public would be much better served by a statement in the article that the opposing viewpoint is a pack of lies.

And the key point is we are not going to see a replacement with a new monolithic system. What we will see instead is a very diverse set of feeds, under a multiple set of economic models, journalistic approach, content providers, etc.

And I think this new system will be much better as it shakes out. It will also be much more decentralized as well as much more diverse in the approaches to reporting.

I'll leave it with this thought, for the past 18 months what would have been a better source of news for the pig picture on our financial health, the MSM with it's many very good & qualified reporters - or a monthly post by Michael Lewis?

Update 3: Seattle may be the first no newspaper town

from the HuffPo

As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer moves toward printing its last edition, it remains unclear whether its bigger rival, The Seattle Times, is far behind _ and whether this famously literate city could soon find itself without a major daily newspaper.

What's also very interesting in this case is the times is owned by a local family focused on keeping it alive and does not have a bunch of debt. If it doesn't work for them then the model is in a lot of trouble.

My sit-down with Representative Salazar

Note: This interview comes from our D.C. bureau where your intrepid reporter interviewed Representative Salazar at his office here in Washington, D.C. No expense is too great to bring our readers these interviews. (Plus I was in D.C. for a trade show.)

John Salazar exudes quiet competence. Yes there's his policies, his outlook, his reasons for being there and that matters too. But throughout the conversation you have someone who is clearly competent and yet makes no big deal of his knowledge and success. And in fact downplays it. This is a very common trait in very effective people in most jobs – including politics.

He started off talking about his background and family. He is very proud of his family, and especially his parents. He is also very proud that he is a farmer. There are now only 4 or 5 farmers in the House – a big drop from the early days of our country when the majority were. (This is due to the fact that under 2% of the workforce now farms.) This is where John Salazar comes from – family, community, & farming.

He then talked about the death of bipartisanship. He initially thought I was a Republican (clearly he does not read my posts here), probably because I told him my mom is an elected Republican. So he was challenging me on the present Republican approach of refusing to cooperate on anything and instead playing everything for political advantage. He dates that change to the ascendency of Newt Gringich.

I mentioned my theory that the change was that Newt & Co. fought us Dems on everything, even when they agreed with what was proposed, because in that fight they gained political advantage. And in that effort of always putting political advantage before country, they changed the dynamics. John did not disagree with that.

He clearly wants to work in a bi-partisan manner. But he also sees the present Republican approach, and Rush Limbaugh's statements, as detrimental to the country and to the political comity in Washington. In other words, when the Republicans are willing to seriously work in a bi-partisan manner, John Salazar will be happy to do so. He is proud that he was able to work with Marilyn Musgrave on some farming issues. But he clearly does demand that it be true bipartisanship.

So here's my theory as to why he got the appropriations gig. Yes a lot of things go into that decision. But I think a major part is both his quiet competence and his willingness to work in a true bipartisan manner. To get the bulk of the job done on appropriations this is exactly what you need – some representatives concentrating on the work and doing it well.

So what is he working on? Well the Army is not going to get Pinon Canyon as long as John Salazar has a breath left in his body. The one thing that got him riled up was when he would discuss how you had issues where on one side you have lobbyists and large organizations and on the other side you have a bunch of individuals with no political oomph. He sees his most important job in the House to be an advocate for those that have no power in a contest such as Pinon Canyon.

When asked about his priorities his #1 priority is the economy and jobs. He paid due homage to this issue and discussed how the stimulus bill is already starting to have some impact. But it was a short discussion on this issue.

Then came energy. And here there was a lot more detail, a lot more discussion. He wants to see major Major MAJOR efforts into renewables. He was ticking off every renewable source I have ever heard of and for biofuels he listed stuff I had never heard of before (there's that farming background). And it was intelligent as well as facing both what we do know and what we have to figure out (there's that quiet competence part).

He talked about clean coal, stating that we have to figure out how to do it, but that we have such an overabundance of coal that this is a technology that we must figure out. He talked about nuclear, how it clearly is safe, specifically referencing the Navy's nuclear program, and how storage is the big issue. He also talked about how nuclear waste can be recycled. And he gave realistic numbers for how much of our energy can come from renewable sources in the near future.

What's even more impressive than his clear knowledge of where we sit on energy, is he is willing to lay out all of the pieces to the puzzle even though many of these parts get some interest groups really upset. This is someone who is putting what this country needs to do before what is their optimal political stand.

Finally came healthcare. He did not dive into it like he did energy but he had one great observation. He said that we clearly can provide everyone with very basic healthcare without increasing our costs, because the present system is presently so honked up. Not fancy, not a large menu of options – but very basic care. And he also said that as a country it is our responsibility to provide this as a right for each citizen.

I also asked him if he gets any downtime. That got a laugh. He has times in D.C. where there are 5 meetings in his offices and he is moving between all 5 as they go on. He is working from when he wakes up till when he falls asleep in D.C. and in Colorado he has the largest district in the state. But he then went on to talk about the joy in travelling all over the state, the beauty of the vistas, the importance of meeting his constituents to hear their concerns. And how he's going home every weekend so he can see his wife & kids.

A Rep who works at the job has a really hard life. Clearly what drives John Salazar is he sees that his efforts makes things better for his constituents, for Colorado, and for the country. With that as his motivation, it makes for a good legislator.

So what do we get with Representative John Salazar? I think being on appropriations means that John, unlike most other Reps, is tasked with the big picture issues we face. But even in that position, being effective requires concentrating in a few areas. He will stay on top of farming issues. He will pay attention on the economy and healthcare – having certain goals on each. But my guess is he'll have the most impact on energy. Oh, and if he sees the weak being tromped on by the powerful – watch out.

My lunch with Jared

Jared is happy. No that doesn't convey it accurately – he's on the bow of the Titanic, with his arms outstretched, on top of the world. I talked with him for over an hour and he is clearly loving every bit of his job.

So topic #1 was the economy. I asked him about taking the country further in debt, leaving that for future generations. Really interesting on his first point – that the fed can presently borrow long term (20 years) at 3 points. This is incredibly low. So any investment the government makes that has an ROI greater than 3 points will pay for itself. This is a businessman looking at investments in the future.

He then immediately discussed how these are temporary investments to get the economy turned around, not permanent ongoing appropriations. And once we have the economy booming we need to pay down the debt. Jared is not looking to permanently expand the scope of the federal government but rather just to step in now while needed.

He also said that the responsibility for how it is handled ultimately rests on Obama's and Geithner's shoulders. That Congress can allocate and watch what is done, but that the administration is the one that is making the specific decisions with the money. I asked didn't he see value in providing full transparency so that for example we see not just what we pay to AIG, but where they then pay it out to as AIG is really just a transfer agent for the hundreds of billions we are giving them. He agreed that there is value in that and promised to look at what Josh Marshall has written on this.

He was also adamant that we need to insure that this does not happen again. In the case of the banks he discussed both breaking the large ones up so that they are not too big to fail or to have additional requirements and oversight for those that are that large. He also discussed how the market prices in the assumed government guarantees for these gigantic institutions which then pushes their risk on to the taxpayers.

He discussed getting us out of this mess. He sees this as several different problems, the credit crisis being the significant one. He sees the remaining problems – the depression in housing prices, drop in employment, etc as business cycles that naturally occur and the government can moderate them – but they are going to occur. But he correctly sees the credit crisis as the problem that can leave us permanently screwed. And the one the government needs to get fixed.

He talked at some length about what needs to be done. He did not have any brilliant new ideas but what he said was all very good. He said that the banks and their toxic assets needed to get cleaned up one way or another and if that included nationalization – so be it. He did then add that he did not want the federal government owning banks 20 years from now, that nationalization was a temporary measure. I suggested that he instead say receivership and just say that it's the FDIC taking over banks "a bit" larger than they usually did. He replied that they were more than a little larger J. Jared is definitely in the camp of figure out the best approach – and do it.

He also made a very good point that he sees this action on the banks as being limited to what is needed to get the financial markets moving again, including the fact that he opposes the money going to the car companies. The first is getting the economic system working again, the second is stepping in to the market to create government controlled & subsidized industries. Jared is clearly someone who is trying to salvage our existing system, not create a different economy with a heavier government hand.

We then talked about the rules committee. Jared spent his time from winning the primary to the general election helping other Democrats in close races, primarily by raising money for them. As he said, the party appreciates those who help the party succeed. Jared's ability to effectively fundraise for other candidates helps him have a noticeable impact even though he is just a freshman.

He also is very impressed with the job Nancy Pelosi is doing (I agree with him on this). He sees her job as one of keeping the house operating and the party effectively running the house and on that measure she is very effective. He also sees the role of speaker not including being a spokesperson for the party, and that concentrating on that too much then detracts from the essential parts of the job. I think this is a house-member centric view of the job and the spokesperson part was critical when Bush was still in office.

He is very appreciative that Speaker Pelosi meets once a week with all the freshmen for 1 – 1½ hours to talk with them and answer their questions. As the freshmen are usually ignored in the house where seniority is supreme, this is major for them. Pelosi is apparently the first speaker to ever do this. Another sign of how she is doing a good job.

Jared then talked about what he is doing. As he said, a house member has to specialize because otherwise they would be spread too thin and would get nothing done. He also has to look for places where he won't step on more senior toes with his efforts. He said he lucked out in that he is on the Labor & Education committee and most everyone on it is focused on Labor. So he can focus on education and fills a void in Congress, which gives him the opportunity to effect change. He also says there are no Democrats in Congress working on charter school issues so he has that fully to himself.

I asked him if he thinks we will soon have college education publically funded. He definitely sees the need for it and discussed how a High School diploma used to be enough for a comfortable middle-class union job – but no more. Jared discussed numerous times how we need to provide people with the education required for a good life. This runs the gamut from retraining for those who had jobs that have disappeared to those that want a better job to those in K-12 who need to continue.

He thinks we will see the first 2 years of high-ed covered pretty soon. (My guess is in 3½ years – when my youngest hits her junior year in college so it's no help for meL.) Jared will clearly work diligently for this and this effort of his may do more for our economy than everything else put together. I'm glad to see this will be getting a lot of his time. A society that does not provide the education required to succeed does not offer equality of opportunity and sentences the country to a life of economic poverty.

The second issue he is concentrating on is immigration. He clearly is charged up about this – both that we need to intelligently address the 18 million undocumented workers presently in the country and that we need to have an intelligent policy on bringing and keeping educated workers here. He brought up the stupidity of forcing foreign college graduates to leave upon graduation rather than getting them to work here. And the issue of companies opening research centers overseas because they cannot bring people here. I asked him about H-1B workers being locked to the company that initially hired them and he agreed that that was bad for the individual and bad for the economy (the individual is not working where they are most productive).

Jared brought up the fact that being in a relatively safe district means not only that he can handle those issues that cannot be led by representatives in competitive districts, but also the responsibility to do so. However, while I think that is true, I think Jared also welcomes taking on the hard jobs. (If the populace ever converges on his home with pitchforks & torches, he's going to be running out there to talk with them.)

I asked Jared if we would see him running for Governor in 5 years. His response made it clear that this was not something he had even thought about. And he added that he sees this job as one that requires at least 10 years to get the seniority and positions to accomplish a lot – and then to use that position to effect some major improvements. So he's clearly in there for the long haul. I wouldn't be shocked to see him as speaker some day.

He also brought up a way to measure if someone is positioning themselves for governor, look at the legislation they are introducing. If it's issues important to Colorado, and generally specific to Colorado, they're considering it. If it's issues critical to the country, they're staying put.

At the end he showed me his schedule for the day. It's Saturday – and he's booked all day long. Four different events after our lunch ending with the Jefferson-Jackson dinner tonight. This says a lot about Jared – he could pretty much ignore everyone and still get re-elected in this district. Instead he's out there working his okole off 24/7. And he's flying back here every week. Like most representatives, Jared puts in an immense number of hours each week.

We all saw Jared as a wild-card when we elected him not knowing for sure what we would get. What we have is a very pleasant surprise for even the most optimistic of us.

My sit-down with Treasurer Kennedy

I had the opportunity today to interview State Treasurer Cary Kennedy. She is easily the most personable elected official I have met to date (and that is a very high standard). She does an amazing job of connecting with people. She also clearly loves her job and feels very good about how well she is performing - and deservedly so.

Shortly after I arrived she started a tour of her office before our interview and I was allowed to tag along. It was an 8^th grade class, from the middle school she went to. She talked to them about the job and what was fascinating was over half the kids were clearly paying attention and following what she said. That's impressive for a class of kids dragged down to the capitol.

In that tour we got to see the most secure kitchen in the state. Yes, the treasurer's office kitchen is well protected - it's in the original vault. No one will be stealing their lunches. It's a sensible use of the space - but it sure is humorous to see what's behind the old vault door.

She also introduced all of us to Bucky Buckley. When Mike Coffman became treasurer he brought a golden retriever puppy to work with him. Buckley grew up there for the 8 years Mike Coffman was in office. When Cary took over, the staff asked her if Buckley could still come in and she happily agreed. So Mike Coffman's wife drops Buckley off each morning and he spends the day at the office. Now that's bipartisanship.

And then at the final Q&A for the class she was asked if she will be running for governor. Very non-committal answer followed up with she has a job to do in the treasurer's office and will be running for re-election to that in 2 years. So, as everyone already knows, she's clearly considering it.

So then we dived in to the interview which was me asking a question and then listening, and listening, and listening. Cary gives detailed answers. And those answers will then continue on to associated topics. It's all on-topic and good points, but it's like drinking from a fire-hose. What's interesting is it not her talking herself up (she is quick to give credit to others) nor is it selling a point of view. Rather it comes across as a desire to answer a question in full - give the big picture. Cary is definitely a policy nerd (I mean that as a compliment).

So what's the job of the treasurer? The initial discussion and we kept returning to it was to carefully guard the people's money. And that the priorities are security, liquidity, and finally definitely last - yield. She does not view her job as turning the money into more money but rather to make sure it is there as the state needs to pay it out.

How's she doing? None of the principal the state has invested has been lost. None. Not only that but because they went for very secure investments, Colorado is presently seeing a rate of return well above the market average due to everything else tanking. I think the best measure of how good a job she is doing is the dog that didn't bark - there's no stories in the press, no complaints from Republicans, nothing - about problems or mistakes in her office's investing.

One interesting point on the investments. When she took office about 1/3 of the funds were in a single investment with one of the major banks. She was uncomfortable about that level of concentration and had it split out, even though that meant a smaller return on investment. And when the economy tanked - Colorado avoided what would have been a major financial problem.

She also talked a lot about getting the state's finances on-line. A large part of it is already on-line with the "state's checkbook" being the final part they are working on. I asked her if they received many inquiries from having the budget, etc. on-line and she said they get very few questions. Her office is the perfect place to run this because they don't set the budget, they don't spend the money, they just track it. So they have no dog in the fight over what is supposed to be going on.

They are also working on a Show Me The Money program. This will let you enter some general information about how much you make, where you live, the value of your house, etc. and it will then dive in showing you how much you are paying in taxes and where it goes. I think this is great because it lets you show the "no taxes" crowd how much they are receiving in return for their taxes. People see N billions for program X and think that is way too much. But if you see it as $26.53 that you pay and in return what you get - it puts it in perspective.

She also talked about the program that pools capital expenditures and uses that to fund school improvements - especially for smaller districts that cannot afford to rebuild their one decrepit school building because they don't have the tax base to cover it. Her job is to run the program but she put in a lot of effort to get it approved and clearly sees the benefits it brings to school districts that desperately need it.

The other thing that was fascinating about Cary Kennedy was that she is quick to share credit and reticent to cast blame. And hand in hand with that she comes across as a-partisan (I blame the dog). She is all about what needs to be done. This manifested itself in a couple of ways.

Several times she talked about changes she had made, and why. And the clear take-away from that was that Mike Coffman did not do that as well. But she would then immediately follow up with a comment along the lines of the old approach made sense before.

She also talked about legislative efforts on bills that impact her office. The first was the BEST bill where she had fulsome praise for Andrew Romanoff getting it passed. the second was the state checkbook work where she had equal praise for Don Marostica's efforts to move this forward. Nothing about party in either case, just the work they did to make these efforts happen.

So what do we get with Cary Kennedy? Quiet competence. And with that a focus on what programs & policies are needed to improve the state. I think that makes for a very effective leader. I do worry that her focus on governing well hurts her when it comes to running for office - but then I remember that she won a contested election to a statewide office.