Liberal and Loving It

Greg Brophy Interview

We tend to get locked into our political arguments and in so doing paint a one dimensional portrait of our opponents as evil Sith lords who, if only they would listen to our arguments, would realize that we are right and what they propose is wrong. And then you talk to them in detail and…

Senator Brophy is a an intelligent, thoughtful guy with a strong understanding of the issues the state faces. He also speaks directly to the issues giving clear answers, and then the details as to why – something I think is highly commendable in an elected official. So while I strongly disagree with the Senator on a number of fundamental issues, I also appreciate having him in the legislature because we want strong, intelligent, thoughtful voices from both sides to craft the best legislation. We get that with Greg Brophy.

The other thing that came through loud and clear throughout the interview is that he loves this. And what I think he loves most of all is the war of ideas that occurs. He also likes crafting the legislation to make the state run better – he knows the details and talks well about them. But he really likes working through the philosophical basis about how to resolve issues. If the legislature had an overwhelming Republican majority I think Greg would be miserable – no discussions of basic political philosophy.

So on to the interview…

We started with what brought Greg Brophy into politics. There's always multiple things but to him the key item was when the state brought in some additional pesticide regulation and he saw that as increased work & expense for the farmers – but that nothing useful came out of it. My guess is this keeps him focused on minimizing the government's impact on business. (As a business owner, I do appreciate this focus.)

I asked for an example of a bill where the GOP is working with us Dems on a bill, and while they won't like the final bill, they will have a better bill because they worked on it rather than just opposed it. He had an immediate answer – the PERA bill. He sees it as a much better bill because of the efforts from his side. He sees the final bill they voted out as a good (not great) solution. His effort is also indicative of his taking his job seriously.

(He also thinks this will be one of the most visible bills this session because it's so important. I disagree – because they have crafted a good bill in a bipartisan manner, there's no conflict, there's no concern, and it will quietly be passed. When everything goes smoothly – there's no news value.)

He also thinks the medical marijuana bill will be a bipartisan effort. (This one, even if it gets a unanimous vote in the legislature, will be in the newspaper. Sex & drugs always sells papers.)

I next asked what will be the major GOP accomplishment this session. Senator Brophy's reply was interesting – "to establish that there is a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to a philosophy towards fiscal stability …"

Major editorial aside: This response is key to what I think hurts the GOP and hurts the state. You do nothing for the state when your contribution is "well we would have done it differently." And you do not sell yourself to the electorate when you say that you're not going to play if you don't get to rule the roost. If Greg's reply was "a major thing demonstrated in the course of their accomplishments" – great. The GOP needs to view accomplishments as doing, not posing. (Yes I'm being harsh here – but I think this is a key issue the GOP needs to address.)

I pushed back asking for a specific piece of legislation that will occur because of GOP efforts. He first brought up the good point that being in the minority, they don't get to move the dial a lot. And he then used the example of school choice. We discussed that some and Greg does think he could get it through the Senate (if he can get it to the floor), but that it would die in the house. (I think that would still be a major accomplishment – changes like that tend to require a couple of attempts.)

I then asked about the party-line votes on the two recent appointments. He said in the case of Mr. Martin that his vote was a vote against the continuation of the present course of the administration and that he thinks the present course has been disastrous for his district (and a lot of the rest of the state). He does see it as the Governor's appointments and so that does not mean he needs to agree with the appointees – but that he does need to register his disagreement with the approach.

Now here's the interesting part – on the 2^nd appointment, Greg said "there are about five votes in my legislative career I wish I had back." I think it speaks very well of Senator Brophy that he stated he made a mistake and he would have voted for her. (Note to both sides, when you have a contentious appointment – send them up to the Senate ALONE.)

We next discussed the education bill that was quickly passed, including the lack of tenure reform. On the issue of tenure reform he saw that as too contentious an issue to jam through fast, regardless of the reason. This is an interesting answer as Brophy clearly supports tenure reform. (While he spoke mostly about how it would not be fair to all the parties interested in this to do it quickly, I wonder if there was more to it than that.)

We then got in to why he opposed the bill that was passed. Greg Brophy is 100% philosophically opposed to federal involvement in education. He believes that this absolutely should be the purvey of the states. That philosophical opposition is why he voted against a bill that he by and large agrees with. (Ok Dems, here's the secret to bringing Senator Brophy onboard on issues like this. Pull any mention of the federal government out of the bill and say "we all have different reasons for why we support the bill – but the bill itself is a good thing." You do this right and you will have his support.)

As he opposes federal involvement in things like this, I asked what about bringing 3.2 beer back for 18 year olds. He loves that idea. Senator Brophy says there is a lot of thought going in to changing this, but it's being done quietly because many people are opposed.

I next asked about the increase in Higher Ed costs. I postulated that the only difference between C.U. when I went there and today when my daughters go to CSU, is that you can now get mocha frapachinos and wireless on campus – yet costs have increased way beyond inflation. He agreed. But he took it further saying "in Higher Ed and in K-12, and for that matter in Medicaid we are on an unsustainable path." (This is a hard truth that a lot of people, especially on the left, do not want to acknowledge. We can't increase the costs of anything beyond the rate of inflation indefinitely.)

Greg also brings up the very good point that the Universities are run by and exist to benefit the faculty. And that K-12 is run by and exists to benefit the teachers union (and its members). I asked about how the legislature can address this and to sum up Senator Brophy's response – the budget cuts will starve the beast and return it to a sustainable level. (I was going to challenge him on this – that the legislature should be more proactive. But I then considered that these are very large organizations that should be able to manage themselves responsibly. And so telling them in essence "physician, heal thyself" is a fair way to approach this.)

I then asked what the legislature had done to increase jobs in our state. His answer – "damn little." He then discussed the "job destruction" he has seen come out of the legislature and administration. His first was oil & gas and like everyone else he had the stats that backed up his opinion. (The statistics available on oil & gas work are dependent on so many externalities that you can make them say anything.) He then jumped in to the administration focusing on fining businesses that didn't do something right rather than focusing on correcting their behavior. He brings up the very fair point that a business fined 50K then probably hires one less additional employee. (One nice thing about being a software company – very few government rules & regulations touch us.)

Next was TABOR, amendment 23, Ref-C, etc. I asked "are we better off that ref-C passes?" Senator Brophy answered "yes." He later, several times, discussed in passing the horrible train wreck we would be in if it had not passed. He also spoke of the problems in the constitution specifically 23 and "there is a ratcheting problem in TABOR." (For those on the right ready to get the pitchforks & torches – he's being honest and facing reality.) With that, he also discussed how what he predicted as what would happen with Ref C, did happen – that it merely put off resolving the rate of growth in state programs.

I then asked about my pet idea – you eliminate all fiscal restraints in the constitution and replace it with one that limits total state receipts to X% of the state GDP averaged over the previous 3 years. And that X% could be changed at any time by a ballot initiative. He had a couple of interesting comments on this. First that he wants government to be shrinking over time – that it should do what is needed, but nothing more. He used the example that we only spend half as much on food today as we did 40 years ago. What's interesting here is he's not talking about the state doing less, he's talking about the state doing its job more efficiently.

He found the idea intriguing (I told you he's a thoughtful guy!). When I pointed out that every election there could be an initiative to change the rate, his comment was "Doug Bruce would be back every year trying to lower it." But he did like the idea that as the state became more efficient, a lower rate could be put on the ballot.

Next I asked for a program he would like to end. He immediately replied Medicaid – he would like to privatize it. And in the process drastically shrink the funds the state puts in to the effort. (I don't know squat about Medicaid so I didn't ask follow-on questions here.)

He brought up an interesting idea next about eliminating state restaurant inspections and instead setting up something like the eBay rating system where individuals report on the restaurants. In that way you would have an ongoing large scale review. And get the restaurant association to set it up. I don't know if this would work, but I am leery of the restaurants setting up the system so I suggested if he proposed that in a bill – he suggest ProgressNow as the group to set up the system (partially because quite a few heads would explode if Senator Greg Brophy proposed ProgressNow to run anything).

I then asked about the creative destruction that is presently occurring in our economy (I call it the Craigslist effect). He sees this as an incredible powerful good effect long-term (he's right). He also calls out how this is identical to what happened when we got mechanized agriculture. But on mitigating the collateral damage that occurs in this transformation, he sees online higher ed as a gigantic help, but that's about it. (I don't know what else the state can do to help in this – but I sure wish someone would come up with something.)

Greg has a very detailed nuanced view of how society has evolved, how the acceleration of change has impacted civilization, how the market drives improvement and innovation. Summing this up would be a whole other article so if you want to hear Professor Brophy, listen to the audio starting about 50:00 – very interesting.

I next asked about the infamous Three Initiatives. He says he wants to read them first (what a concept) but thinks he will ultimately be against them.

This then also got into a discussion of the state impacting the market and how best to tax. Again a lot in there but the one point I want to call out is Brophy favors sales tax only (no income tax) so that profit is reinvested. And if there is an income tax, that it's flat. (This is where I fundamentally disagree as I favor a progressive income tax and no sales tax. However, that does not mean that Greg Brophy is wrong or stupid or evil – it's that we disagree on what is the least hurtful means to extract government money from the economy.)

When then talked about the future of newspapers. He had some very interesting points but like the rest of us, is unsure how it will turn out. He definitely sees the need for an avenue that makes enough money that it can afford to pay quality journalists full-time. He also at this time said one of the scariest things I ever heard – he listens to Rush Limbaugh's podcasts (just recalling that still sends shivers down my spine).

So there you go. Greg Brophy comes from the right but does so in a thoughtful open-minded way. Yes he's partisan (politics is a contact sport) but he's also trying to figure out how to move the state forward. And his disagreement with the Dems is mostly over how to achieve goals, not what the goals should be. It's a lot easier to work with someone where you both want to get to the same place.

podcast: Greg Brophy interview podcast

Results or Excuses?

If you are not using the army, I should like to borrow it for a short while – President Lincoln to General McClellan

To: President Obama, Democratic members of Congress
Re: Your reaction to the special election in Massachusetts

First off your initial reaction to this small defeat has been atrocious. You're quitting. And quitting is a hard habit to break. Yes you're talking about coming back and you'll do this and propose that and everything will be better. Bullshit. You're making excuses for running away from the fight. You're not fooling us and you're definitely not fooling the Republicans.

President Obama, if you do not step up to lead the fight to pass the Senate Health-care bill in the House; House Democrats, if you do not pass the bill – then the Republicans own you. If you have this bill won and give up – how on earth can you expect them to let anything through the Senate?

In the '08 election this country gave us Democrats a gigantic majority and a strong mandate to improve the government. Aside from an improvement in tone, we have delivered no change. Nothing. Nada. Yes you've passed appropriations bills and approved appointments – outside of D.C. this is viewed as housekeeping. Ask someone who does not follow politics to name one thing accomplished – they'll draw a blank.

In addition the Democratic party has become a captive of its interest groups. Each Congressperson has certain groups they answer too. To keep them happy each has become a voice of no – don't hurt my groups. But in that short-sighted view of keeping their specific groups happy, they are screwing any chance for the party to govern. (They are similar to a gang arrested by the police for robbing a bank – the best result is if no one talks, but the second best result is, if someone will spill the beans, for it to be you.)

The American people are not going to accept this. They definitely won't buy the argument that we Dems don't have a strong enough majority, because they saw what the Republicans could do with a much smaller majority – anything they wanted. The American people will elect the party that can govern effectively, even if they disagree with its policies, over the party that is gridlocked within itself and unwilling to fight for what it believes in. And in 2011 the Republicans will once again demonstrate how to pass legislation when you have a majority of 1.

We could well lose our majorities in both houses of Congress this year (yes it's that bad). And if we do – your inability to address the major problems we face will be why.

Governing is hard work, it's compromise, it's getting the least bad solution, and it's taking a lot of bad hits. To be effective, every time you get hit hard, you need to get back up, figure out the best way forward, and get back to work. Not the safest route, not the most comfortable route, but the most effective route. That's what we hired you to do.

We Americans want results, not excuses. We hired you to get the job done – do it!

Measuring the scientific literacy of our politicians

Science plays a very important part in our political sphere. The most obvious is the theory of global warming – do we invest trillions to address the problems it predicts? But it plays a part across the spectrum from food safety to medical research to… the list is endless.

The question I asked was please describe the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific fact. That understanding is core to understanding how science works. It's also a very general question that does not require any field specific knowledge. A theory is proven, and generally cannot be a fact (although Josh Penry did a great job of delineating how a theory, can become a fact as we learn what to look for and observe).

So first off, how does this work? You start with a hypothesis which is a guess as to what is going on. You then devise tests to verify the hypothesis. And these tests should include actively trying to disprove the hypothesis. The testing will measure specific observations. Those observations are scientific facts. When your hypothesis is sufficiently tested, then it is considered a scientific theory. This process is what is called the Scientific Method.

Testing a theory in one sense never ends as it is always on trial so to speak and a single new observation, if it is counter to a theory, then disproves the theory. This is why the argument "but it's only a theory" is totally bogus. And it is why proposals like intelligent design are an assertion, not a theory. It presents no set of tests by which to verify the idea. The best example of this I think is the Wallace Line – this is a line that cuts Indonesia in half with very different species on each side of it, the Northwest matching Asia and the Southeast matching Australia. This is a clear fact that we have known for over 100 years. But the why – scientists could not come up with a reasonable explanation – until continental drift was hypothesized. The Wallace Line is one of the primary facts that validated the theory of continental drift.

With all that said, it's not that simple. When does a hypothesis become a theory? How clear are the facts that support a theory? Are people gaming or ignoring some of the data? Is a theory actually just a very good approximation (most Newtonian physics falls in this category). A theory by definition faces no facts that clearly disprove it. But the degree of validating facts varies depending on the theory. All of this is important for our elected officials to understand when they make decisions based on the scientific evidence.

So how did our elected officials do? Better than I expected but worse than I would like to see.

• A  Bill Ritter. There was a short pause and then he walked me through from hypothesis to testing to theory and how the facts are used to prove or disprove the theory. He could teach a class. (So of course he's the one leaving elected office!)
• B  Bernie Beuscher, Josh Penry, & John Suthers. They all understood the difference between a theory and a fact, but they struggled to put it in to words. As this is not a common question for elected officials, a bit of difficulty is to be expected. But they understood the difference very clearly.
• C  Ken Buck, Cary Kennedy, Don Maes, Betsy Markey, Jared Polis, & Andrew Romanoff. All of them have the common misconception that a theory, when validated through experimentation, becomes a fact. Not good.
• D  Michael Bennet. When asked he thought for a couple of seconds and then replied "no idea." Kudos for realizing he doesn't know, but on the flip side, when facing the issue of climate change, that should have led him to ask just what level of validity to apply to the theory of global warming (answer – a lot).
• F  Mike Coffman, Doug Lamborn, Scott McInnis, Jane Norton, Ed Perlmutter, John Salazar, Mark Udall, & Tom Weins. All declined the request. I first asked three weeks ago for under 2 minutes on the phone to ask 1 question on basic science. I followed up a minimum of two more times.
• Inc.  Dianna DeGette & John Hickenlooper. Congresswoman DeGette did call me but I was not able to answer my phone at the time. John Hickenlooper just announced and this was not that important (with the million things that he must be addressing this week) so I didn't even try to get him.

Finally, every politician with grades A – D has guts. I learned that many politicians dislike walking in to a question where they have no idea what it will be. And their press people are even more concerned. Understandable. But every single one of those that answered it did so directly. They all deserve respect for doing so.

Colorado GOP Legislative Kick-Off

I entered the room and immediately felt the call of the dark side. Coming from Republican parents the dark side of the force was growing inside of me. The evil Jedi knights Penry, Brophy, Stephens, Lambert, & Nikkel all faced me. I was about to succumb.

Then I heard them, the ancient Jedi masters on the side of goodness & hope - Jefferson saying "We hold these rights to be self-evident"; Jackson saying "you want a duel – you've got a duel"; Roosevelt saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"; and Clinton saying "Hey, is Leia around here". I pulled out my light saber ready to do battle. Their evil nefarious plans would be put to an end because I had the strength of a majority in the legislature and control of the governor's office flowing through my light saber.

Ok it didn't happen exactly like that – but it was close. The meeting was at the CADA (kudos for truth in ownership – the Dems should do the same and hold theirs at the SEIU office). I think I was the only liberal there. Everyone was very nice and it was a lot less partisan than I expected.

I'm just going to hit the major things I heard. If you want full details you can get it in the recording below.

1. No discussion about personal issues – nothing on abortion, gay marriage, etc - with the exception of marijuana. They are focused on the economy and improving the government.
2. No discussion about reducing the role of government. They want to make it more efficient (don't we all) and they think it does too much in some areas – but this is not a group trying to drown the government in a bathtub. They are focused on what they think is the best way to handle the economic crisis we are in.
   1. The substantial difference between this group and a Democratic group, is there were no complaints about TABOR (no praising it either) and they are quicker to identify cuts.
3. Penry & Brophy are really good. They both answer questions and do so well. They both come across as intelligent knowledgeable guys. And they both are up-front about their political leanings and what they would like to do.
4. Lambert is really good. I understand why they put him on the JBC. On any question on the budget, etc. he was listing out detailed numbers. This guy knows his stuff – and that's step 1 to do an effective job on the JBC. It probably also makes him a strong voice in the JBC as knowledge is power.
5. Stephens & Nikkel come across well but didn't talk as much and weren't diving in to details. Stephens was the best with a partisan quip – she does it very well. (After one about every business in Colorado had done worse under Ritter I pointed out that my company had done better, including through the Bush financial disaster J.)
6. They think marijuana is going to be a giant issue. I got the feeling that they mostly view it as an overblown issue that takes away from handling the budget, but they will use it to maximum effect. I asked if they had considered legalizing it and taxing the snot out of it and Senator Brophy replied that legalizing had been defeated 60/40 on the ballot and the people had spoken. That's a fair point. So they are going to try and craft legislation that allows for legit medical use – but just that. (Hello State of Colorado – making drugs illegal does not work – you need to vote to legalize it!)
7. They talked a lot about bringing more transparency to the government – and the giant battle they have with the administration on getting more information out there. Lambert & Nikkel brought this up a lot. When asked Brophy said that Ritter was not much different than Owens on this point. But several of them brought up the difference in the technology today and how that makes it much easier to provide more information. (Of course, that would require the brain trusts in the OIT to actually build a working system.)
8. I asked if there was anything the government is doing "big picture" that they would eliminate. Penry replied that he would roll back Medicaid to where it was in 2005, but that what they are looking to do is not eliminate services, but to roll them back to where they were 5 years ago.
   1. I think this is a very important point for us to realize. The Republicans (at least as they are presenting themselves) in the legislature are not a group of Doug Bruce acolytes looking to drastically reduce the role of the state. What they are trying to do is implement the services the state presently provides efficiently and at an appropriate level. And their level is a bit below what many of us liberals want. (Granted a lot below what many in Boulder want.) This leaves plenty of room to find compromise.
9. They also talked a lot about efficiency and eliminating waste. They think transparency will help a lot on that. They also feel that state employees are on average significantly higher paid than equivalent jobs in the private sector. I have no idea if this is true, but if it becomes a major topic of discussion it needs to be clearly answered – and if the pay is significantly higher that's going to be very harmful to Democratic candidates.
10. They see PERA headed for financial insolvency (which is a fair estimation) and want to fix it. Penry is working with Brandon Shaffer on this and thinks they will be able to find a good solution that has bi-partisan support. They see the solution as moving from defined benefits to something more like a 401K and increasing the retirement age.
11. There were also a number of comments about no leadership from Ritter. (They were gracious to him as much as they could be while saying this.) This is one issue where there appears to be strong bi-partisan consensus in the legislature – virtually every Democratic legislator I have talked to has said the same thing.
12. Oh, and Democrats are evil, Obama is a far left liberal taking us on the road to ruin, and we are all headed for total economic hyper-inflation. So vote Republican.

The Republicans are starting to get a good handle on using the web. I think they still face a basic problem that the web works much better for us liberals just as talk radio works much better for conservatives. But they are making some smart moves in how they are leveraging it.

podcast: GOP Blogger Event.wma

Where’s the bloodshed?

Most Democrats I talk to are thankful that the primary between Senator Bennet & Speaker Romanoff has been respectful and gentle. News alert – this is the worst possible primary for us. We need a brutal fight, with blood drawn on both sides.

Let's say you're a sports team. How do you get ready for the season? Do you just run drills and commend players each time they run one well? Or do you have scrimmages, lots of scrimmages? Including ones where your team is beat and learns to pick itself back up and get ready to fight the next one?

Senator Bennet has never run for office before. Speaker Romanoff has never run in a competitive race. Neither one is trained. This primary is a blessing (as a Bennet supporter I was thankful when Romanoff announced his challenge). But only if it becomes a good training for the winner going in to the general. If instead it does not become a real fight and Michael Bennet glides to an easy victory, then he will have to learn how to campaign in the general – and that is not the time for on the job training.

And yes I know that the team behind Michael Bennet has a lot of experience. So what. Drop an inexperienced quarterback into a super-bowl winning team and you still have a "learning year."

Speaker Romanoff, as the challenger it is your job to draw first blood. For the sake of the party, and for the sake of your own campaign, you need to start swinging. And those punches need to land – hard. Because in the general Norton/Buck will be attacking. And their attacks will connect. This primary is a chance for us to see which one of you can best handle the brutal fight we will see this fall.

Both of you (Bennet & Romanoff) will have many in the party talk about how they are worried your attack on the other helps the Republicans. Make the appropriate agreement with those people – but keep attacking. Because the attacks are not damaging either of you in the general, they are toughening you both up. Look at Obama & Clinton at the beginning of the primary, and then again at the end. Both improved an immense amount – because of their competition.

There are some very important questions that need to be answered. Like most Americans, I see us as being in a world of hurt and I am voting for the candidate that I think will be best for the country. Both of you need to force answers to these questions so we can determine which of you two will be better. And make no mistake, which ever candidate wins; these same questions will then define the general election. A primary does not invent items that would otherwise not be brought up – it just brings them up earlier.

Speaker Romanoff, here are some of the issues you should start in on:

1. What specifically is going to be done to reduce unemployment? Because for the past year the Senate has been focused exclusively in healthcare. (You might add that you are able to focus on more than one key issue at a time.)
2. Wall St. took our money to survive, and then turned around, continued with business as usual (both with obscene bonuses and endangering the economy with where they are putting our money). What is going to be done (not spoken but actually done) both to address the political issue of the banks taking our money but not sharing our sacrifice and the economic issue of there being no credit for small business.
3. Our present course in AfPak. When we send our troops in to harm's way the most patriotic thing is to question if this is the right course. What is the most effective way to fight Islamic terrorism?
4. Stimulus spending vs. the deficit – what should we be doing? This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation – yet an answer must be found.
5. Global warming and foreign oil.

Speaker Romanoff you will get a bit of bad press for "starting" the fight – but that will quickly pass. On the plus side, you will gain a significant advantage because you will immediately put Senator Bennet on the defensive. And we will all get to learn how Senator Bennet handles direct campaign attacks.

If not for the sake of the party, then because it's the only way you can win – Speaker Romanoff you need to fight for this seat.

Tea-party support in the Republican primary

To the Colorado Tea-partiers;

Ok, first off I am an ardent Democrat and disagree with 80% (or more) of your political views. We are on opposite teams in every sense of the word. So take this with a grain of salt. But there are a couple of things I think we can agree on.

First, that a candidate who will say anything to get elected, who will say one thing to one group and the opposite to another, who will avoid taking a stand on any issue so as to not upset anyone – that person will do anything (or nothing) in office. We may want to hear the exact opposite from a candidate – but we both want to know where they stand on key issues. And have them discuss those issues in detail and with clarity.

Second, we want a candidate who will listen to the voters. This is a point on which we are in total agreement – events like townhalls where politicians listen to us – to all of us – are critically important. If a candidate is only willing to face self-selected groups when running for office, you know they will reduce that down to nothing once elected.

Third, you want a candidate who embraces your views from conviction, not from recent political expediency. Because if their support of your issues is due to expediency, then if the political equation changes – you've lost them. Real change comes from individuals willing to fight for what they believe in, not those who shift course when the political climate gets a bit rough.

Let's talk Senate first.

First you have Tom Wiens. This is who I hope you elect in the primary. Why? We had a scheduled interview and I asked for suggested questions on Pols. When some tough suggestions appeared, he cancelled the interview the day before because of "travel plans." If this is enough to scare him off, there's no way he can handle a campaign – because he's going to be hit with questions that are a lot rougher. (Plus as every political operative knows – my interviews are about as easy as it gets.) This guy may agree with you – but I don't think he's got the tough skin required to campaign successfully.

Next you have Jane Norton. She appears to be a very nice and agreeable person. But trying to pin down where she stands on anything – it's not happening. She's a lot like FDR in that she agrees with everyone she talks to and leaves everyone with the impression that she supports their issues. My guess is if there is a need for another gang of 14 to find a compromise, she'll be joining that group along with Mark "milquetoast" Udall.

Finally you have a quality candidate with Ken Buck. I disagree with him on issue after issue, but I find him thoughtful, intelligent, and in my interview with him he gave me answer after answer that he knew I disagreed with. And did so politely, calmly, and with strong arguments for his views. If he's elected I'll scream over his votes, but probably respect him. He's not going to drop his conservative views for political expediency – because those views are who he is. In additional, he'll listen to you, discuss issues with you, and will treat you with respect, not as a group to stroke and then abandon.

Now let's talk Governor.

First you have Scott McInnis. Scott is a case study in campaigning on generic platitudes while not giving a specific answer on anything. Do you have any idea how Scott would govern? I sure don't. Maybe you'll be thrilled with him, then again maybe I will. I hope Scott is your candidate because I think he will govern from the middle like Bill Owens did his second term. And politics in this state require a Republican governor to lead the effort to fix TABOR – it can't be done by a Democratic governor. But neither of us knows what we will get with Scott – I don't think Scott knows how he's going to govern.

Second you have Dan Maes. Dan is an intelligent thoughtful guy who, like Ken Buck, has supported a conservative approach for a long time. With that said, he's new to the political arena and would need to learn most everything on the job (being Governor is very different from running a company). And again, someone who will listen to you and is coming from the same philosophical point of view.

You had Josh Penry who was exactly what you needed – he has been fighting for conservative ideas his entire political career and he knows the state government. But the powers that be in the Republican party didn't want him and forced him out as he probably would have won the primary (which says interesting things about the people controlling the state GOP).

Voting to win

With the above said, sometimes ¼ of a loaf is better than none. Jane Norton & Scott McInnis may be moderate and will probably do very little of what they promise you – but they will do some. That moderation gives them a better chance of winning (although in the case of Ken Buck, I think he might be a more formidable opponent than Jane Norton).

Besides, if it's Jane & Scott, and they win the general election, then liberals like me will be happy with some of what they do. And you want us liberals to be happy – don't you?

Michael Bennet Fundraiser

There was a fundraiser for Senator Bennet this evening at KC Becker's house in Boulder. I've never been to one of these so I went to see what is was like (and had permission from the campaign to blog about it).

It was snowing like crazy but if that reduced turnout, then it's a good thing because the house was bursting at the seams. It was very much the Boulder political elite – older, whiter, and extremely liberal – and I'm talking by Boulder standards. (Boulder may have a lot of positive attributes – but the lack of diversity by any measure is not one of them.)

When Michael arrives he is moving toward the center of the house as rapidly as he politely can while shaking hands and saying hi to everyone who reaches out to him. But there is one kid along the way and he stops and talks to her for half a minute. So the most face time went to the one non-voter in the house. I think that speaks very well of him as a human being – he clearly likes kids.

Ok, so then we got to the strip-tease. Off comes the jacket, off come the shoes, … - well actually the jacket went off because he was hot and the shoes because he had to stand on a stool so most could see him. But how often do you get to talk about a Senator using the phrase "then we got to the strip-tease?"

First came the stump speech. A cute personal one about John McCain and one of his daughters. Then discussing the issues we face. He spoke a bit on healthcare, climate change, education, the economy, and a couple of other standard issues. But it was interesting that two items did not come up – jobs & the Wall St/Main St divide. Yet these are probably going to be the two largest issues in the campaign.

We then got in to the Q&A. Bennet gives long substantive answers. And he speaks to the question asked. I really like that in our elected representatives – it shows that they are willing to treat us as adults as well as engage on the issues. Also kudos to the questioners – only a couple preached in their questions or went on over-long. And only one person had her phone on who got a call (and then tried to pretend for ½ minute it wasn't hers – as it kept ringing & ringing).

On a lot of the questions, along with answering the question he discussed the political climate today. This discussion was what I found the most interesting. He no longer watches cable TV because he finds it an "echo chamber of nonsense – both sides." (I'll agree with that except for the two most thoughtful news shows on cable – The Daily Show & The Colbert Report.)

He also talked about how the "special interests cling to the status quo for dear life" worried about what change means for them. This gives us a system where everyone is trying to stop any change. This is an interesting (and possibly spot-on) observation because it means that everyone is trying to stop everything, not just protect the specifics each directly finds useful. That would explain a lot about Washington approaching total gridlock – a lot of groups want total gridlock.

He brought up the problem Republicans in Congress face where they are "scared to death" of a challenge from the fringe right – and that Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck have inordinate power because they can rile up that fringe and primary them. Because of this, the discussion in Congress is no longer a war of ideas but rather the Republicans viewing each proposal as a chance to wage war on the Democrats and gain the approval of their base.

This also is a very good point. Rush Limbaugh & Glen Beck make a lot of money by making people feel alienated and afraid. It is in their direct financial interest to have the political system degenerate as much as possible. We've always had people like this – but now we have them as the primary power in the Republican party rather than a fringe that was mostly ignored. This is really bad news for both the country and the Republican party. And until the Republican party gets a new William F Buckley & Ronald Reagan (both cast the nut cases out), we're going to continue with this mess.

He was asked about AfPak and this crowd clearly was hostile to the idea of any troops over there. He talked to the impossibility of success there based on history, yet also why leaving was an even worse scenario. He spoke directly to this, including why he supports Obama's plan and is hopeful, but will continue to evaluate how things are going there.

I then asked him about our giving the banks gigantic amounts of money and the banks turned around and awarded themselves large bonuses – and how from a political perspective this was incredibly damaging in that we gave, they took, and there was no shared sacrifice. He agreed that this will be a giant issue in the campaign, talked well about why it legitimately is and why the actions of the banks were "horrible." But he then said he "doesn't have an answer." It's worrisome that for what will probably be the number two campaign issue (after jobs), he doesn't have an answer. My guess is Jane Norton will.

So there you go. He worked the crowd very well by giving full & complete answers to their questions. And it was a very friendly & enthusiastic crowd. So all pretty much as expected. And he clearly comes across as a quality candidate and Senator.

On the flip side, he did not do much to differentiate himself from either Romanoff or Norton. And he has never run for office before. Will he learn how to draw those distinctions effectively – because that does require brutal warfare. Norton has done that. I'm hoping that the primary gets a lot more physical so Bennet can get trained in the primary rather than the general.

Ritter Press Conference

10:04 – Standing ovation for the Gov!

10:05 – Talking about what he came in to office to do. That we then got hit with an economic crisis, and that we are now on the way to recovery.

10:06 – Very nice compliments to Barbara O'Brien

10:07 – Talking about the 4 jobs he has – governor, candidate, husband, & father. He says that in doing all of these jobs he has not been able to do as good a job as he should as husband and father. He needs to give that job the time and attention it needs. His wife & children need him. (Good for him – family should come first.)

10:09 – He is now talking about how this gives him the time to focus on governing, and to make the decisions that Colorado needs even thought they may not be politically popular.

10:10 – Talking about how we are recovering and there are important decisions to make as the state comes out of the recession.

10:11 – Thanking his staff, his campaign team, Barbara O'Brien, and his family. "Thank you all and god bless you." Another long standing ovation.

Ritter is a class act.

Q&A:

• Says what led to it was having time off over Christmas which gave him time to slow down and think. Says "never give a busy person free time."
• Says absolutely no pressure from the party to not run. Very nice words of thanks to the party.
• Says fundraising was really good and polls were decent – and that this race was very winnable (I agree). This has nothing to do with his odds. Came back to that this is focusing on what is most important in his life.
• Feels that he will still be able to move his agenda forward.
• Thinks that the Dem candidates are in a very good position for the upcoming election.
• Closed with a final answer again about making the right choice to best balance his life.