Liberal and Loving It

Bennet vs. Buck Debate

6:32 – Senator Bennet first – saying thank you to our troops. Now talking about the rough economy with middle income costs increasing but income has not. Next talking about 13 trillion dollars in debt with nothing to show for it. How we have not invested in our infrastructure.

6:35 – Ken Buck second – saying that he has been all over Colorado listening. Talking about the concerns people have for jobs and making ends meet. Next talking about the deficit, both the total and the yearly deficit. Says the deficit has hurt jobs by "spending money we don't have on programs we don't need." Pinging Bennet saying he spends weekdays voting for deficit spending in D.C. and weekends in Colorado talking against deficit spending. Proposing a balanced budget amendment. And giving small business certainty as to what costs they will face.

Much louder cheers for Ken Buck – don't know if that's the region or if Buck packed the audience.

6:39 – Asked if negative advertising works. Senator Bennet says that taxes have been reduced for most and he runs ads on that setting the record straight. Got a large boo for that. Senator Bennet then said that yes we all have our own opinions but the facts are the facts – got a good round of applause for that. Then ended it with the tax cut for small business.

The moderator just spanked the audience for yelling "shut up." Well done.

Ken Buck talking about Bennet's ads being called false. And says when false ads are run, then the record needs to be set straight. He then added that fair comparison ads are a good thing to have.

Senator Bennet said that other's say his ads are fair. He then brings up Ken Buck quotes to eliminate the Dept. of Education and his comments about some education programs. Ken Buck responded asking Senator Bennet to have the complete recordings the Bennet campaign has to the news media because they are taking his words out of context. This discussion got a bit pissy between them.

6:45 – Asking which is more important, undoing the tax cuts or continuing them to help the economy. Ken Buck replied first saying that lower taxes will increase revenue. (Yeah right – and if we take them to 0 then we'll have infinite income.) Next bringing up the high overhead of some taxes (very good point).

Senator Bennet – starts off saying we have to be honest and that taxes are lower than ever before. Next talking about how we're borrowing like crazy while cutting takes and not covering our expenses.

6:48 – What issues will be most important to independent voters. Senator Bennet replied that it's the economy and the fiscal position of the economy. Next talking about how he has voted more with the Republican party than almost any other Democrat in Congress.

Ken Buck starts with jobs saying it is very important for everyone. Next to bring energy jobs back to Colorado, but to do it in an environmentally sensitive way. Third he brings up education and saying that it is best handled in a bottom up manner rather than top down from D.C.

Senator Bennet responding saying that he agrees with Ken Buck on this issue, on jobs, on energy, and on education. Ken Buck comes back thanking Senator Bennet for agreeing with him, but then pings him on some of his votes that have hurt those specific issues, dragging immigration into this.

6:54 – What should victory in Afghanistan look like? Senator Bennet starts off saying the most important job in the Senate is to support our troops both in action and when they return. He then said what matters is to take out Al Qaeda, backstop the Pakistan military fighting the terrorists, and backstop the Pakistan military securing their nuclear weapons. And that is where the mission ends – no nation building.

Ken Buck – first mentions his son at West Point. First insure Afghanistan is not a haven for terrorists. Second we have to eliminate the drug trade there. Third we need to eliminate terror support in Southeast Asia. He then concluded agreeing with Senator Bennet that nation building is impossible there.

6:57 – the DREAM Act. Ken Buck says he will vote against the DREAM Act. He then says that we do need a way for children who grew up here to go to school. But he wants it to not allow anyone who committed a serious crime, and that they first have to perform some service such as serving in the military. He concludes by saying he wants it to be earned.

Senator Bennet – starts by saying that he's a co-sponsor. Talks about how his mom's side came here from Europe and how much America means to them. He is speaking beautifully about what America is and what it means and how important that is. Beautiful words. And how awful it is for a child who graduates from High School who cannot go on to College.

7:02 – What to do about entitlements. Senator Bennet starts off by saying that this is the key question – that 55% of our spending is entitlements and debt. And we need to reduce medical spending, paying on outcomes rather than on effort (superb point). Then says that the government is on auto-pilot and that we need to sit down to figure this out.

Ken Buck – starting by saying we have made a sacred promise to our seniors and we need to hold to that. Wants to look at the middle group (I think he means middle age) and bring in things like adjusting the retirement age, means testing, etc. He also wants to give workers incentives to save for their retirement. And this additional income supplements social security.

Asking Senator Bennet for specific reforms. Senator Bennet first says he does not support the privatization of social security. Next talking about the 20% hospital readmission rate and how it is nuts because the hospital keeps getting paid – for doing a lousy job. Said there are many other examples.

7:08 – What does the tea party affiliation means? Ken Buck lists several groups and says that in whole that they are the grass roots. And he sees what is key to that is he has admitted that the Republicans are as much to blame for our problems as the Democrats. That both have raided the treasury for their friends. (This is the message that I think will win the race for Ken Buck.)

Senator Bennet asked about being called "Obama's chosen one." Senator Bennet first talking about some of his disagreements with President Obama. Senator Bennet next talking about outside groups running ads for Ken Buck that are from very extreme conservatives.

7:12 – Ask about campaign financing. Senator Bennet talks about how it's horrible, that allowing companies to dump unlimited dollars, and that the 527s don't have to list who donates to them. From this he shifted into our exporting, and how we invented solar panels but China is now the leading exporter of them. He brought it back by saying that the special interests get the system rigged for them individually even if it harms the country.

Ken Buck says he thinks we should have complete and immediate disclosure of who is donating to every group. He called out union donations in particular. He then brought up The Blueprint (great book) and how it created shadowy groups that brought about the Democratic wins in Colorado.

Senator Bennet started off by saying that he thinks trackers are fine. He next agreed with Ken Buck on transparency and that he would love to find who is funding the 5 groups pounding Senator Bennet.

7:17 – Asked about stem cell research. Ken Buck starts off saying that he is pro-life and therefore opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but is fine with adult stem cell research. On Supreme Court justices, he will not treat abortion as a litmus test, that he wants justices who will interpret the law, not make it.

Senator Bennet starts off saying he is pro-choice and does a great job saying that he does not want the government telling his daughters what they can do with their bodies – very emotional. He then added that he strongly supports embryonic stem cell research because from that we can cure diseases. He then spoke that he understands that people will disagree with this.

7:20 – DADT? Senator says he thinks we should repeal DADT. He followed on with there is no way our country benefits from denying some people the right to be true to themselves.

Ken Buck wants to retain DADT. He says he is fine with gay people serving, but that they cannot be open about it. That the military is better served by appearing homogeneous. (This makes no sense.)

7:22 – Will you lose your seat over healthcare? Senator Bennet replied that yes, but yes if it was a good bill that addresses a lot of the serious problems we face. He then went through the problems we face where we spend twice as much as any other industrialized country – and that this need to be solved.

Ken Buck first said that Senator Bennet was asked that question when the Senate bill was up to be voted on. Ken Buck next said the thing most people were upset about was the corrupt process used to pass the bill where Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu got specifying pieces for their states. He then suggested giving individuals the same tax break corporations get and bring in tort reform.

7:27 – Ken Buck closing statement – Talking about how the people have kept telling Washington what they want addressed. That what the people said was heard in D.C., but that it was then ignored. Very passionate list of the issues where the people have been ignored.

Senator Bennet – he wants to create a competitive economy and give our children a better place than we have. He then brought up specific case of a woman who told him that if we just worked together we can do anything, and she's right. That with all of us we can continue to build the American dream. (This was a surprisingly weak closing.)

Now we have everyone in the audience shouting out for their candidate. Senator Bennet & Ken Buck shake hands. And we're done.

My $0.02

I think this was a really good debate – substantive questions and both candidates gave specific answers. And quite a bit of ground was covered in the hour. The moderator did a superb job of apportioning time and controlling the crowd. So lots of good info about the differences between the two.

Senator Bennet's strong and weak point is that he dives into the details. This reflects well on him that he can call up supporting facts and he shows a clear understanding of the issues. It's a weak point in that he tries to make a nuanced intellectual argument supporting his candidacy rather than an easily understood simplistic answer which would sell a lot better.

Ken Buck's strong point is he does a better job of making an emotional compelling argument for his candidacy. His weak point is that he's a conservative!!! No wait, that's not fair – it's that AARGH yes that is it.

The bottom line is they're both quality candidates. They differ strongly on most social issues. They're closer on economic issues, but they're still substantial differences (especially if you measure Senator Bennet by his votes, not his campaigning). They're both focused on the economy and each thinks what they propose is our best way out of this mess. I think this makes for a great election as it gives us a clear choice (and you should pick the Democrat!!!)

Where do we place our defensive line?

In the Battle of the Bulge (WWII) the allies first priority was to hold the shoulders (edges) of the German advance while falling back as needed in the pocket. Holding where they must while temporarily retreating where necessary was key to minimizing the impact of the German offensive.

This election is going to be bad news for us Democrats. We need to minimize our losses. And that means we have to put our resources into the very close races that matter the most. Not who we like best. Not based on how we wish we still had the momentum of '08. We need to follow the model laid out in The Blueprint where we make a dispassionate decision based on the numbers.

First off, I think our most important seats this election are the state level executive positions, for two reasons. First the U.S. House is almost certainly going to flip and even if the U.S. Senate does not flip, it will be even less effective than it is now. This means we are on our own mitigating the impact of the recession. To do so the two most critical offices are Governor and Treasurer.

Treasurer is key because having an inept Republican with goofy financial ideas investing our money will lose the state money, potentially a lot of money. Dollars drive most everything and having Stapleton piss away money is the same as passing a tax cut. Fortunately we're in good shape on these two races.

Second is state legislative races. Control of the state House & Senate is gigantic. But the key point is control – put in the effort required to retain control. Extra seats are nice and let's take what we can get, but it's not more important than the remaining items below. So we need to look at how each race is shaking out, which competitive ones are required to retain control, and can we credibly win those – and then put our efforts in on those if we have a decent chance.

Third, I think the federal seats we can hold come next – because there's no term limits. In most years incumbency helps a lot (not so much this year). And so, we want to keep the Gang of Four in their seats. But we have to do so where we have a chance. My earlier plan was to donate heavily to Bennet and Markey and spend weekends going door to door in Longmont for both. But if many of us do that and they both then lose by 2% instead of 4%, but Ed Perlmutter and John Salazar each lose by 100 votes, we did a very stupid thing.

Fourth and final is Secretary of State and Attorney General. Yes both are important. Yes having a partisan hack in either hurts the state. But the level of damage is less than what we face with the other seats. And both will be open seats again, AG in 4 years and SoS in 8. (It is particularly hard to put this last because we have superb people for these jobs in Bernie and Stan.)

So how should we approach this?

1. Make a donation to Cary Kennedy.
2. Wait on the rest of your donations. The polls this month will start to lock in what the real odds for each candidate is. Donate small amounts for those you really like, but save the majority of your money for September 30.
3. If the gubernatorial race gets competitive (which could well happen), then be prepared to go all in on Hick. We're in a world of hurt economically and that office will have more impact than every other office together. On the flip side, if Hick retains a strong majority give him your support, but not your money.
4. If treasurer remains close, donate substantially there.
5. If the House and/or Senate control hangs on one or two close races, donate the rest there.
6. You have a couple of bucks left over? Ok, take a very dispassionate look at the Gang of Four races. Donate to the ones where the numbers have them tied or our guy in a lead well within the margin of error. Cry over the others.
7. Still some bucks left? Ok Ms. Moneybags, same thing with Bernie, Stan, and any additional close state legislative races. If they're close, kick in some money.

Being rational about this sucks. If I got to give a free win to one candidate it would be Betsy Markey. I think Bernie Buescher and Stan Garnett are both superb. (And I have donated a little to all three.) But just as in '08 we won just about every close and sort-of close race, this year is clearly looking to give the Republicans most of the close and sort-of close races.

And to those Democrats who say speaking like this helps the Republicans – bullshit. Looking realistically at the situation and acting to minimizing the damage helps us Democrats. Shooting the messenger helps the Republicans. Donating to someone we like but who can't win this year may make us feel good today, but it's not going to help the country.

Tom Tancredo Interview

This was a surprising interview. I expected to mostly be discussing illegal immigration and why that was the key issue in the race. Instead I found Congressman Tancredo to be primarily concerned with the lack of integrity in Dan Maes and secondarily concerned with the state of our public schools. And yet, Tom's instinct is to discuss illegal immigration to the exclusion of most everything else.

So I started off by asking him why he choose to enter the race. He started off by saying that he is a strong believer in working within the party and that he was very comfortable supporting first Josh Penry, and then Scott McInnis. Tom then discussed the last couple of months.

He first discussed Dan Maes saying that he found him an unacceptable candidate early on because in his initial discussions with Dan, Dan told him he supported immigration reform with amnesty and therefore he could not support him. He then discussed how over time he (and all of us actually) found that more and more of Dan's background as he listed it was untrue. But this was also not a big deal at the time as he was not going to win.

Tom then discussed Scott McInnis and his concern that he was "not grounded in conservative governance." I pointed out that the core issue was Scott could appeal to people like me and Tome replied "yes and we had to do something about that." So Tom & Josh came up with the Contract for Colorado, Scott signed off on it, and life was good. Tom further listed how he worked hard to support Scott, how Scott had the money, the votes, etc.

He then discussed how, when the "allegations of plagiarism came out" it was impossible for Scott to win. And Dan was unacceptable. So that is what lead to Tom's deciding to run. This is key to Tom's purpose in the election now, that "Dan shouldn't win." I then asked what if the Republicans had a candidate that could not win, but who did not have questionable integrity and who was very conservative – what then. Tom replied that he would strongly support them. I then flipped it and said still had personal integrity, but they were a RINO. Tom in that case said he would "stay out of it," but would vote for them.

My $0.02: The key point of this is Tom Tancredo's primary goal in running is to be a spoiler. To split the vote and insure that Dan Maes does not win. And he is doing so because he believes that Dan Maes lacks the integrity to be governor. First off, this means Tom is not dropping out unless Dan does first. Second, it means Tom will hammer Dan on his personal integrity and that could not only put Tom ahead of Dan in the final vote, but could give Tom a shot at winning.

I next asked what would be the major item he would concentrate on as Governor. He first discussed how the big money is the federal money. And at the state, as well as the federal level, the discretionary funding was a very small part of the total and therefore you can't effect much change there. Therefore he says real change requires structural change and "that will require going to the ballot, going to the people." Tom brought up the specific cases of union contracts and PERA. And to address them will require going to the courts and to the ballot. He then discussed the mandates backed into the constitution such as Amendment 23.

He next brought up illegal immigration. Congressman Tancredo went on for a bit about the costs to the state, primarily in educating their children, and the reduction in available jobs for citizens. The main action he would take as Governor is to mandate eVerify by employers. And with those jobs opened up to citizens only, he believes the market will adjust to make the jobs of interest to citizens.

Skipping this part: There has been boatloads of interviews with Congressman Tancredo on this issue and even if the whole hour was devoted to this subject, nothing new would be learned. So go to those other interviews for his thoughts on this, and the counter arguments.

I then asked what else he would do. Tom said the next issue is that the state is not welcoming to business. He first discussed a poll of Oil & Gas executives that ranked Colorado the best place to do business in 2008 and then ranked us worst in 2010. He then said "something happened there." He then talked about the recent legislation that has split the oil from the gas guys and he termed that "divide and conquer."

He talked about making Colorado a place where "if you come here and do things the right way, if you play by the rules, We're not going to give you any special exemptions, but on the other hand we're not going to focus on you and pull you out and say this is not the kind of development we want in our state." He then went on to say "it's not I want a green economy, I want a thriving economy."

He then brought up the example of Colorado Springs where they asked the major employers what are the problems they see in the city. And the businesses told them what concerned them, and they were mostly very mundane things. Tom would like to see the state do the same thing. He then discussed the permit processes that exist for so many businesses, and working to make that process as smooth and quick as possible. In all of this he never discussed removing or changing the rules, he discussed making them as easy and straightforward in practice as possible.

Tom then suggested offering cash bonuses to state employees who come up with ways to streamline the process in their departments.

My $0.02: This is a message the business community will find very compelling. The state of Colorado at present is very antagonistic toward business. And that impacts jobs because time spent trying to figure out what the state wants is time not spent growing a company.

Congressman Tancredo next brought up a superb idea. His question is "why is Indiana, a rust belt state, why are they better off than we are?" He wants to look at what the differences are that explain Indiana's economy doing better, find out which are government related (he thinks it's a lot) and address those items. He wants to figure out what we need to do to become attractive to business and industry.

One interesting point as Tom went through the problems we face attracting businesses, and that corporate headquarters have left Colorado, is that he did not take cheap political shots at Ritter and Hickenlooper. Instead he discussed how we have a problem and he wants to find out what the real causes are, and fix them.

I next asked who are the top 5 people he will bring in in his administration to help him accomplish all this. His reply was "I have absolutely no idea." He then went on to say that he only got in to this race 3 weeks ago. He then followed on to say they will be conservatives and they will mostly be Republicans. He then did say that John Tipton is one of the first people he will ask to serve.

My next question was his view on 60, 61, & 101. Tom's reply was that he fully supports them. His reply was "the first two came about because people were being taxed without their permission." He discussed how the government kept working to use the word fees instead of the word tax to get around TABOR. And if 60, 61, & 101 pass, you can then put together a tax increase proposal and present it to the people in the '11 election. And that it is an important lesson for the state to learn, that they need to ask first.

He does see the cuts they would force as being dramatic. But he does not see them as destroying civilization as we know it. He does think it will force the state to make some major decisions and to address core cost issues that have been avoided. It will force the state to address state salaries that have climbed much faster than inflation. He thinks the result will mostly be salary cuts. He also thinks that a lot of the decisions forced will be changes that will be better for the state long-term.

My $0.02: I think Tom is right that the state has done everything it can to dance around TABOR rather than bringing tax proposals to a vote of the people. And I think he's right that the state has avoided addressing cost issues that drastic cuts would force it to address. But I also think 60, 61, & 101 would have a brutal impact on the state.

I next asked Tom about my idea that we replace TABOR, Amendment 23, etc. with an amendment that says total receipts to the state cannot exceed X% of the state's GDP averaged over the previous 3 years. This is taxes, fees, everything. But the legislature is then free to adjust and tax, fee, etc. without a vote as long as the total stays under the limit. He said "that's quite interesting… I like it."

Next up was what I think would be the easiest question – name a program he would end. He talked about how when Colorado passed the tobacco tax it increased Medicaid eligibility from 250,000 to 480,000. He would undo that extension.

I then asked the flip side, to name one he would create or significantly extend. His reply was "creating a new program is not really on my agenda." So nothing new added (which is a fair answer).

Ok, so my next question was what will he do to fix K-12. At this point Tom Tancredo became more impassioned than at any other part of the conversation (including illegal immigration). He started off by saying "I would take my magic wand…" So I then asked, ok let's say you do have a magic wand, and you get one use – do you use it to fix K-12 or to eliminate illegal immigration. (An interesting thing about a question like this – most candidates love it because the idea of being able to truly fix a big problem is so compelling to them.)

Congressman Tancredo thought about it for a bit and then said K-12. He then discussed his background, as a teacher, the education bills he had carried in the legislature, and his work for the Department of Education. He has a lot of history in this area. He wants to bring in full choice, public schools, charter schools, and vouchers. He sees the marketplace of multiple schools competing for students will force an improvement in schools. He also wants to see schools do a better job teaching children civics, giving them a better understanding of our government and what it means. (Of course, then they'll all be Democrats.)

I asked about SB-191 and he does not think that will help much, because it is still a centrally controlled top-down single system. He comes back to giving each parent the freedom to determine what school works best for their child. He is fine if we can just get vouchers for children in poor districts (where the schools tend to be terrible). He brings up the very valid point that a lousy education means that those children will cost society more because they're left in a life of economic poverty.

Next I asked for a vote that hurt his political future. He immediately answered TARP. Tom said that this would harm him in any future run for any office. And the smart move, as many other reps did, was to vote no and hope it passed. He talked to the presidents of 25 banks from 1^st Bank to Wells Fargo. You have this highly technical bill that "if it doesn't pass, then all inter-bank lending stops in 24 hours." And you have millions of companies depending on this. He was told by people on all sides of the spectrum that the results would be a collapse of biblical proportions if it didn't pass. He also talked about where people turn when things go this bad, and it's not Democracy and free enterprise.

My $0.02: I think Congressman Tancredo's vote here shows strong moral character in that he voted what he thought was necessary over what was in his own political interest. And he did so voting the opposite of what his political philosophy is. And to those who are upset with him on this vote – he was right. We did face a complete economic collapse and that vote was key to avoiding the collapse. None of us liked giving the banks all that money, especially when they responded by giving all of us the middle finger by watering down the financial reform bill and bringing back even larger bonuses. But it had to be done.

For my last questions I asked him, if he's elected, then 8 years from now what will be his biggest accomplishment. His reply was that the majority of people in this state will say they are better off than they were 8 years earlier.

Conclusion

Tom Tancredo is an interesting guy. I don't agree with him on much, but I think he comes at his decisions and policies in a thoughtful way and tries to do what is right. He comes at the question of Governor with a very good big picture approach and some very interesting ideas. He's very conservative, but is not a drown the government in a bathtub type – his support of 60, 61, 101 is grounded in respect for the rule of law, but also that he thinks the impact would be manageable until a tax increase could be put on the ballot.

And then there's immigration… I think Tom Tancredo is his own worst enemy on this, because he gravitates to discussing it exclusively, which then hides all those other facets of him and labels him by this one issue. So can Tom win as Governor? Maybe, but only if he STFU on immigration and instead talks on these other points. (I'm not saying he hides from immigration, but that if he focuses on the rest.) And if he stays Mr. Immigration, he still guarantees a loss for Dan Maes, and that is his primary goal.

And if Dan drops out then I'm guessing Tom will drop out the next day. And that would be a shame because he makes the discussion between the candidates a lot more interesting. On the flip side, if he's in to the end, I'm guessing he'll easily beat Dan Maes and may give Hick a run for his money.

Full interview: Tom Tancredo Interview