The Colorado Index

Mike Coffman Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                    Dustin Zvonek
July 31st, 2008                         Office: 303-791-6453
                             Cell: 970-412-5889


STATEMENT FROM CONGRESSMAN TOM TANCREDO

I have stated on several occasions that I would not endorse a candidate in the 6th Congressional Republican Primary. I will, however speak out against what I consider to be underhanded attacks on any candidate by individuals hiding behind the shield of an organization from which, they hope to obtain "cover."

Apparently such an attack was launched against Mike Coffman.

It is my hope that, as we enter into final stage of the campaign that these types of attacks will cease and that issues will replace personalities as the dominant theme of the debate.  If any candidate is found to be responsible for mailings or "push polls" that try to hide
the source of the activity I hope the voters of the 6th District will reject not only the message but the messenger.         
               
Congressman Tom Tancredo

Bentley Rayburn Press Release

BENTLEY RAYBURN LETTER TO SENATOR KEN SALAZAR REGARDING PINON CANYON TRAINING AREA

Colorado Springs

—Bentley Rayburn released the attached letter to Senator Ken Salazar today regarding the importance of moving forward in the decision process regarding the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Area.

BENTLEY B. RAYBURN, Maj Gen, USAF (Ret)

1866 Wildwood Pass Drive

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80921

Senator Ken Salazar 30 July 2008

3 South Tejon Street, Suite 300

Colorado Springs, CO 80903

Dear Senator Salazar,

Over the past year I have had the opportunity to speak with you on a few occasions about the proposed Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site expansion. I read with great interest a story in the Colorado Springs Gazette on Saturday, 26 Jul 08, (“Salazar sticks to opposing Piñon Canyon Expansion) outlining your opposition to further expansion of the training site. I know this is a passionate issue for both interested parties, the ranchers in southern Colorado and the United States Army. I’m well aware that the Army has made their own share of mistakes, but I also know that it is this is too important to the military training of our Fort Carson troops and the economic viability of southern Colorado

for this issue to remain in limbo.

I agree with your comments that there needs to be a new relationship between the Army and the fine folks who live in southern Colorado. But the only way that is going to occur is to engage in conversation and develop a vision of what the range could be in providing real 21^st Century training for U.S.forces.

With Headquarters Space Command located in Colorado Springs, and a strong effort to bring the new Cyber Command headquarters to our state as well, we have an outstanding opportunity to create the finest training range in the world with a combined space, near-space and cyberspace tied into a world class fully-instrumented maneuver space. This vision will be the foundation of the economic development possibilities the range will bring to the communities of southern Colorado.

During my last assignment on active duty, as commander of the Air Force Doctrine Center, I worked with General Robert Mixon, the immediate past commander of Fort Carson, and others regarding the future vision of the Army and what that meant to their training range requirements. It is clear to me that the Army needs expanded training space, not only due to larger number of troops stationed at Fort Carson, but because of the technological advances that allow fewer troops to cover larger areas in combat operations. This is the same phenomenon that has occurred in air combat training. As the planes and radars and missiles got more sophisticated, the need to get further and further away becomes more critical to realistic training.

I’ve worked range issues before in a number of different places where I’ve been stationed. The issues at Piñon Canyon are not unique to issues we wrestle with all over the country. I would suggest that there are four parts to the solution and we should be working each one of these right now. First, we must fully develop the vision of what the range should look like in terms of capabilities. This will be the foundation for what the range will bring to the local area in terms of economic development. Second, there are ranchers who are willing and anxious to sell. While local political pressure might keep some from expressing their desire to sell, I’m sure there a quite a few ranchers who would love to sell, if given the opportunity. Third, I realize that there are ranchers who will never sell. This is not an insurmountable hurdle. Personally, I have never worked a military range that didn’t have some kind of operational restriction, usually right smack dab in the center of the range! The military takes care of such restrictions by writing the training scenario so as to preclude operating those areas. Lastly, it is our Cold War experience that gives us some possible avenues to examine what might really be a win-win for the ranchers and the Army. Starting in 1967 and running nearly continuously until after the Wall came down, our annual exercise, REFORGER (Return of Forces to Germany), was designed to exercise our forces in the defense of Europe. When we deployed for this very large exercise, we did not have adequate training space for our maneuver forces. To answer this problem, we leased training room from German farmers using their land to make up for the lack of space. In doing so, the ground forces got the needed training and the German farmers were paid for the use of their land. Both parties benefitted. With creative leadership, a similar situation could be created in southern Colorado where the Army would lease land from local ranchers for training space. The ranchers could continue to raise cattle and maintain the ranching heritage, receiving good compensation while the Army would have the ability to train as they need. The two missions are definitely compatible.

I look forward to the opportunity to work with you and other interested stakeholders to find a solution acceptable to all parties. I’ve attached a position paper I wrote earlier outlining my thinking on the Piñon Canyon expansion.

Very sincerely,

//signed/bbr/30Jul08//

BENTLEY B. RAYBURN

Major General, USAF (Retired)

1 Attach,

Piñon Canyon Op-ed

One of These Names Does Not Belong

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper seems like a nice guy, but he seems fundamentally unserious. Case in point is John Hickenlooper’s 2008 Rocky Mountain Roundtable during the Democratic National Convention. The Denver Post reports:

 

"We have set the table for a banquet that the whole country is going to enjoy," Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper said Thursday afternoon, as he another city and DNC Host Committee officials announced a slate of events, including the women's symposium, a film festival and art installations, the Green Frontier Fest, a huge exhibition of presidential artifacts and the 2008 Rocky Mountain Roundtable.

 

These events, Hickenlooper said, present the opportunity for Coloradans to "take a seat at the table in a moment in history and consider what does Democracy mean to me, to our community, to the country."

 

Many of the panels sound interesting. Boulder County Liberal Mark Udall can go to the “Unconventional Women” panel to ask Nancy Pelosi why she threw him under the bus. Quite a few famous liberal politicians and media personalities will speak at the events. But, this event perhaps has the most bizarre pairing of minds ever:

 

The roundtable, set for Aug. 25-27 will for the first time bring together former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and acclaimed actor Ben Affleck to discuss international relations.

 

It is no wonder that this is the first appearance ever of this panel. Madeleine Albright has the credentials to discuss this subject due to her tenure as Secretary of State and at the United Nations. Ben Affleck received his foreign policy credentials from his experience filming Pearl Harbor. There is no word if Ben Affleck joining the religious roundtable based upon his role as a fallen angel in Dogma.

 

The inclusion of Ben Affleck in a “serious” international relations panel just shows that these roundtables will be another unserious event in the circus of the Democratic National Convention.

 

by Civil Sense

Bentley Rayburn Press Release

We have a severe formatting problem with this press Release that will take some time to fix.  It will come up today, just not sure when.

Mark Udall Explains No-Show For Adjournment Vote

Following up on yesterday’s essay on Boulder County Liberal Mark Udall missing yesterday’s vote to adjourn, effectively ending any energy debate until after the summer recess, today’s Denver Post reports Mark Udall’s side of the story.

[ Mark ] Udall spokeswoman Taylor West said the Boulder County lawmaker was on his way back to Washington at the time and that the vote was called with only 10 minutes' notice. Udall asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to delay the vote without success, and the resolution passed by one vote, 213-212.

With gas prices the No. 1 financial worry of voters, promising to try to keep lawmakers in session until they took action was a bold stroke, but missing that vote could be an equally costly political mistake by the five-term congressman.

Udall's staff said the Democrat stayed in Colorado to attend several campaign-related events, including a meeting with business leaders and a fundraising event.

A friend wrote a note to Mark Udall via his website following my post yesterday afternoon.  He received a phone call from a staffer from Mark Udall's Washington DC office last night in response.  Apparently, Mark Udall missed the vote by one minute as he traveled from the airport, and the House leadership would not delay it any longer for Udall to arrive at the Capitol.  Congressman Udall would have voted yes on the issue and plans to issue a statement for the Congressional Record noting this.

Ben DeGrow over at Schaffer v Udall makes some excellent points about this situation.

…Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have saved Mark Udall from choosing between breaking a public promise and voting against a long history of energy obstruction likely will be too transparent to work. But she didn't do Udall any favor. Pelosi is more concerned about saving many of her House Democrats seeking re-election from having to cast a vote on the issue than securing Colorado's U.S. Senate seat for her party. Translation? Nancy Pelosi threw Mark Udall under the bus.

Of course, this all assumes we give Mark Udall all the benefit of the doubt. After all, based on his record, there's absolutely no reason to believe that Udall has any serious intention to go against his entire Congressional career by seeking to improve America's domestic energy supply. Yes - the only place Mark Udall wants to drill is your wallet.

We at this blog are tough on Democrats, but we also try to be fair. As the Denver Post story confirms the Udall staffer's telephone call to a friend, Mark Udall deserves the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Nancy Pelosi likely did throw Udall under the proverbial bus.  It is unlikely that lefty bloggers would cut a Republican candidate similar slack for inadvertently breaking a promise.

However, I agree with Ben DeGrow that even though it was not Mark Udall's fault that he missed the vote, his alliance with the Delay, Don't Drill, Do-Nothing Democrat energy agenda will continue to harm the people of Colorado.

by Civil Sense

About Press Releases

We are being swamped with press releases.  One of the things we try to do is spread them with at least an hour elapsing between posting of different campaign's press releases.

The reason for that is the way that Blog Net News reports on blog posts.  If someone posts between this blog's posts, then both posts get the full headline treatment, which is desirable for everyone concerned.  Usually, but not always, someone else thet BNN covers posts within an hour.

Unfortunately, the hour elapse time makes posting press releases very inefficient.  I know that I am behind, but we are trying to give everyone the best coverage possible.  Please be patient.

Note to our friends at BNN:  Do not assume that we want your system changed to accomodate this post.  We don't.  It is fine as it is.

Amendment 59 On The Ballot!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 30, 2008 Contact:  Tom Lucero (970) 978-1142 TO JOIN OUR CAMPAIGN CLICK HERE   NEARLY 125,000 CITIZENS SIGN CLEAN GOVERNMENT ACT PETITION Committee Launches Campaign to Save Tax Dollars and Bring Transparency WHEAT RIDGE, CO  – Chairman of Clean Government Colorado, Tom Lucero, today announced the submission of nearly 125,000 signatures to the Secretary of State to place Initiative 59 on the November ballot.   The measure requires government contractors to refrain from making campaign contributions to political parties and candidates for elective office while they hold a no-bid contract. “We are gratified by the overwhelming support this measure has received from Colorado voters,” said Lucero.  “As we traveled the state collecting signatures and explaining this proposed ballot measure, we were struck by how many Coloradans overwhelmingly agreed with this common sense, ethical approach to government.”  Initiative 59 will bring more transparency and accountability to Colorado government contracting, and save taxpayers millions of dollars.  Research indicates that nearly $400 million in no-bid contracts are awarded by the state of Colorado annually.  That amount does not include the millions of dollars in no-bid government contracts at the local government level. Taxpayers lose every time the competitive bidding process is by-passed. More troublesome than the excess money taxpayers are paying for no-bid contracts is the impropriety surrounding campaign contributions from no-bid government contractors.  “It is just plain unethical for recipients of no-bid contracts to be funding the election campaigns of those who dole out these contracts,” said Lucero Two recent examples clearly illustrate problems that will be solved with Initiative 59. The Brighton Standard Blade reported a situation in Adams County where two commissioners received campaign contributions after voting for a no-bid contract for a local paving company that has received over $12 million in no-bid contracts from Adams County. When asked to comment, one of the commissioners said to the Brighton Standard Blade, “[i]t’s all part of running for public office…it’s the way of the world.” The Colorado Springs Gazette recently highlighted a case where the city of Colorado Springs has refused to disclose the contents of over $1 million in no-bid contracts. Under Initiative 59, information on no-bid contracts will be disclosed and will be accessible by the media and concerned citizens. “We have two very recent instances where our proposal would bring transparency and accountability.  Under the Clean Government Act, Colorado taxpayers will know exactly how their hard earned dollars are being spent,” said Lucero. The Clean Government Act would close a huge loophole in the Campaign Finance section of the Colorado Constitution and would: Clearly Define no-bid or sole-source contracts. Require no-bid government contractors to contractually agree to refrain from giving political contributions to political parties and candidates for office during the term of the contract and for 2 years afterward. Require no-bid contractors to submit electronic summaries of their contracts which would be posted on a state website. Allow the media and concerned citizens to access a searchable database of these no-bid contracts. Lucero concluded that the nearly 125,000 signatures are evidence that the taxpayers wish to be heard.  “By passing the Clean Government Act, we can save precious tax dollars and make the system more transparent,” he said. ### TO JOIN OUR CAMPAIGN CLICK HERE    Clean Government Colorado | 3954 Youngfield St | Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 www.cleangovernmentcolorado.com

On Providing a Safety Net For Our Own Children

Every time I have a political discussion with my children, I come away disillusioned.

Last month, my son opined that he hoped gas would go to $7 a gallon.  That would, he opined, force everyone to buy gas efficient automobiles.  My reaction:  "Spoken like someone who makes $80,000 a year." 

He doesn't make $80,000 a year, but I was trying to make a point.  Wishing for high gas prices is a rich man's luxury.

I came to the realization that he had never, in his entire life, lived in a situation where he didn't know where his next meal was coming from.  He has no basis for a real empathy for the poor or how his thinking impacts their human desire to improve their lives.

It isn't that his parents weren't poor and didn't come from, at best, lower middle class origins.  It was touch and go for a while when my wife and I got married.  We both had jobs that paid about $25/week, but we were paying our way through school. 

My wife learned to dilute hamburgers with Wheaties before we grilled them.  One evening, there was so little hamburger and so much Wheaties in the meal that the burgers were inedible.  We went to bed hungry that night.

We had our tickets out of that life in the form of a college diploma for each of us, and those diplomas were only months away when we got married.  But, would they have been months away if it took an hour of work to earn a gallon of gas?  It seems unlikely.  High gas prices would have made it impossible for us to afford to go to work and go to school.  We might have found ourselves permanently forced to be working poor.

Children who are raised as we tried to raise our children are not exposed to this experience.  They don't understand that people with aspirations for a better life will have those aspirations dashed by higher gas prices and the higher prices of food and goods that higher gas prices will force.

They have the luxury of thinking like the rich without real empathy for the poor.  We have made them poorer for it.

I would be remiss not to point to today's Gazette editorial on a totally different subject, but with these two paragraphs that support part of the premise of today's essay:

A Washington Post/Quinnipiac University/Wall Street Journal poll in late July, however, showed that [ Bob ] Schaffer had pulled forward to run neck-and-neck with [ Mark ] Udall at 44 percent. By a solid margin, likely voters said they were more concerned with a candidate's energy policy than anything else. [ Bob ] Schaffer wants more oil. [ Mark ] Udall wants wind and solar and hybrid cars - luxuries only the rich can afford for now.

In other words, the just plain ordinary average working class people of Colorado may want to elect someone who favors fuel that will work for the homes and cars they already have. Comparing Schaffer and [ Mark ] Udall, Schaffer emerges the populist.

In trying to spare our children the hardships of life, we may have encouraged them to impose hardships on others without providing a reference for understanding what they are doing.

Another Day, Another Promo For Higher Taxes

This is post is one of a series.  I have noted that the Denver Post writes an editorial promoting higher taxes at least once a month.  This short post is my effort to make it easy for those who want to document the pattern, like me, to find the editorials.  We file them under our "The Denver Post Embarrasses Itself" category.

Today, they can't even be truthful about the impact of the anti-TABOR extension of Ref C into the future.

The state gets to "keep whatever revenue it raises in the future," but supposedly taxpayers still get to vote on tax increases...

Yeah...like the property tax freeze.

Boulder County Liberal Mark Udall Breaks A Promise

As noted here, Boulder County Liberal Mark Udall promised to vote against recessing Congress if it did not pass an energy bill. Today was put-up-or-shut-up day for Mark Udall, since Congress voted to recess with no energy bill. The following press release has the details:

 

WASHINGTON – Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), Chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued the following statement shortly after the House of Representatives voted 213-212 – with no Republicans voting in the affirmative – to adjourn for five weeks in August and September without taking action to lower gas prices and break our dependence on foreign oil:

 

"The Democratic Congress should be held in contempt for voting to skip town without dealing with America’s energy crisis.

“Democrats are out of touch, out of excuses, out of support and out of time. Americans are hurting. Independent polls show they overwhelmingly support House Republicans’ all-of-the-above energy solutions.

“It’s time Democrats put their boarding passes back in their pockets and get to work by voting on the American Energy Act.”

 

The official roll call votes list every vote. Mark Udall’s name is easy to find: scroll to the bottom under “Not Voting.”

 

One excuse Mark Udall cannot claim is that he was not in Washington for the vote. According to the House Clerk website, six total resolutions had votes today. Udall did not vote in four of them. However, Mark Udall had time to vote for the “Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act” and a resolution “Calling on the Government of the People’s Republic of China to immediately end abuses of the human rights of its citizens, to cease repression of Tibetan and Uighur citizens, and to end its support for the Government of Sudan and Burma to ensure that the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games take place in an atmosphere of freedom.” Both votes were taken within minutes of the adjournment resolution.

 

Apparently, any promise Mark Udall makes expires within two days. Udall did not have the courage to back up a statement he made just two days prior. Not only that, had Mark Udall followed through on his promise, the resolution would have tied, which at minimum would force additional parliamentary procedures before adjournment. It may even have forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand to allow debate on an energy bill. If Udall cannot publicly take a stand that he promised to take, how on earth can Coloradans trust him in the United States Senate?

 

Boulder County Liberal Mark Udall publicly shirked his responsibility as a Congressman and broke his word to the public. Colorado voters deserve to know the reasons for his non-vote and broken promise. In any event, Udall's assistance to Nancy Pelosi in blocking votes on energy bills keeps this previously suggested campaign slogan accurate: “Vote Mark Udall for even higher energy prices.”

 

by Civil Sense