The Colorado Index

The Gazette's Coverage of Dave Schultheis

Several months ago I let it be known that I hoped to run against State Senator Dave Schultheis in 2010 if my cancer treatment permitted it (the treatment side effects being worse than the disease at this stage).

Until that time, Dave Schulthies had receded into the woodwork.  He made one appearance during the campaign.  He didn't walk precincts for others.  He was on autopilot.  The Gazette never mentioned him.

After I made it public that I hoped to be able to challenge him, he suddenly became a news hog.  A day didn't go by when he didn't try to make news, and the Gazette and other media obliged him.  

Dave Schultheis and sidekick Kent Lambert share a perception about the 9th Senate District-that it is the most conservative district in the state.

Instead of toning down his brand of politics, Dave Schultheis ratcheted them up in an attempt to capitalize on his perception of the district's makeup.  It is hard to believe that his no vote on the HIV testing bill and the comments he made in support of that vote was anything but an attempt to get attention.

Except for the HIV comments The Gazette's coverage has been fawning, including an editorial in support of a Dave Schultheis bill that the editor who wrote the editorial appeared not to have bothered to read.

Friday's Gazette was a lot less approving.  The editorial page had a scathing editorial that ended thus:

Well, gosh, Sen. Schultheis. With those phenomenally outrageous statements, you called into question your motive for defending the unborn. Is it because you value and care about them? Or is it because women should endure the consequence of sex, pregnancy, in order to send a message? If it were about concern for the lives of the unborn, it seems you wouldn't want them to suffer from AIDS while roaming the earth as young children.

One can think of several reasons to oppose the HIV testing bill. But nothing could be more asinine and cruel than suggesting an unborn child contract a fatal virus in order to send a message about sex.

Most pro-life politicians and activists, whether one agrees with their agendas or not, aren't motivated by a desire to impose consequences on mothers, or to send messages about choices. Most defend a sincere belief that unborn children are innocent and have rights. That would include the right to not be used as a tragic example of a deadly disease, for political expedience. Schultheis would do all pro-life politicians and activists a giant favor by never again speaking of mothers and their unborn kids. He doesn't understand the pro-life cause he claims to defend.

But that wasn't all.  Barry Noreen had this to say:

Really, why would we use HIV-positive babies to exemplify poor decision-making when we have you, senator? How do you explain a decision to cast a vote contrary to everything you've ever said about protecting the unborn?

We could have posters printed up with your picture and distributed to schools across Colorado.

We'd say, "Kids, this is a picture of a dangerous gonzo lunatic, a homophobe with all the answers. Sometimes people like this go to prison; sometimes they wear coats and ties and get elected to the Legislature. In any case, don't let this happen to you."

Oh, yeah, we can get a lot of mileage out of this as long as we're protecting children.

You're all for that, right, senator?

We don't want to sound ungrateful. After Doug Bruce left the delegation, some of us longed for another cashew, perhaps a Brazil nut, to come along and fill his empty shell.

One wonders if Dave Schultheis will get the kinds of positive coverage he has received in the past from The Gazette.  My bet is that he will write a contrite letter that The Gazette will publish and all will be forgiven.

The thing I find most interesting is how personally The Gazette staff took the Schultheis remarks.  They were writing with obvious anguish about the damage he did to their own deep beliefs.  It wasn't professional.

LPR Retreat Deadline Extended

LPR Retreat Registrations are setting all-time records!  We've extended the registration period through Sunday.  just confirmed... Brigitte Gabriel Leading expert on Global Islamic Brigitte Gabriel is one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on the rise of global Islamic terrorism. She lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders. She has addressed the Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, the FBI and many others. In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst onFox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, ABC and various radio stations daily across America. She serves on the board of advisors of the Intelligence Summit.  Ms. Gabriel is a former news anchor for “World News” the Arabic evening news broadcast for Middle East Television seen throughout the Middle East. She immigrated to the United States in 1989 and founded a television production, marketing and advertising agency. Her clients included ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, The Ophra Winfrey Show, Dr. Phil, Discovery, History, and National Geographic just to name a few. Ms. Gabriel is founder, president and CEO of ACT! for America, the largest grassroots citizen action network dedicated to preserving national security and combating Islamic supremacy. She’s the author of two New York Times Best Sellers, BECAUSE THEY HATE: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. And THEY MUST BE STOPPED: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it. Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America.     Annual LPR Retreat  March 6 - 7, 2009 The Broadmoor, Colorado Springs Retreat Information: List of all speakers, program agenda, etc.  Register Online Now!   For more information, contact us at 303-488-0018 or info@leadershipprogram.org

Why It Is Important to Publicly Object

In times of trouble it is easier to be a Democrat politician than it is to be a Republican politician, and especially to be a social conservative politician.

Democrat voters have shown time and again that they will quickly forget and forgive the most outrageous conduct by a politician.  

Republican voters are largely unforgiving, a lesson that too many social conservative politicians don't seem to learn no matter how often the voters teach it to them.

Recall Mark Foley?  In trying to save that seat for him in 2006, the Republicans in Congress very likely surrendered 20 seats that they could have won.  By any standard his conduct was wrong, but no one had the political courage to say so.

 In 2008 the El Paso County Republican Party leadership got a similar lesson when it tried to publicly claim that John Newsome hadn't done anything that should get him thrown out of office.  The Republican primary voters disagreed by a 20% margin. 

So far, only Rep Marsha Looper has had the courage to fully object to what happened in the Colorado Senate these last few days.

Rep. Marsha Looper, of Calhan, was one of the few Republicans willing to publicly take her party members to task.
"What are they doing over there?" she asked, referring to the Senate. "I find their comments inappropriate and offensive, and I question their motives."

If other Republican office holders don't publicly object, don't publicly distance themselves from the comments of Senators Dave Schultheis and Scott Renfro, it will cost the Republican Party dearly in 2010.

Don't believe it?  Read this editorial from the Denver Post.

It's unbelievable that hateful comments about gays and HIV-infected women don't merit a public smackdown, yet Marostica's venture into political name-calling does.
Yet it goes a long way toward explaining why Republicans are the minority party in this state and, if they don't wise up, could be for a long time.

It Didn't Make 150 Years

If there was only one newspaper with the integrity to report honestly on Judicial misconduct, it was the Rocky Mountain News.

My guess is that the champagne glasses were filled many times last evening at the Supreme Court and the Colorado Bar Association last night.

Rocky, we hardly knew ye.  Sorry to see you go.

The End Of An Era

The fate of the Rocky Mountain News arrived today.  Starting Saturday, Denver will be a one-newspaper town.

The Rocky Mountain News publishes its last paper tomorrow.

Rich Boehne, chief executive officer of Scripps, broke the news to the Rocky staff at noon today, ending nearly three months of speculation over the paper's future. He called the paper a victim of a terrible economy and an upheaval in the newspaper industry.

"Denver can't support two newspapers anymore," Boehne told staffers, some of whom cried at the news.

This is not a surprising turn of events. The death of the Rocky Mountain News was expected for months.  However, the immediacy of the closing is akin to a death in the family. It is sad to see the Rocky Mountain News go after nearly 150 years of publication.

Of course, reverting to a one-newspaper town now gives the Denver Post a monopoly.  Without the Rocky to keep the Post semi-honest, the Post will have even more opportunities to embarrass itself.  However, in this environment, the Post will have to move to attract Rocky subscribers or risk going out of business as well.

We in the "new media" can attempt to keep the Post honest.  However, there is no substitute for a reporter who follows stories full-time (as opposed to bloggers who have a day job).  Joshua Sharf at View From a Height made some similar comments on this matter.

And, to the soon-to-be former Rocky employees, I wish you good luck in your future endeavors.

by Civil Sense

Two Days Left to Register for LPR Retreat

Why do I attend the LPR Annual Retreat at the Broadmoor?  (for more reasons, go to www.leadershipprogram.org)     “Why do I attend the Leadership Program of the Rockies Retreat? It’s a chance to network with the ‘who’s who’ of Colorado public policy. This event is a must for me and Donna every year.”

John Andrews

Director, Centennial Institute, host of Backbone Radio & former President of theColorado Senate

---

"LPR is the nation's premier program for developing, training and equipping emerging leaders."

Mark Hillman
Colorado native, a farmer, "recovering journalist" and a former Majority Leader of the Colorado Senate.

---

"I attend the Leadership Program of the Rockies because it's important to foster leadership founded on the principles of personal responsibility, free markets, limited government and a strong national defense."

U.S. Representative Mike Coffman (R-CO)

---

"There is no better time for leaders to reset their patriotic compass than the two-day LPR Annual Retreat at the Broadmoor. The LPR Retreat is an investment for leaders to broaden their knowledge, passion, and principles from nationally-renowned public-policy experts."

Bob Schaffer
Chairman, Colorado State Board of Education

TWO Days left to Register!
(No tickets will be sold at the door.)

---

Annual LPR Retreat 
March 6 - 7, 2009
The Broadmoor, Colorado Springs

For more information, contact us at 303-488-0018 or info@leadershipprogram.org

Lost Sense of Propriety

It is hard to  add much to this on the good Senator from the 9th District.

For The Record

While I very much want to testify against the 6% bill, my cancer treatment comes first.  Yesterday, I had a hard to get appointment that I had on the books for over a month.  I couldn't both make that appointment and drive to Denver in time to testify.

It is not impossible that will happen again if this bill is fast tracked as appears to be happening.

RMAofSC Bloggers

From this point onward, I am going to refer to the Rocky Mountain Alliance as the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Socially Conservative Bloggers.

While quick to attack Senator Marostica for damaging the Republican brand, 

Don Marostica can go his own way if he wishes. But please, let’s not allow him to undo the work of those who are trying to restore limited government and fiscal responsibility to the Republican brand.

...these same bloggers can't publicly object when the Republicans in the State Senate make statements that are seen by many as using illegal immigration as a mechanism to make an attack on the whole Hispanic population.

...these same bloggers are completely silent when a Republican Senator uses religious arguments to attack a bill at a time when the Republican Party can't attract independents because the Party is now seen as a wholly owned subsidiary of the "religious right."

...these same bloggers can't publicly object when a social conservative suggests that the ranks of "weak Republicans" be thinned.

...these same bloggers can't publicly object when those in charge of the political money and organization try to starve a social moderate's campaign, handing the seat to a Democraat.

...these same bloggers can't publicly object when Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and others try to get their followers to stay home on election day, and organize themselves to object when I write about it.

I find it interesting that the quoted blogger used in his quote the same terminology that Michelle Malkin used at the Independence Institute Founders Day Dinner and yet he denied on this blog that she had used that terminology.

Make no mistake.  If I am able, I will be testifying against the Morse-Marostica bill.  I don't support it.  Even so, I can see and smell hypocrisy among my fellow bloggers when they selectively attack politicians who "damage the brand." 

The commonality of their wall of silence:  They don't criticize social conservative politicians who are pushing issues that they agree with in ways that they approve even when the tactics employed obviously damage the Republican brand.  It is perfectly acceptable to damage the brand that way.

Stop the Bible Thumping in the Legislature

I've come to the conclusion that many social conservative politicians have become so disconnected from reality that they have become destructive to their own cause as well as any cause that fiscal conservatives might believe in.

Ordinary Americans believe that the United States should have some level of separation of church and state.  They may disagree as to the level of separation but all would be offended if one group tried to impose its religious beliefs by law on others.

Don't believe it?  Last week I attended a function at a main stream church where the person offering the opening prayer thanked God for the concept of separation of church and state.

If social conservatives are openly hostile to the possibility of any aspect of Sharia law (Muslim religious law) being installed in the civil law, and they are, why would they think that the general public would look favorably on their attempts to force their religious views on others?

Social conservatives are openly hostile to homosexuality on religious grounds as is their right.  However, when the only argument they choose to muster against a bill is open Bible thumping they turn off a lot of people.  When social conservatives masquerade as Republicans (and I chose that word deliberately) and spend the morning bible thumping, they destroy the Republican brand.

On Monday the public was treated to a Senate Debate on extending benefits to the same sex partners of state employees.  Mike Littwin of the Rocky Mountain News had a field day with the debate:

Then Scott Renfroe, a Greeley Republican, took the floor. I wish I’d been there. I was at the usual place—working on my resume—when I read about it on ace reporter Lynn Bartels’ legislative blog. I raced to the Capitol, getting there in time to get a CD of the debate. You might want the Renfroe bits for your iPod. I know some Democrats who definitely will. I promise you this isn’t the message to lead state Republicans back to power.

Renfroe would say he opposes the bill because of what it says in the Bible (where, in my reading, there’s very little on same sex health benefits). He explained how God created man and woman to procreate and then said, “Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural creative order, and it is an offense to God . . .When we create laws that go against what biblically we are supposed to stand for, I think we. . . are allowing to go forward a sin that should not be treated by government as something that is legal. We are taking sins and making them legally OK.”

That, he said, is “an abomination, according to Scripture.” In other words, the whole idea of a secular law, well, that’s for abomination lovers.

Renfroe quoted a passage from the Bible about homosexual acts being punishable by death, although, fortunately, he didn’t say Colorado ought to be in compliance. He pointed out a few other sins—like murder and adultery. “We don’t make laws making murder legal,” he said. He then said of homosexuality, in words I’m sure Thomas Jefferson would have admired—"that sin . . . is equal to any others in the Bible."

Even if you dislike Mike Littwin, and I do, you have to admit when he is right.  He is right:  You might want the Renfroe bits for your iPod. I know some Democrats who definitely will. I promise you this isn’t the message to lead state Republicans back to power.

The sad thing is that many in the social conservative leadership lack the pragmatism to see that simple fact.