Sorting Out the Politics of HB 1326

What follows is an educated guess, or several educated guesses as to why some Republicans are so anxious to sell the initiative process down the river.

Suppose that Focus on the Family is a behind the scenes player.  It could be.  I don't think that it was widely noticed that one of the 2008 poison pill labor amendments (55) had a provision that would have made it very difficult for a non-profit with more than 1000 employees to fire any of them.  

9News wrote:

Affected employers and employees. Amendment 55 applies to for-profit employers that employ 20 people or more and nonprofit employers that employ 1,000 people or more. 

I doubt that there is another non-profit in the state that has anything close to 1000 employees.

Immediately after the election, Focus had layoffs that cut its work force below 1000.

Amy Stephens is a former Focus employee.  Her claim that she supports this bill because of ACORN isn't believable.  ACORN has never been involved in an initiative and isn't likely to be involved in one.  That isn't what they do.

In October, Amy Stephens participated in a town hall meeting.  Part of the introduction was a claim that the legislature always followed the will of the voters.  Some wag mentioned Ref C as an example where that didn't happen.  That was glossed over. Her recommendation on O was a "no" vote.  

Now Amy Stephens is participating in the crafting of a law that is contrary to the voters decision on Ref O, and contrary to the advice she gave in October.

Why?

I've written about the complete lack of a strategic thinker on the Republican side.  The Democrats are always thinking strategically.  By the simple act of putting up four bad government amendments and in the process letting Focus know that it could be a target of a future initiative, they converted at least one and probably more initiative system allies into mortal enemies.

We Republicans are losing and we are going to keep on losing until we stop playing defense and start playing offense.  The only offensive weapon we have left that I see is the initiative process.  So, why exactly, is it a good idea to destroy it?

How many times have you heard "I'm a social conservative first and a Republican second?" If it ever comes out that Amy Stephens switched her position on the initiative process at the urging of Focus on the Family, that information will be very destructive to the Republican Party.

Comments

[j37genie]

As you could have guessed, I gotta weigh in on this one.

First, your assertion that "ACORN has never been involved in an initiative" is just flat out wrong. In fact, they have been involved in the initiative process for years. Example: This is part of a press release from May 3rd, 2005:

ACORN, the nation’s largest community organization, and Sen. John Edwards, the former Senator and 2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, announced today that they will be working together on initiatives in targeted states to raise the minimum wage.

"I am strongly committed to moving people out of poverty and into the middle class, and one of most important things we can do is help families earn more money at work," Edwards said. "We desperately need to raise the minimum wage – its low level today is a disgrace. Since Republicans in Congress have blocked efforts to do something about the minimum wage, I am proud to join with ACORN and everyone who is fighting poverty to start the process of raising the minimum wage at the state level."

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, led a successful ballot initiative campaign in Florida last year to raise the minimum wage by $1.00 an hour.

“We are going to spread this movement for a higher minimum wage across the country,” said Maude Hurd, President of ACORN. “In the richest country in the world, no one should work full time and live in poverty. Our members and allies are anxious to take this issue directly to the people—who we know will vote for simple fairness when given the chance.”

Your connection between Amendment 55 and HB 1326 has no substance. In fact, this whole fairy tale you put together lacks the substance to support the hypothesis you carefully worded in the last paragraph.

Your constant attack on social conservatives makes you appear as intolerant as you accuse conservatives to be. Should you win your primary, I hope someone writes a big blue "D" on your forehead, so that when you look in the mirror you are reminded of the real opposition.

[a watcher]

This is a terrible bill. It will destroy the initiative process.

You are really good at throwing in red herrings. According to your logic, I am not supposed to criticize any action by any Republican, especially if they happen to be a social conservative.

The Republican Party is completely broken. It hasn't tried to win a majority in the legislature in years. Its leaders sit silent while social conservatives try to knock off Republicans, one in 2000, 4 in 2004, one in 2006, and one in 2008. No one speaks up when, for example, In 2009, the former executive director of the El Paso party announced a plan and an organization to keep moderates off the ballot.

It isn't I who has forgotten who the enemy should be. The thing that I dislike about your comment is that I knew about the routine fratricide and I still put in at least 1000 hours in the last two cycles trying to elect social conservatives Bob Beauprez and Bob Schaffer. I don't hate social conservatives. I'm not prejudiced against them. I'd like them to behave like they are Republicans. Many do, but a few don't.

When social conservatives say over and over "I am a social conservative first and a Republican second" they are admitting that they always put Republican interests second. I have laid out a case that that may be is what is happening here. Because the pattern already exists, I would think I have a right to write about it without being attacked personally.

Good catch on the ACORN press release. It still doesn't explain the Amy Stephens 180.

[j37genie]

No fishy smell here. I have no problem criticizing Republicans who forget the fundamental tenets of limited government, strong defense, low taxes, and individual responsibility. I do have a problem with both moderates and conservatives who use the social issues to try and divide the party.

I have not heard an announcment by the former ED to keep moderates off the ballot, but I would look for that kind of effort to be minimalized by the new leadership, who seem to recognize that Republicans can actually think differently on social issues, and who in fact, recognize social moderates as essential to the growth of the party.

No doubt that in the past few years there has been fractricide in the local party, but that doesn't mean we need to perpetuate the divisiveness. By the way, wasn't it you who criticized Crank for taking on the incumbent Lamborn last year?

Now - with respect to your comments on Rep Stephens - do you have a published quote where she said "I am a social conservative first and a Republican second"? Also - do you have quotable evidence that she did a "180"? If not, you might want to stop "firing for effect" and start showing how you might pull the party together. It would go a long way towards your candidacy.

[a watcher]

I like tilting windmills with you so I say with all due respect, I don't think it is my job to provide links to stuff I have written that you have missed. That applies to your Crank comment and the ED qupte.

I also ask that you read what I write carefully. I have no idea if she has been publicly quoted or even if she would say "conservative first Republican second." I did quote another blogger as saying that in the last ten days. I didn't identify the blogger out of courtesy, but I could. As for the 180, 30 people were in the October town hall meeting when she opposed Ref O and claimed that her vote for it was "to get it out of committee."

I do like Kay Rendleman and company.

[j37genie]

As Joe Friday was fond of saying, "just the facts, ma'am" - there are a few facts missing here:

1) Promoting social conservative values does not equate to "keep moderates off the ballot". Fisk's statement was very clear who the opponents are.
2) Your quote of the blogger (Ryan Morgan) was inaccurate. Possibly it was a typo, but the original quote did not have the word "social" in it (see your April 1 post).
3) Voting to get a bill out of committee is very different than supporting the implementation of the bill. In this case, the committee vote was to present "O" to the voters. An analogy might be that while you oppose raising taxes, you support the right of the people to vote on the issue.

[a watcher]

You are now picking at nits.

The Gazette published a guest editorial that said that Fisk's fund would be used to keep people like Kit Roupe off the ballot, mentioning her by name.

My quote was cut and paste. His second sentence made it clear that he considered himself a social conservative. The blog he is writing for is a social conservative blog, though it usually sticks to economic and education issues..

I didn't object to what Stephens said or did in October, and I did write about the meeting. She didn't try to come across as anti initiative. Indeed, she downplayed her vote and I gave her a pass. She never mentioned ACORN.

You needed to pay more attention when you watched Joe Friday. Dummmmm ta dum dum

[j37genie]

Picking at nits? No - just a humble El Paso County blog surfer looking for accuracy from our candidates.

We could pick at "nits" - like the use of Kit's name in Danny's editorial. Or, we could discuss your discussion of Amy's comments on ACORN (Your APR 5 post) or her non discussion of ACORN (your Apr 7 post).

Watch out for Davis/Fisk's group - they have taken the first shot via robocalls on initiative 1A. I am saddened to see this breakaway group competing for the heart of the El Paso County Party. While it seems I'm on your case as being a moderate taking on the establishment, I'm equally disturbed about a socially conservative group trying to shut out socially moderate Republicans. If they want to take on ballot initiatives, non-partisan elections, I encourage the participation. However, if they want to shut out social moderates, then all they will do is further divide the party.

[a watcher]

The very first time I heard the ACORN argument was from you in one of your earlier comments.

I had written the three Republican cosponsors an email protesting what they were doing. She responded for all three. ACORN was never mentioned.

That email and answer pre-dated all of my posts on 1326.

Since you share my views on fratricide, I'm guessing that you will be willing to work for and contribute to my anti-fratricide campaign. That is what I intend it to be.