Vote Now.

Tomorrow at 7 p.m. is the last day to vote in Colorado.  Colorado is the swing state this year.  Get out and vote if you haven't already.

Odd And Untrue Anti-Udall Radio Ad

The U.S. Senate race in Colorado between Mark Udall and Cory Gardner is the closest in the country and could swing control of the U.S. Senate.

The latest ad I heard on the radio (this morning) was sponsored by Women for Cory Gardner or something like that.

It argued that choice of issues other than abortion (which Gardner wants to restrict in any manner possible, whether or not it is constitutional) and contraception (which Gardner has repeatedly supported "Personhood" measures to restrict despite a sudden about face arguing that oral contraception should be an over the counter drug, in part so it isn't provided via taxpayer subsidies for health insurance) was important to women.

The ad claimed that Udall wanted to take away at least three other kinds of choice for women in very non-specific language that was at best misleading and in most cases false.

1.  Udall wants to take away your choice of a doctor.  FALSE.

Presumably this is a reference to his support for Obamacare.

Despite the fact that Obamacare is not a single payer system, does not reduce choice of doctor in any way for people who have health insurance, and expands one's choice of doctors for the large number of people who couldn't previously afford health insurance.

Obamacare also greatly increases reproductive health and mental health options for large numbers of people who already had insurance, particularly in the individual and small business plan market.

2. Udall wants to limit choices about how to protect your family.  MISLEADING.

Presumably this is a reference to Udall's support for mild gun control measures.

If you are a woman who is also a felon, this is true.  If you think you need magazines with more than ten bullets to defend your family, this is also true.

In particular, Udall has not sought any new limitations on purchases of the ordinary handguns, rifles and shotguns usually used by families for self-defense, and has actually supported legislation to make it easier to carry firearms in checked luggage on Amtrak trips.  He has also supported legislation to limit tort liability for gun manufacturers when their products are used illegally or tortuously, as opposed to simply being defective.

If you are more concerned about making it easier for criminals to use their guns against you and your family, particularly criminals and impulsive men on the verge of having restraining orders entered against them, than about you having a military grade arsenal at your home, like most women, this isn't a big deal.

Notable facts: Criminals kill about 100 people with guns for every criminal killed by a law abiding person person with a gun.  Criminal commit a similar ratio of non-deadly crimes with guns for every non-deadly crime prevented with guns.

3. Udall wants to limit your energy choices.  FALSE.

Presumably this is a reference to Udall's support for various forms of regulation of fossil fuel extraction and combustion, and support for renewable energy measures.  At the level of ordinary voters, this simply isn't true, although he has supported some new regulation of air pollution and oil and gas production (an area OSHA and the EPA admit that they do not satisfactorily regulate) that impact utilities over whom consumers never had any choice or control in the first place.

Most Colorado voters have historically had one and only one choice when it comes to electricity and natural gas, because these are regulated monopolies.  In the Denver metropolitan area, you used to buy your electricity and natural gas from Xcel energy, the monopoly provider.  Gasoline and diesel fuel and propane, in contrast, have always been provided in highly competitive markets that Udall has done nothing to restrict.

Udall's support for renewable energy measures, however, such as alternative fuel vehicle credits and solar energy credits, have given people an alternative to gasoline and diesel in the transportation fuel market, and have given people an alternative choice to Xcel (or in conjunction with Xcel) for electrical and water heating energy.  Similar credits have also opened up additional conservation options, which is a choice to consume less money on energy.

Two Week Left Until Election Is Over

Voting is in full swing here in the swing state of Colorado and in two weeks, we will have a verdict from the state's voters.

Vote Yes on Denver Ballot Issue 2A

Vote Now!

I filled out my mail in ballot today, and will drop it off at a 24 hour drop box (all of which have been open since October 15, 2014 in Denver), today or tomorrow.

If you vote by mail in Colorado, you should have your ballot for the 2014 general election by now.  If you don't, take action to make sure that you can vote.  Due to recent legislative changes, it is easier than every to vote, and the register to vote close to the election, than ever before in Colorado.

Previous Posts In This Series

In previous posts, I've discussed Colorado's four state ballot issues:

* Amendment 67 (personhood - vote no);
* Amendment 68 (horsetrack casino gambling - vote yes);
* Proposition 104 (restrictions on collective bargaining with school boards - vote no); and
* Proposition 105 (labeling genetically modified food - vote no).

I have also written about Colorado's judicial retention elections in 2014.

I've also discussed the importance of electing Democrats this year in Colorado.  Once again, Colorado is a critical swing state in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House races, in addition to having a very close Governor's race underway.

In particular, the performance of incumbent Colorado state treasurer Walker Stapleton has been dismal.  (Incumbent  Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler's performance has also been dismal, but he isn't running for re-election.)

Referred Measure 2A

Denver's Preschool Program, which was improved in 2006, provides access to high quality preschool for all Denver 4 year olds and is financed with a 0.12% sales tax (12 cents per 100 dollars).  The program will end in 2016 if not reauthorized.  Referred measure 2A will reauthorize the program and increase the sale tax amount to 0.15% (15 cents per 100 dollars) from 0.12%.

Also on the ballot is the City and County of Denver, Colorado is local referred measure 2A.  This ballot measure reauthorizes and expands Denver's Preschool Program.

Why Should You Vote Yes on Referred Measure 2A in Denver?

One of Mayor Hickenlooper's initiatives in Denver, before he became Colorado's Governor, was to subsidize preschool education, which is much more costly than K-12 education which is supported by state and school district tax dollars.

Preschool programs are more effective, by far, improving the lifetime academic performance of low income, black and Hispanic children relative to their middle class and affluent peers, than any other form of education spending.  2013 and 2014 Denver Preschool Program students did better than their peers who didn't attend a DPP program on their third-grade reading TCAP tests.

Participation in a preschool program also significantly reduces the likelihood that a child will be abused or neglected.  And, a parent's ability to put a child in preschool at an affordable price greatly increases the economic well being of low income and middle class families, both because it reduces the amount of money that must be devoted to child care, and because it makes it possible for a parent to obtain at least part-time employment where it would otherwise have been very difficult.

Denver's economic well being is well served by having all children (or at least as many as possible) whose parents want to be able to place them in preschool programs do so.  The preschool program in Denver has generally been a great success.  This is an investment in children that is well worth it.

The United States has a social welfare system and economy that produces epic rates of poverty for children, while almost no senior citizens, and a far smaller proportion of adults are destitute.  Poverty rates are particularly high for children of preschool age.  So, preschool subsidies are also justified in terms of relative demographic justice.

Vote Yes on Denver Referred Measure 2A.  This funds a preschool program that works and provides exceptionally great rewards compared to other public spending programs.

Vote For Betsy Markey For Colorado State Treasurer And Toss Incumbent Walker Stapleton

Besty Markey is the Democrat and a former state representative, who is running to replace incumbent Republican state treasurer Walker Stapleton in Colorado.

Why should you vote for for Besty Markey and against Walker Stapleton?

Mostly because in his first four years, Walker Stapleton has done a lousy job as state treasurer.

State treasurer is one of the least partisan elected positions in the state.  It calls for competence, diligence and honesty in managing state funds, while offering very little policy discretion.  It doesn't tip any partisan balances in the legislative or executive branches.

If you are going to cross party lines in your voting on any office, and instead focus merely on the candidate, this is the office where this can make sense.  And, whether you are a Republican, an unaffiliated voter, a Libertarian, or a Democrat, getting incumbent Walker Stapleton out of this job that he has utterly failed in, and replacing him with someone else, is an easy choice.

In practice, the only way to do that is to vote for Democrat Betsy Markey.  She is competent enough, and given the incumbent's performance over the last four years, the choice is an easy one.

1.  Walker Stapleton devotes very little time to this full time public office.

He shows up to work about 10 days a month.  He is gone from the office for weeks at a time.  When he does show up to work, sometimes it is after three p.m. and for short days.

He rarely shows up for PERA meetings, on whose board he serves ex officio, and when he does attend, often leaves early.  Here's his PERA meeting attendance track record:

2012: There were 10 PERA meetings. Stapleton attended 3, but left early at 2 of those. 

2013: There were 7 PERA meetings. Stapleton attended 2, but left both early. *NOTE: From the September 20, 2013 PERA Board Meeting Minutes: “Mr. Stapleton requested the removal of his absence from the June 25, 2013 Board meeting minutes, as his designee Brett Johnson was present.”

2014 (through June): There have been 5 PERA Board meetings. Minutes are not available for the June 24 meeting. Of the other 4 meetings, he has fully attended 1 and left early at another 2 meetings.

These meetings are not just some extracurricular fund activity for Mr. Stapleton.  They are a core responsibility of his full time job that the people of Colorado elected him to do.  He shouldn't have any higher priorities than his duty to the people of the State of Colorado as a statewide elected official.

2.  He has done a poor job carrying out his responsibilities to serve on the board of PERA, the public employees retirement system for Colorado.

He is on the record saying that:

It's time, unfortunately, that everyone that benefits from PERA sufferers. 

His has spent much of his term in contentious litigation with the rest of the PERA Board, which he lost.

3.  He has secured only a dismal 1% annual rate of return on Colorado's investments, during a recovery and financial market boom.

By comparison, the PERA board which manages the state's retirement assets, has had a long run (and recent) rate of return in excess of 8%.  His Democratic predecessor, Cary Kennedy, who served from 2007-2010 during the Financial Crisis and went on to become Denver's very competent CFO, in contrast, outperformed market benchmarks during this very difficult fiscal climate.

In his 2010 primary campaign, he said that the State of Colorado should invest its financial assets heavily in gold, which if he had done so, would have led to massive losses on the state's investments.  This has a lot to do with the fact that Stapleton is a life long realtor, a career to which he still devotes most of his time and efforts, with essentially no experience in finance or accounting.

4. He games Colorado's property tax system.

Walker Stapleton games Colorado's property tax system by pretending to be a gentleman farmer to secure huge property tax breaks for property that can't fairly be described as farming.

This isn't illegal, but it doesn't inspire confidence in someone whose primary responsibility should be to look out of Colorado's fiscal solvency.  Simply put, it doesn't reflect well on his character.

5.  He was arrested for DUI in  a hit and run incident in San Francisco in 1999 after hitting two pedestrians, and acknowledged that he was an alcoholic at the time.

He pleaded no contest to the DUI charge in exchange for having the more serious hit and run felony dropped.  He was sentenced to three years probation, twice a week AA meetings, and community service, in addition to restitution, fines and costs.

It could be that Walker Stapleton is managing his alcoholism better now than he was then.  But, this was no youthful indiscretion, hurt people and property, and he demonstrated irresponsibility when life tested him.

There are worse things in life to be than a recovering alcoholic.  But, why have a recovering alcoholic in a highly responsible statewide political office when we could have someone who isn't in alcoholic in that post.

6.  He is an heir to the KKK wing of the Republican party.

Walker Stapleton is the great-grandson of Denver's Mayor Benjamin Stapleton (from 1921-1931 and 1935-1947) and as Democratic State Auditor from 1933-1935, after which Denver's former airport and current redeveloped neighborhood is named.  This was back when the Democrats were the party of Southern Conservatives and the GOP was still the party of northern liberals in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln.

Mayor Stapleton's key to getting elected was support from the Ku Klux Klan:

Stapleton was the Klan candidate for mayor of Denver in 1923 and won the election with Klan support. When Stapleton declared his candidacy for mayor in March 1923, he was Klan member number 1,128 and a close friend of the Colorado Klan Grand Dragon, John Galen Locke.

After realignment, when conservative Southern Democrats were replaced by Republicans, and liberal northerners joined the Democratic party, most of the political heirs of the KKK wing of the Democratic party became Republicans.

Admittedly, Walker Stapleton is not responsible for things that he great-grandfather did before he was born (and in fairness, his great-grandfather's detestable racism and anti-Semitism didn't prevent him from accomplishing a lot as state auditor and Mayor of Denver).  But, it is hardly a proud legacy either, and is certainly not a legacy that Walker Stapleton is running away from himself.

2014 U.S. Senate Election Forecast

The U.S. Senate currently has 53 Democrats, 2 Independents who are aligned mostly with Democrats, and 45 Republicans.  Since one-third of Senators face election every two years, there are 36 states with U.S. Senate elections this year in the November 2014 election.

The FiveThirtyEight Blog Prediction:

* There are three U.S. Senate seats currently held by Democrats that the Democrats are almost sure to lose this year:

Montana
West Virginia
South Dakota.

There are no U.S. Senate seats held by Republicans that Republicans are almost sure to lose.

* There are seven U.S. Senate races in seats in competitive races that are currently held by Democrats that could flip to become Republican in the November 2014 election with FiveThirtyEight Blog handicapping:

Louisiana (R+5)
Alaska (R+3)
Arkansas (R+3)
Iowa (R+2)
Colorado (R+1)
North Carolina (D+3)
New Hampshire (D+4)

If all of these races go as predicted by FiveThirtyEight, the Republicans would pick up five more of these seats.

* There are three U.S. Senate races in seats in competitive races that are currently held by Republicans that could flip to become Democratic or Democratic-leaning independent in the November 2014 election with FiveThirtyEight Blog handicapping:

Kansas (I+2)
Georgia (R+2)
Kentucky (R+3)

If all of these races go as predicted by FiveThirtyEight, the Republicans would lose one of these seats.

* In all other races, a candidate of the incumbent party has at least a seven point lead in the polls.

* Thus, if every race goes as the poll analysis by FiveThirtyEight predicts, the Republicans will gain seven seats and have a 52 seat majority in the U.S. Senate.

Analysis:

Since Vice President Biden, a Democrat, breaks ties in the U.S. Senate, if there the Republicans hold 50 seats, then the Democrats will have a majority and organize the chamber.

The most likely ways for this to happen are for Colorado to re-elect Senator Udall, and for the Democrats to also win either Iowa or Georgia.

The FiveThirtyEight analysis actually gives Cory Gardner a mere 0.7% lead in the polling, and that analysis includes a September 13, 2014 Quinnipiac poll showing Gardner with an eight point lead (which it gives a fairly high weight) that is so far out of line in all of the Colorado races that it is simply not credible.

Historical trends in Colorado, which are also a factor in the FiveThirtyEight analysis, also do not reflect changes in Colorado law between 2012 and 2014 that make it easier to vote, a change that favors Democrats in the state.  These changes are also probably not reflected in the models used by the polling firms in their sampling.

If Udall holds onto his seat in Colorado, then a win by a Democrat in either Iowa (where FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 35% chance in race leaning Republican by two points), or Georgia (where FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a  28% chance in a race leaning Republican by two points), would produce a 50-50 split and Democratic control, while both would give the Democrats a 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate.

Put another way, a 2 percentage point shift in national public opinion in favor of Democrats during October would give them a 51-49 majority in the U.S. Senate.

What Trends Are Driving Turnover?

Most of the Senate seats which will be filled by a Senator of a different party than the incumbent in this election cycle reflect an ongoing process of realignment, with liberal leaning areas electing Democrats and conservative areas electing Republicans, a trend that has been gradually running its course for more than four decades now.  Some political historians mark Barry Goldwater's unsuccessful Presidential election as the start of the trend.

Many of the states that Democrats are most likely to lose in this year's U.S. Senate races are decidedly conservative "Red States" in which conservative Democratic incumbents with political roots in an era where not all Democrats were liberals and not all Republicans were conservative. Montana, South Dakota, Louisiana, Alaska, and Arkansas all fit this mold.

West Virginia is a bit more of a complicated case.  Its Appalachian cultural orientation suggests that it should favor the socially conservative stances of the Red States.  But, West Virginia is also a state that was formed to side with the North so as not to leave the Union to join the Confederacy along with the rest of Virginia pulling its political identity away from a political party dominated by formerly Confederate States.  Closely related is the fact that West Virginia is overwhelmingly white with few recent immigrants of any kind, because the counties that formed it did not have a history as a participant in the slave trade and its economy hasn't been vibrant enough to attract many economic migrants for a long time.  This has deprived the hot button anti-minority and anti-immigrant driven political stances of the Republican Party of much salience in West Virginia.

And, as a not very affluent state that is best known for its legions of blue collar unionized mine workers, the pro-union stances of a Democratic party that tends to favor the little guy over the affluent on economic issues have been appealing.

But, as opposition to gay rights driven by anxiety over the health of the family in communities with lots of men in blue collar jobs that have seen decades of stagnating or declining incomes and increased job insecurity has eclipsed racial politics in the political debate and that is something that can resonate in West Virginia.  West Virginia's unions have gotten weaker as its coal mining industry has struggled with competition from places like Wyoming in the West, reducing Democratic party support, and the sense that increased Democratic party support for environmental measures driven by the Democratic party's increasingly urban political base has left the Democratic party vulnerable in a rural state that is highly economically dependent upon an environmentally disruptive industry.  Finally, while the Republican party is still the party of the rich, relative to the Democratic Party, the social class divide between the political parties has grown less pronounced in favor of an emphasis on the cultural divide between the two political parties.

As a result of a shift in the policy issues that really define the Republican and Democratic parties respectively, West Virginia has found more and more in common with other Red States and less and less in common with the rest of the Democratic Party base, so eventually realignment caught up with it as well.

At the other end of the political spectrum, New Hampshire, a libertarian leaning New England state which was one of the last outposts of the dying breed of socially moderate New England Republicans.  Also, a growing share of New Hampshire voters live in bedroom communities of people who work in the Boston metropolitan area and thus, have an identity more urban than a cursory look at the state's own urban centers would suggest.

Three of the states in play in this election, indeed, three states which will in all probability decide which party controls the U.S. Senate this year, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina are in play for the ordinary reason that states or Congressional districts are competitive.  Iowa and Colorado and North Carolina are purple states where the Democratic Party and Republican Party are very evenly matched this time around.

Colorado was historically a Red State, but has been migrating to the left as urban centers like Denver, Boulder and Fort Collins, and left leaning resort towns built around ski resorts in the mountains with high population densities and many migrants from the West Coast and Northeast have moved to the state.  Meanwhile, rural Colorado areas with farm economies have gradually atrophied as farming has become more mechanized and more efficient and simply less economically relevant relative to the economic activity in the state's urban areas.

Iowa has historically been a Midwestern blue state, but has gradually been pulling to the right as its rural farming identity has become a less good fit to an urban oriented political party.  But, Eastern Iowa is more urban than most people realized, its college towns have become economic drivers just as they have in Colorado, and its farm communities like farm communities everywhere have thinned out, buffering Iowa from the wholesale rightward pitch seen in Kansas and Nebraska.

North Carolina is also a state whose political leanings are shifting together with its economy, allowing a Democrat to gain a small lead over a Republican challenger in a historically Red State in the South.  In a nutshell, North Carolina has leveraged its university system into a secondary center of the tech industry which has grown to become a leading part of the state's identity and economy, while traditional industries, like tobacco farming and processing, have withered in the face of nationwide efforts to reduce tobacco consumption.  The growing tech industry has brought educated, culturally non-Southern, urban oriented people to the state and facilitated their ability to organize and to have the cash needed to become a political force.  And thus, the one time Red State, like Virginia, to the North which has experienced a similar transformation driven by metropolitan Washington D.C. suburbs in Northern Virginia and the economic hub of the University of Virginia, has started to become more of a purple state.

Finally, there is one clearly Red state that will probably not elect a Republican to office.  In Kansas, the Democrats strategically withdrew their own Democratic Party candidate in order to back a moderate independent who was also challenging the conservative Republican candidate in the race.  The independent is now favored to win, because the Republican as one would expect from someone who is the product of a partisan primary, is further from the state's political center than an independent who wasn't vetted by a parade of Republican party litmus tests, and isn't burdened by the unpopular brand in the state of a Democratic President and a Democratic legislative caucus.  If the independent wins, there will be three independents in the Senate, all of whom are more comfortable aligning themselves with the comparatively moderate and big tent Democratic party, than the rigidly conservative Republican Party, at least while the Democratic party can stay in the majority with their support.

The bottom line bad new for Democrats is that many of their losses have been writing on the wall for years and will probably not be reserved in the foreseeable future.  The bottom line good news, however, is that Democrats are better equipped to bring purple states and independent Senators into their coalition than Republicans, and as a result, are still capable of holding a majority even in the U.S. Senate where their advantage in populous urban areas does not necessarily translate automatically into political power.

Another important point is that most "purple states" are in the process of shifting their political identity, rather than in a state of equilibrium.  They are either moving from being Red States to Blue States, or are moving from being Blue States to being Red States.

Fortunately for Democrats, the transition from Blue States to Red States, primarily in the South and the Great Plains, has pretty much run its course already.  But now, historically Red States with strong urban economies are starting to trend back to being Blue again.  This, in the balance of power within the U.S. Senate, is the demographic trend that is just starting to shift state political identities in the Democrats directions that may continue to play out that way for many years to come.  Eventually, this may be enough to turn the entire Southeastern seaboard Blue again.

Wake Up People! Vote For Democrats In Colorado.

There are three big candidate races in the 2014 election in Colorado, for which ballots will hit mailboxes in less than two weeks.

In the Governor's office, incumbent Democrat John Hickenlooper, a popular centerist former Mayor of Denver, faces Republican Bob Beauprez, a Tea Party Republican who thinks that IUDs are murder and doesn't believe in climate change.

In the U.S. Senate race, incumbent Democrat Mark Udall faces Republican Congressman Cory Gardner.  He has spent most of his career favoring an extreme "personhood" amendment that would put U.S. law on a par with the extreme anti-abortion stance of El Salvador as a matter of constitutional law, but recently made an about face to support over the counter status for birth control pills on the theory that if it can't be banned, that employer provided health insurance and tax breaks for medical expenses shouldn't support it.

In the highly competitive 6th Congressional District, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Coffman faces Democrat Andrew Romanoff, former speaker of the state house of representatives who served at that time from a Washington Park district.

Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman are the local embodiment of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives that has shut down the government, played games with our national credit rating by threatening to default on the national debt, shut down immigration reforms essential to improving our economy simply to deny President Obama a legislative success, and in general, have stood in the way of any positive change through legislative channels in our nation's capital for the last four years.

I have met both John Hickenlooper and Andrew Romanoff personally, and they are the two most extraordinary people in Colorado politics today bar none.  These are people who can walk into a room where a compromise, let alone positive progress, seems impossible, and produce a deal that everyone would have assumed was impossible.  Each man is exceedingly intelligent, extraordinary civil across partisan lines, a good judge of character, and has a strong commitment to doing what is right.  Both are moderate Democrats, who nonetheless generally do the right thing and when they do recognize conservative political impulses do so in a moderate way.

Mark Udall is a reliable Democrat supporter, who has gone to bat for priorities that matter to Coloradoans, although in a legislative environment of split political control, he hasn't always gotten major initiatives of his own passed.

Colorado's U.S. Senate seat is the closest race in the nation according to poll analyst FiveThirtyEight, and our Governor's race and 6th Congressional District race, according to other poll analysts are likewise among the closest in the country.

Right now, Democrats hold just 52 seats in the Senate, while Republicans hold a slim majority in the House.  If Democrats lose control of the Senate, we will have deadlock on federal judicial appointments for the next two years, and national policies will tilt sharply towards Republican priorities:

* Making it harder to vote.
* Doing everything in their power to block women's rights and gay rights.
* Reducing federal spending that benefits the poor and the unemployed.
* Ending the guarantees of the Social Security and Medicare system.
* Enlarging the ranks of the uninsured.
* Crush all unions.
* Reducing the remedies of those injured through negligence or fraud.
* Encouraging the teaching of bad science and fake history in our schools.
* Reducing funding for education.
* Reducing taxes on the rich and big corporations.
* Making it harder to immigrate to the United States or claim asylum here.
* Saying no to reforms of a broken criminal justice system.
* Making it easier to gain access to guns with no purpose other than to commit crimes.
* Gutting protections for the environment.
* Undermining the freedom of religion's establishment clause.
* Gutting campaign finance regulations.
* Letting our roads and bridges crumble.
* Shutting down funding for public transit.
* Allowing our economy to be gridlocked with excessive intellectual property protections.
* Punishing efforts to decriminalize marijuana.
* Increasing spending on wasteful military programs.
* Stopping U.S. efforts to hold war criminals accountable.

There are down ticket races as well.

A Democrat committed to improving access to the ballot box wants to replace our current notoriously corrupt Republican Secretary of State.

A Democrat who believes in the public employee retirement system wants to improve on the state's lackluster 1.4% return on investment during the incumbent's tenure.

A Democrat who believes in protecting civil rights, consumer rights, and a balanced approach to the criminal justice system, wants to replace the outgoing Republican attorney general, and his anointed successor who's signature point has been opposition to gay rights until that position was made futile by today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling denying further review for U.S. Court of Appeals rulings invalidating gay marriage bans.

Democrats very narrowly control the state house and the state senate right now.  Republican candidates, including one from a safe Republican district in Colorado Springs who the County Republican Chairman says reflects the value of the Republican party in the state, thinks that we live in a world where everything from homosexuality to the Federal Communications Commission's policies are a result of demon possession, and tried to exorcise the "demon" from a lesbian woman while he was a Navy Chaplin.

If you want gridlock and want to give power to people like him and like the extremists who have taken control of the Jefferson County School Board, vote for Republicans in the state house and state senate races.  If not, vote for Democrats who have been working for positive change in this state.

Keep in mind too, that in Colorado, neither Democrats nor Republicans can pass new taxes or increase state spending (even due to increased revenues from existing taxes) above an amount accounting for inflation and population, without a vote of the people.  Democrats in state office couldn't raise your taxes even if they wanted to do so.

Colorado Democrats are overwhelmingly moderates relative to their party as a whole.  Colorado Republicans are overwhelmingly extremist Tea Party advocates who bear the intellectual legacy of the John Birch Society and the KKK that was once powerful in Colorado.  The "County Club Republicans" of the 1950s have been driven out of the Republican temple in favor of people who see it as the party of conservative, Evangelical Christian white men with Southern roots and Confederate values.

A Democratic President backed by a U.S. Senate controlled by Democrats and legislation passed by Democrats in the first two years of the Obama administration, have allowed our economy to recover from years of corporate excess, inequality and Wall Street fraud.  A Democratic Governor together with a Democratic party controlled Colorado General Assembly, has brought the state prosperity, tolerance and justice that has made it an attractive place to live nationally.

People of the State of Colorado.  Wake up!  We are in a swing state, and if we want to preserve our prosperity and desirable way of life, we need to defeat Republicans who want government to fail and care more about preserving outdated and hateful prejudices than our economic and moral progress.

In 2014, no state in the union is more purple than Colorado.  This is the nation's swing state once again and your vote matters very deeply to the future of our country.

SCOTUS Cuts Short Early Voting In Ohio

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, had cut the early voting period in Ohio from five weeks to four, overruling an order of a District Court judge affirmed by a three judge panel of the 6th Circuit.  The reasoning behind the decision was not announced.

The ruling, made upon partisan lines in the U.S. Supreme Court, hurts democratic party efforts to get out the vote.

The preliminary ruling applied to a one week period, and this denial of preliminary injunction effectively moots much of the case of those challenging Ohio's election administration decisions.

Colorado's 2014 Judicial Retention Elections

Once appointed, state judges in Colorado must face periodic retention elections held in general November elections in even numbered years, one after two years in office and again at intervals that vary from court to court.  Voters can vote to retain or not retain a judge.  If there are fewer "not retain" votes than "retain" votes, the judge stays in office for another term,  Most voters always vote to retain, and a minority of voters don't vote at all on these issues, or always vote not to retain.

For those voters who make their decisions on a case by case basis, there is a commission on judicial performance that recommends that a judge be retained, recommends that a judge not be retained, or makes no recommendation.  There is a separate volunteer committee for each judicial district in the state and another for appellate judges.

More than 98% of judges are recommended for retention and are almost always retained by the voters.  About half of those judges not affirmatively recommended for retention, usually only a few each year, are not retained by voters.  When a judge is not retained, a vacancy is created.  A different commission advertises the position and vets applicants.  Three finalists are selected.  Usually, the Governor makes the final pick, but in the case of Denver county court judges, the final choice is made by Denver's mayor since Denver county court judges are simultaneously Denver's municipal court.

This year, 160 judges end their terms and would normally face retention elections.  Of them, 14 can't run because they have reached mandatory retirement act.  Two more judges, upon learning that they would not be recommended for retention, voluntarily stepped down from office effective at the end of their current terms.

Four county court judges have not been recommended affirmatively for retention.  These are judges of the state's limited jurisdiction courts that handles misdemeanor cases, most evictions, most temporary restraining orders, most name changes and most civil cases where less than $15,000 is not in dispute and title to real estate is not at issue.

Three of the judges not receiving an affirmative recommendation to retain, one in Boulder (Karolyn Moore), one in Pueblo (Valerie Haynes) and one in the City and County of Denver (Dianne Briscoe), are rookie judges facing their first retention election.  A fourth, in Grand County which is home to Winter Estes Park (Ben McClelland), is an experienced county court judge [Ed. 10-29-14 corrected claim that Estes Park, which is actually in adjacent Larimer County, is in Grand County, which is home to Winter Park and Granby per comments; my apologies for the error].  In Boulder, Pueblo and Grand Counties, the recommendation to "not retain" was unanimous."  In Denver, where the judge agreed to enter into a supervised improvement plan, the commission was split and there was no recommendation made to retain or not to retain.  For what it is worth, all three of the rookie judges failing to secure retention recommendations are women.

The commission noted with regard to Judge McClelland, in Grand County, that:

Survey results and observation by Commissioners regarding Judge McClelland were mixed. To the positive, it was generally regarded that Judge McClelland is consistent in his rulings, works to learn the law, gives the parties a fair chance to present their cases, and is accommodating when it comes to scheduling. He moves his docket forward, is efficient in court, and is a hard worker. His oral communications in court are clear and direct and he maintains control over his courtroom. 

To the negative, commenters, including some Commissioners, described Judge McClelland as arrogant, defensive, impatient, and lacking appropriate judicial demeanor. His lectures from the bench tend to be grandiose, offensive, and off-putting. It was commented that Judge McClelland has a tendency, or at least the appearance, to rule based on his personal bias or opinion. These characteristics do not meet required judicial criteria of communication and judicial temperament. Among surveyed attorneys, Judge McClelland’s “retain” recommendation of 56% was significantly under the state average for all County Court judges (78%) and his “do not retain” recommendation of 32% was likewise higher than the state average (13%). Among non-attorneys, his “retain” recommendation of 78% was lower than the average (86%) and his “do not retain” recommendation of 14% was higher (8%). Although Judge McClelland received an average grade of 3.0 in the surveys, that score is below the 3.43 average combined grade for all county court judges standing for retention in 2014.

For Judge Moore, in Boulder County, a former deputy district attorney, the commission noted that:

Judge Moore’s survey results raised many concerns for the Commission. Among attorneys surveyed about retention, 45% recommended to retain, 40% not to retain, and 15% made no recommendation. Among non-attorneys, 90% recommended to retain, 5% not to retain, and 4% made no recommendation. When compared to all county judges by non-attorneys (including jurors), she received a slightly higher recommendation for retention (90% versus 86%) and was rated slightly higher than judges overall on a number of measures such as demeanor in court. She also received many positive comments from the non-attorneys particularly regarding demeanor and communication skills. 

On the other hand, she was seen as being biased toward the prosecution and harsh in her sentencing in comparison to other county judges. Judge Moore’s survey ratings by attorneys were very different from the non-attorneys. In all five categories, including all 17 subcategories, attorneys gave Judge Moore lower ratings when compared with all county judges. The categories include case management, application and knowledge of law, communications, demeanor, and diligence. Her overall score among attorneys was much lower than the average for all county judges – 2.51 compared to 3.29. Judge Moore was seen as being very biased in favor of the prosecution by 46% of the attorneys while on average all county judges were so rated by only 10% of attorneys. She was also perceived as being somewhat biased in favor of the prosecution by a higher percentage – 33% compared to 25%. The surveys provided similarly negative results for Judge Moore regarding a recommendation for retention. The same sampling methodology was used to survey attorneys and non-attorneys for all nine judges standing for retention. Judge Moore’s survey results were substantially more concerning than any of the other judges reviewed by this commission. Although she received positive comments from some attorneys, there were many explicit comments detailing concerns attorneys had with Judge Moore. The Commission is not convinced that Judge Moore fully understands the extent of her shortcomings as a judicial officer. 

Judge Karolyn Moore’s Response: I’m honored to serve the people of Boulder County. As a new judge, I’m focused on improving my judicial skills and initiated an improvement plan with my chief judge. Among the attorneys surveyed regarding my performance 93 criminal defense attorneys and 19 civil attorneys responded. I value their comments, however the surveys were not sent to prosecuting attorneys and other important voices were not heard, leading to imbalanced results. 

For Judge Haynes, in Pueblo County, the commission noted that:

Judge Haynes is polite to jurors, is perceived by the public as fair, and generally imposes consistent sentences. 

Judge Haynes does regularly reject plea agreements that the attorneys have worked out, and does so without providing support for her decision. This has contributed to a very heavy jury trial schedule, averaging almost one trial per week. Judge Haynes imposes requirements upon the attorneys practicing in front of her that have no basis in rule or law, and she renders inconsistent rulings on legal objections. The commission heard complaints that there are issues with efficiencies in the courtroom, including not starting her docket in a timely manner. Judge Haynes is not willing to work with others in order to resolve issues and has created a hostile environment in her courtroom. Proper mentoring of attorneys is noticeably lacking. The most significant criticism evidenced throughout this process was Judge Haynes’ lack of judicial temperament. She is described as rude, curt, having little compassion, and inappropriately raising her voice at those who appear in her courtroom. These concerns were evident in her May 2013 evaluation survey results, and no improvement is shown in the current survey. Judge Haynes acknowledges the results of both surveys and has only made recent attempts to improve her communication skills, which she believes are the root of the problem. The Commission believes that Judge Haynes fails to fully understand and acknowledge her contribution to the negative survey results and comments, which leaves little reason to expect improvements to occur.

Judge Briscoe, in the City and County of Denver was described by the commission as follows:

Judge Briscoe’s first two years as a judge were in the juvenile division, for which there are no survey results. Judge Briscoe had prior experience in juvenile law and believes that experience helped her perform well in the juvenile division. However, in her current assignment, in each area of case management, application and knowledge of the law, communications, demeanor and diligence, Judge Briscoe received scores from attorneys significantly below the average of scores for all other county court judges standing for retention. Her scores from non-attorneys in most areas were consistent with the average scores received for other county court judges. 

While the survey sample from lawyers was small (20 respondents), courtroom observations by members of the Commission and review of her oral rulings confirmed many of the concerns raised by the survey results. While Judge Briscoe displayed appropriate judicial demeanor and was patient and respectful to those appearing in her court, the Commission has significant concerns about Judge Briscoe’s application and knowledge of the law. Especially concerning was her apparent lack of familiarity or understanding of relevant law and rules even though she had been in her current assignment in the municipal criminal division for over 15 months at the time of her interview. In her interview, Judge Briscoe acknowledged her deficiencies in application and knowledge of the law. Judge Briscoe’s apparent lack of preparation on some matters and the difficulty she experienced in making sure some defendants without lawyers adequately understood the proceedings also concerned the Commission.

My general attitude towards judicial retention election is not to be lenient.  Very few judges are not recommended for retention at all, and their stand out status deserves attention.  The relevant issue is not whether they did something wrong, but whether there are better than even odds that a replacement would be better.  Given that the consequence for the judge is merely the need to find a new job for someone with a professional degree and considerable professional success, but that the broad discretion a judge has may impact thousands of cases, I generally argue that when in doubt, one should not retain.

But, ultimately each case must be judged individually on its own merits.  Extensive source data for evaluating those hard calls is available at the Commissions on Judicial Performance website.

Vote No On Colorado Ballot Issue 104

Colorado Ballot Issue 104 is an initiated state statute summarized as follows in the official ballot title:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes requiring any meeting of a board of education, or any meeting between any representative of a school district and any representative of employees, at which a collective bargaining agreement is discussed to be open to the public?

In other words, this is a measure designed to make it harder for unions for teachers and other school employees to secure union contracts for their members.

There are many matters that are subject to open meeting laws, but personnel matters are virtually never subject to them.  The same open meeting rules would not be applied to negotiations of senior administrator's contracts.

The measure is sponsored by the conservative Independence Institute and is an effort to engage in public sector union busting, pure and simple.

The measure was the last to appear on the Colorado ballot this year because it had just barely enough signatures to qualify to appear on the ballot.

Vote No On Colorado Proposition 105

Colorado Ballot Issue 105 would enact a new law to require any "prepackaged, processed food or raw agricultural commodity that has been produced using genetic modification" to include the label: "Produced with genetic engineering." The law would be put into effect by January 1, 2016.

California, Oregon and Washington State have rejected similar ballot issues.  Vermont enacted a statute this year to require such labeling.  Some European countries require this kind of labeling.

GMOs are not appropriate to require food providers to label

Genetic modification as used in this sense is not a useful or meaningful concept

Perhaps the most important point to understand in the debate is that all domesticated plants and animals are genetically modified, which is to say that humans have consciously and deliberately manipulated their genome in a manner that would not have happened had humans not intervened.

The genomes of modern wheat, corn and rice are all wildly different than the wild types.  "Ancient grains", like emmer wheat, mostly represent early attempts at genetic modification of wild plants that were previously gathered by humans that had diminished commercial success when further genetic modifications produced more desirable crops.

Vegetables that are completely different in appearance such as kale, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, broccoli, broccoflower, broccolini, Romanesco broccoli, red cabbage, collard greens, savoy, kohirabi, kai-lan, and Chinese kale are all genetically modified versions of a single species of plant known as wild mustard (Brassica oleracea) which is native to coastal southern and western Europe.

Almonds would be poisonous without genetic modification.  Chickens are genetically modified to produce about twenty times as many eggs as their wild ancestors of Southeast Asia.

These genetic modifications aren't simply a matter of accelerated natural selection either.  Developing hybrid plants is every bit as much as genetic modification as more high technology methods.  Commercially developed hybrid oats have been produced since 1892.  Hybrid wheat and corn strains were widespread before World War II.  One of the main forms of rice grown in Africa is a hybrid.

Pretty much the only thing you buy in a grocery store for human consumption which are not genetically modified are wild caught fish and water.

GMOs are not a health risk

The modern campaign to label and have consumers avoid genetically modified plants and animals defines genetic modification narrowly to include only certain newly invented techniques for accomplishing this end, but this is ultimately a distinction without a difference.  As the American Association for the Advancement of Science noted in an October 20, 2012 statement, there are no proven health risks associated with genetically modified foods.

Labeling of genetically modified foods also promotes the misapprehension that "natural" foods are more healthy and more safe, which is simply not the case.  While pretty much every healthy animal is edible when cooked well (apart from mad cow disease and the venomous parts of venomous reptiles, frogs and insects), wild and natural plants are frequently hazardous to your health and have not been systematically tested for their health effects on humans.

It is impracticable to mandate GMO labeling in a small state like Colorado

Colorado residents value the wide diversity in the foods that they have available to them.  But, many of these choices could vanish if GMO labeling is required.

Why?

Because most food vendors in Colorado are incapable of determining in good faith if their foods are, or are not, genetically modified.

For example, most U.S. corn, but not all U.S. corn, is genetically modified.  A very large share of all processed food in the United States has some form of corn in it, be it corn syrup, corn flour, corn starch, or just plain old corn.  But, food vendors who buy corn derived products have no reliable way to determine if the corn in their supply chains, the vast majority of which comes from places which would not be subject to Colorado's GMO labeling mandate, is genetically modified or not.  The same concerns apply to products made with imported wheat flour, to Colorado beer made with imported barley and hops, to pork and beef made in other states or abroad, and so on.

Also, even if foods are imported from a place that does have GMO labeling, there is no consensus definition of what constitutes a GMO, so there is no assurance that food that is GMO free by Vermont standards, for example, is GMO free by Colorado standards.

This proposed law may be pre-empted by federal law or unconstitutional

This practical impact potentially has constitutional implications.  Under a legal doctrine known as the "dormant commerce clause", state regulation that substantially interferes with interstate and international commerce in void, because the power to regulate interstate commerce is reserved to the federal government.  So, if Colorado GMO labeling regulations make it very difficult or impossible for merchants who want to bring food from outside of Colorado that is not compliant with Colorado's GMO labeling law, then Colorado's law is probably unconstitutional.

This requirement is also arguably pre-empted by the federal food safety and labeling laws enforced by the Food and Drug Administration.

These kinds of concerns are the reason that states can only regulate motor vehicle emissions within the context of federally authorized environmental regulations.

Voluntary labeling has been an effective paradigm so far

Nothing prevents food vendors who market to people who are concerned about GMOs (or at least nothing should prevent them) from voluntarily monitoring their supply chains to assure that their products are GMO free and developing a labeling certification program to do so.

This is the approach that has been used to develop markets for organic products, for fair trade products, for product safety assured through third parties like Underwriter's Laboratories, for lactose free products, for Kosher foods, and for gluten free products.  These approaches have legal force under the federal Lanham Act.  They are also much more accurate and less corrupt because they secure the willing cooperation of people who believe in the value of the labeling regime.  It also puts key operational definitions in the hands of people who believe that these labels matter, instead of government bureaucrats who may be subject to industry capture and produce inadequate definitions.

Voluntary GMO labeling, if it is pervasive enough, naturally gives rise to the inference that unlabeled products are not GMO free, but does so in a manner that doesn't require every food vendor who wants to do business in the marketplace to have a full command of the supply chain of every ingredient that they use in places where there are no GMO labelling laws.

Conclusion

While the proponents of a mandatory GMO labeling law in Colorado are no doubt well meaning and have our best interests at heart, and while they merely want to label GMO food, rather than ban it, this law still does not deserve your vote.  The definition of a GMO is dubious.  There are no proven health benefits to non-GMO food.  It is impractical and probably unconstitutional to mandate GMO labeling at the state level at this time.  And, voluntary labeling is a completely adequate, well precedented, and effective alternative that does not raise the same problems.  Mandatory GMO labeling would not be accurate, would be costly, does not advance a compelling public need, and would reduce food choices for Colorado consumers.

Vote no on Colorado ballot issue 105.

Vote No On Colorado Amendment 67

Colorado Ballot Issue 67 is a repeat attempt to pass a "personhood" amendment to the Colorado Constitution which its voters have rejected in 2008 and 2010 by more than 70% of the vote. Its text states:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings?

Colorado's criminal code was already amended in the 2013 legislative session (by Democrats) to provide enhanced penalties for crimes that harm pregnant women and cause them to miscarry. As the title to that bill explained:

The bill creates a new article for offenses against pregnant women. The new offenses are unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the first degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the second degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the third degree, unlawful termination of a pregnancy in the fourth degree, vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, aggravated vehicular unlawful termination of a pregnancy, and careless driving resulting in unlawful termination of a pregnancy. The bill makes it clear that a court can impose consecutive sentences for a violation of this act and other associated convictions. The bill excludes from prosecution medical care for which the mother provided consent. The bill does not confer the status of "person" upon a human embryo, fetus, or unborn child at any stage of development prior to live birth. The bill repeals the criminal abortion statutes.

Colorado tort law also allows a pregnant woman to sue for assaults or other unlawful conduct directed at her that causes the termination of her pregnancy or birth defects, and Colorado's probate laws address in exquisite detail the inheritance rights of children born after the death of their parents.

The personhood amendment isn't necessary to address the issues it attempts to use as a smokescreen to fulfill its true purpose.  The true purpose of the personhood amendment is no more and no less than an attempt to criminalize abortion, contrary to what has been the controlling constitutional law of the land since Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and to criminalize hormonal contraception and IUDs contrary to what has been the controlling constitutional law of the land since Griwold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Colorado Ballot Issue 67 seeks to expose doctors, nurses, pharmacists, the majority of pre-menopausal adult women who use contraception that Issue 67 attempts to ban, and women who are unfortunate enough to miscarry, to criminal and civil liability.  It is based on an extreme version of the anti-abortion agenda that only a minority of people in Colorado, and in particular, a very small minority of women in Colorado, share.

Vote no on Colorado Ballot Issue 67 on "personhood" just as Coloradoan's overwhelmingly did in 2008 and 2010. The issues presented by it are no different.

Vote Yes On Colorado Amendment 68

Colorado ballot issue 68 would amend the state constitution to allow casino gambling at three existing horse racing tracks, one in Aurora, one in greater Grand Junction, and one in Pueblo. Special taxes on the casinos would be applied to K-12 education and charter schools.

It is supported by Rhode Island's Twin River Casino. The sanctimonious ads opposing it from "Don't Turn Racetracks Into Casinos" are paid for by a coalition of (at least) five of Colorado's existing casino operators. This measure has almost no financial support or opposition from anyone who isn't in the casino business.

As Ballotpedia, linked above explains:

Voters rejected the legalization of horse and dog racing in 1940, but later approved such gambling in 1948. In 2003, an initiative to allow video lottery at specific horse and greyhound racetracks with some proceeds going towards tourism promotion and open spaces for parks and recreation was defeated with fewer than 20 percent of voters supporting it. . . .

Following the 1990 legalization of casinos in Colorado, the state's first casino was opened in 1991. As of 2013, Colorado had 41 operating casinos employing 9,278 people. Gambling revenues in Colorado are subject to a graduated tax with a maximum assessment of 20 percent. This came to a total of approximately $104.26 million from casinos in 2013. Gambling revenue taxes are not currently allocated specifically to kindergarten through high school education. Instead, they are allocated to local communities, historic preservation, community colleges, tourism promotion and the general fund.

Colorado also has a state lottery, which has been operating since 1983. The lottery was made possible by a 1980 ballot measure, Referendum 2, which also required the net proceeds of the lottery to be put in the state's conservation trust fund. In 2013, the lottery contributed $59.2 million to the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO), $54.3 million to the Conservation Trust Fund, $13.6 million to Colorado Parks and Wildlife and $8.6 million to the Public School Construction Assistance (BEST Program).

The case for saying no to three new casinos at locations where gambling is already conducted would hold much higher moral ground if it weren't for the fact that Colorado already has a state lottery, horse and greyhound gambling, and 41 casinos. The fact that the opposition is funded by existing casinos fighting to reduce competition in locations that are more convenient than their own, while claiming to have other justifications for their position also isn't impressive.

When it comes to gambling, the people of Colorado aren't virgins; they are whores. Preventing three new casinos from opening in places were two other kinds of gambling are already legal won't make the state any more pure, but may raise a little tax revenue for schools and may help Aurora's struggling economic situation.

From my perspective, as a Denver resident, I'd much rather have Aurora open a new casino that doesn't compete directly Denver venues, than have it pursue Aurora's recent efforts to build a Convention Center to compete with the one in downtown Denver linked into a regional public transit plan, or Aurora's effort to steal the stock show from Denver. An approach to developing the tourism industry in Denver that doesn't undermine huge investments in the same thing that have already been made in the metropolitan area by building a casino is a better choice. Maybe Aurora's next step will be to attempt to legalize and tax the prostitution industry that thrives on its stretch of East Colfax.

The opposition to Ballot Issue 68 (which has outspent the casino's effort to pass it by more than three to one) is pure astroturf with no more concern for actual public opinion than the campaign to prevent a new taxi service and Uber from entering the metropolitan Denver transportation market. Given this reality, allowing three more casinos to enter the gambling marketplace in exchange for more taxes is the right choice.

Vote Yes On Colorado Ballot Issue 68.

Some people still believe in demon possession.

Republican primary voters on Tuesday earlier this week, elected Gordon "Dr. Chaps" Klingenschmitt as the Republican nominee in Colorado State House District 15, a safe Republican district outside Colorado Springs. He will face Democratic party nominee Lois Fornander in the November 2014 general election. Republican voters in the district preferred him to a less insane Republican contender Dave Williams (a young anti-gay Republican activist) in the open seat (the incumbent Republican Mark Waller was term limited).

Koingenschmitt is a virulently homophobic former Navy Chaplin (an Evangelical Christian) who believes that homosexuality and a variety of the world's other ills (from President Obama's election to Madonna's popularity) are caused by demon possession and evil spirits. For example, he conducted an exorcism an in effort to end the homosexuality of a lesbian sailor while he was a Navy Chaplin.

Against Timid Politics

One of the defining aspects of President Obama's campaign in 2008 was how inspiring his speeches were.  The same could be said for many of our current incumbents in office.  As we head into the 2014 primary season, I don't feel that anymore, from anyone.

The fiery rhetoric seems reduced to weary croaks.  Everyone, the President, members of Congress, Senators, candidates and incumbents alike, just sound so tired.  They are tired of their own rhetoric.  They are tried of stalemate.  They have no new ideas.  And, timid politics only favor Republicans.  Democrats are the party of hope.  Republicans are the party that believes government can't do anything right.  The gird lock and gross irresponsibility of Republicans playing chicken with the national debt that they have created only serves to help them and hurt Democrats in the new elections.  People who think Congress is screwing up want to throw the bums out, even when many of those bums are crucial to setting things right.

Often alarming developments abroad, like the civil wars in Ukraine, the war crime filled civil war in Syria, and the kidnapping of hundreds of school girls by Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria would galvanize the country into action.  Instead, our leaders and leaders of developed countries in Europe and Asia, are confounded.  We want to avoid World War III, which an open conventional war involving both the United States and Russia could easily become.  On the other hand, we have let a country that we were treaty bound to protect the integrity and sovereignty of in Ukraine be dismembered with scarcely a peep, we have taken the mildest of possible responses to the use of chemical weapons and bombing of civilians with aircraft in Syria after taking a much more bold stances that led on Syrian rebels in Libya, and while we have a variety of low profile military and intelligence involvements across war torn parts of Africa we have kept them off of the media radar screen when we could have taken decisive action.

Ukraine and Syria may put the U.S. at risk of Wold War III, if we play our hand too strongly.  We also have to be careful of what we wish for.  While sovereignty is a fine principle in Ukraine, a rump Ukraine with Crimea and some Eastern Ukrainian territory would be a more politically stable regime that was more pro-Western in the long term.  While the Syrian regime is led by ruthless war criminals, a rebel victory might create a new Islamic fundamentalist state and led to mass ethnic cleansing and segregation like that seen in Iraq.

But, deployment of military force in aid of Northern Nigeria is another story, our military opponent would have no international patron with real military clout, and a victory there would clearly lead to an outcome that the U.S. would prefer.  Intervention in that conflict would show the minorities in the Democratic political base, that the U.S. gives a damn about people whose skin is not white.  Conservatives would be pleased to see the U.S. intervene to help Christians, and also moderate Muslims, who are being slaughtered and raped and kidnapped, resist fundamentalist Muslims who want to create new theocracies and provide a villain as good as any that central casting in Hollywood could provide.  Nigeria is one of the few sources of oil, natural gas, and uranium, all critical to our energy future, that is controlled by Western aligned democratically elected politicians and is the most populous country in sub-Saharan African.  It is in our interest both economically, and from the perspective our of national values to back them militarily.  And, after more than a dozen years fighting counterinsurgency actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have never been better positioned to fight another such action against less militarily capable forces in Northern Nigeria, and we have never had combat tried military leaders more able to distinguish between fundamentalist Muslim foes and moderate Muslim allies.  To the extent that Boko Haram can be linked to al-Qaeda, the intervention could even be justified as part of an ongoing "long war" on terrorism justified by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), originally in Afghanistan.  Of course, such bold military action would also draw attention away from stale, political sideshows and bring attention front and center to the conflict which patriotic, pro-military, interventionist, religious and morally driven foreign policy thinkers in conservative political circles would be hard pressed to oppose very seriously.  A nation at war always strengthens an incumbent President's hand.  A focus on this conflict would also discourage American politicians from rising to the bait of sword rattling in Asia, something that can only end badly.

In part it is this failure to take bold action elsewhere, that has allowed Republicans to beat the dead horse of decisions made a level or two below the pay grades of the President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as part of a military and diplomatic campaign in Libya that was a foreign policy success still echo through the media vacuum, together with another controversy over a low level decision about allegedly politically motivated audits of conservative non-profits that were mostly crossing the line of what the law permitted them to do.  The President and the Courts and Congress continue to wrangle over continuing efforts to stay the course of a handful of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, many of whom are low level foot soldiers (if guilty at all of anything prior to their detentions), and a handful of military trials that have proved to be far from the decisive and swift tools for meting out justice to terrorists that their proponents claimed - despite the notion that military trials are a forum that ought to give the President more power, rather than less.

President Obama's unwillingness to seriously change course on misguided military, intelligence and anti-terrorism policies of George W. Bush that he campaigned against is puzzling.

The President has taken a very deliberate pace in addressing a sea change in public opinion towards the decriminalization of marijuana and the war on drugs, but with new changes in the sentencing guidelines, crack cocaine sentencing reforms, a set of new more lenient (although still muddled) policies for U.S. attorneys towards the drug war, and rumors of a major new batch of pardons for excessively sentenced drug offenders being considered, this may simply be a matter of political timing - saving a hot button issue for after the midterm elections at moments in the two year Congressional election cycle where there is the slightest political fallout.

Some of the dearth of political ideas is a product of political deadlock in Washington.  But, wouldn't a vibrant, common sense agenda that could advance if only the people denied Republicans their majority in the House of Representatives and increased the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate by a few seats mobilize the public to vote on partisan lines to achieve that agenda, rather than based on dissatisfaction with the existing deadlock or based on personalities rather than parties?

Why can't Democrats, unified by President Obama, united around their version of a Contract with America and turn the 2014 elections into a national referendum?  Their policies are profoundly more in touch with the view of the public, as revealed in opinion polls, than those of the GOP.  Even if the push only leads to break even results or mitigates the usual setback of an incumbent in a midterm election, the effort would reveal how out of touch the Republican party is with the beliefs of ordinary Americans and win the political identity war with the demographics that a growing, while the elderly, white, Southerners who are at the core of the GOP are diluted.

Shutdown Will Probably End Today

A day before the deadline to increase the debt limit of the United States and prevent a default on the national debt, Congress appears to have reached a deal to end a sixteen day old government shutdown, the longest since the twenty-one days shutdown of 1995-1996, and one of the longest of all time.

According to the Denver Post: "The proposal called for the Treasury to have authority to continue borrowing through Feb. 7, and the government would reopen through Jan. 15." The only concession in the plan relative to "clean bills" is that "It requires individuals and families seeking subsidies to purchase coverage to verify their incomes before qualifying."

The deal will easily clear the U.S. Senate but will likely pass in the U.S. House with the support of almost all Democrats and only a minority of Republicans in the House.

The deal represents a near total defeat for Republicans in their bid to win concessions from the White House postponing implementation of Obamacare and the public has blamed the shutdown primarily on Republicans whose popularity in opinion polls has plummeted to all time lows as a result of the tactic.

The move puts the ability of Republicans to retain control of the House in the 2014 elections, which had previously been very likely, in real doubt. Ironically, however, the Republicans in Congress most likely to pay the political price for this tactic are those in moderate districts who were least supportive of it, as their seats are most vulnerable to shifts in public opinion. Thus, the Congressional Republican party in 2015 (i.e. the 115th Congress) is likely to be even more conservative than it already is, despite the fact that it has already moved to the right since 2011 and has lurched dramatically to the right since the shutdown in 1995-1996 (the 104th Congress) - which also would move the GOP further from the political center.

Meanwhile, Krugman notes that GOP political tactics and policy stances in Congress have been very bad for the U.S. economy:

Macroeconomic Advisers has a new report out about the effects of bad fiscal policy since 2010 — that is, since the GOP takeover of the House. . . . They say that combined effects of uncertainty in the bond market and cuts in discretionary spending have subtracted . . . around $700 billion of wasted economic potential. . . . they also estimate that the current unemployment rate is 1.4 points higher than it would have been without those policies . . . we’d have unemployment below 6% if not for these people.

Partisan Elected Election Officials Still A Bad Idea

In Colorado, statewide election administration is vested in Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican elected to the office in 2008.  Now, he is considering running for Governor in 2014.

Thus, in the hypothetical race of incumbent Governor Hickenlooper, a Democrat, v. Scott Gessler, a Republican, in 2014, the winner will be officially determined by the certification of Scott Gessler, acting with the counsel of the incumbent Republican Secretary of State.

No appearance of impropriety there, no siree!

Then again, suppose Scott Gessler, to avoid an appearance of impropriety, resigns.  This creates its own problem.  Because, if he resigned, his replacement would be appointed by the other candidate in the same race, Governor Hickenlooper.