Ten reasons I'll vote for Beauprez

(John Andrews in the Denver Post, Oct. 15) Political crossovers are in. Rick O’Donnell, Republican for Congress, says his hero is the late Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. His opponent, Ed Perlmutter, boasts the endorsement of our former state Senate colleague, Republican Dottie Wham. Bill Ritter, the Democrat currently leading in the race for Governor, has some Republicans backing him. So I’ll cross over and predict that Bob Beauprez, the GOP nominee for Governor, might become this year’s Harry Truman. Notwithstanding the recent Denver Post poll showing Ritter ahead 50% to 35%, this thing’s not over yet. What Truman, the scrappy underdog, did to his favored challenger in 1948 could be the template for a come-from-behind Beauprez win. Bill Ritter as a latter-day Thomas E. Dewey: imagine that.

Now I’m no odds-maker. This is a guy who thought the Beatles were a flash in the pan. I never play the lottery, and my little boy used to beat me at Go Fish, which his four-year-old may soon do also. Yet I have this hunch about a potential Beauprez upset.

Winner or not, Battlin’ Bob gets my vote for at least ten reasons. Immigration, judges, jobs, taxes, education, health care, highways, water, values, and qualifications – that’s the deciding decalogue in Beauprez’s favor. Here is my case for the Republican nominee:

1. Curbing illegal immigration. Beauprez’s commitment to secure borders was clear from the day Tancredo endorsed him in the GOP primary. Ritter’s embrace of sanctuary and amnesty is evidenced by his outrageous plea bargains to help felons avoid deportation.

2. Appointing good judges. Whether judicial term limits pass or not, the next governor will get to name a lot of new judges. On their backbone will depend both public safety and the rule of law. The conservative Republican is the clear choice here.

3. Creating jobs. Beauprez has done it as a businessman, and he’s equipped to do it as Colorado’s CEO. With attorney Ritter will come overregulation, worker’s comp rollback, favors to labor unions and trial lawyers, minimum wage hikes, the whole job-killing liberal agenda.

4. Restraining taxes and spending. Ritter will fatten the budget with every dollar of revenue that comes in. He’ll probably advocate waiving the TABOR growth limits forever. Beauprez will squeeze the bureaucracy and fight for the taxpayer.

5. Excellence for classrooms and campuses. Ritter’s union friends include the teachers in government-monopoly schools and the professors in Ward’s World, our leftist university system. Figure education reform is DOA with Bill. Score this one for Bob as well.

6. Untangling the health care mess. Beauprez understands that consumer choice and market efficiencies are the only answer to a broken health insurance system and a Medicaid budget that is draining the state treasury. Ritter, as a Hillary-minded liberal, doesn’t.

7. Highways for freedom and mobility. The Sierra Club extremists who want you out of that SUV and into denser housing will present their IOU’s the first day Ritter is governor. Transit will be in and pavement will be out – as will energy development. If you drive, vote GOP.

8. Water for the new century. Density is just phase one for the Democrats’ environmental utopian allies. Ultimately they dream of returning the West to buffalo and beaver. Developing Colorado’s water for PEOPLE is better entrusted to Republicans.

9. Values for children and families. Beauprez unequivocally supports protection of the unborn child and traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Ritter, in contrast, has done the both-ways thing on these core values. To make sure, choose Bob.

10. Qualifications for leadership. Bob Beauprez (about whom as a friend I’m admittedly not objective) is superbly prepared to lead our state from his record in government, business, and civic life. The Democrat, a good and decent man himself, is simply less ready.

While I’m too young to remember “Dewey Wins,” the headline waved by a beaming President Truman, I’ll never forget how the upset stunned my parents. Will Ritter’s rooters get a similar shock on Nov. 7 as Beauprez wins at the wire? This Republican hopes so.

TV, October: Vote Republican, vote conservative

The “Head On” debate between former state Sen. John Andrews (R) and former Denver councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt (D), seen daily on Colorado Public Television since 1997, began its October series this week. Andrews argued for a Republican vote in races for Governor and Congress, along with a conservative vote on ballot issues. Other topics this month include the controversy over voting machines and photo ID, along with Denver's new art museum addition. 1. WHO SHOULD CONTROL CONGRESS?

John: When you vote, remember: the US Congress is the world’s most important elected assembly. It not only holds in trust the liberty, prosperity, and human dignity of 300 million Americans, but also the future of freedom everywhere. To ensure a strong defense and protect the Constitution, we need a Republican Congress.

Susan: Republican Control got us into this mess – record deficits, unleashed insurgencies around the globe, out of control health care costs. We need a Democratic Congress to slow down the Bush White House. Gridlock may put us on the road to recovery. Vote Perlmutter, Paccione, and Fawcett et. al.

John: Turning Congress over to left-wing Democrats would lead to weaker defense, fewer jobs, and higher taxes. Who wants that? Republicans will just take better care of America, period. Voters should send Rick O’Donnell, Doug Lamborn, Scott Tipton, and Rich Mancuso to Congress. They should reelect Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo.

Susan: Conservative Richard Viguerie,, quote: Republican House leaders do whatever it takes to hold onto power. Whether it means spending billions of taxpayers’ dollars on questionable projects or covering up the most despicable actions of a colleagueThey’ve lost their moral rudder” End quote. VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

2. WHO SHOULD BE GOVERNOR OF COLORADO?

John: Election time is often confusion time, and that’s not right. Television doesn’t always help. Too many slogans, too much mud. Donna and I are going to cut through the fog and vote Republican for governor – vote for Bob Beauprez. More jobs, lower taxes, safer neighborhoods, better roads and schools. Bob Beauprez will deliver.

Susan: The Post and the Rocky endorsements got it right. Bob Beauprez’s campaign has been a solid vote of NO Confidence in his ability to lead Colorado. His voting record in Congress is mediocre. He’s done nothing to address immigration, healthcare or the deficit. Bill Ritter is the solid choice.

John: Colorado Inc., a 15 billion dollar enterprise, should not gamble its chief executive job on a mediocre ex-prosecutor. Behind Bill Ritter’s moderate mask is a Denver liberal, with another Denver liberal for a running mate. Bob Beauprez is a proven leader in government, business, and civic life. Beauprez gets my vote.

Susan: A $15 billion enterprise should not gamble it’s future on a guy whose policies have the consistency of a burnt waffle. Beauprez wasted four years in Congress following a herd of Republican sheep, lying to the public and covering for misguided colleagues. Bob Beauprez – all hat, no cattle.

3. BALLOT ISSUE PICKS & PANS

John: Colorado Public Television has debated the 2006 ballot issues at length. Now we’ll now debate them in brief. I’m voting yes on 38 for petition rights, yes on 39 for more dollars to the classroom, yes on 40 for tougher term limits and better courts, yes on 43 for traditional marriage.

Susan: It’s foolish to expand petition rights, and give more power to special interests or to further limit local control of school funding or politicize the courts. No on 38, 39 and 40. I don’t need my committed relationship defined by the State. I am not sure who does. Neutral on 43.

John: 43 is needed -- traditional marriage helps to nurture children, protect women, and civilize men. Continuing down the ballot, I’m voting no on 41 to protect minorities from a job-killing minimum wage, no on 42 to protect citizen access to public officials, and no on 44 to discourage the potheads.

Susan: Yes to increasing the minimum wage, Amendment 42. No to 41 - an overreaching ethics code that doesn’t belong in the state constitution. The current take whatever you can, anytime – but Amendment 41 isn’t the solution. Yes to Referendum I - recognizing the legal rights of domestic partnerships.

4. CAN WE TRUST THE VOTING PROCESS?

Susan: I don’t know about you John, but I’ve applied for an absentee ballot. I’ve no confidence in the electronic machines and even less in the local, state and federal election officials. And as for a national ID card – isn’t that why we fought WW 2?

John: Honest elections are a Colorado tradition. Secretary of State Dennis is working hard to keep it that way, as would Mike Coffman if he succeeds her. Voting machine conspiracy fears are exaggerated, but ballot security should not be sacrificed to convenience. Photo ID at the polling place is just common sense.

Susan: The reliability of electronic voting machines is questionable. Gigi Dennis’s partisan behavior is troubling. Denver’s election commission opted for vote centers –despite poor performance in the August primary. If you want to make certain your vote counts and you live in Denver County – use a mail ballot.

John: Elections are a sacred trust of American self-government, not a matter of casual convenience. Vote centers are a bad idea. Photo ID to prevent fraud is a good idea. Democrat Ken Gordon doesn’t understand that. Republican Mike Coffman does. Coffman gets my vote for Secretary of State.

5. THE LIBESKIND MUSEUM WING

Susan: What’s the difference between and Icon and an I-sore? That’s the issue under discussion by art lovers, critics and citizens now that Daniel Libeskind’s addition to the Denver Art Museum is open. I think time and wear will be the jury. But for certain – our charm bracelet is overloaded.

John: So you give two cheers at most for Libeskind’s multimillion dollar pile of crumpled titanium? I give no cheers at all. Architecture, like art, is supposed to ennoble the human spirit by celebrating beauty and grace. The new museum wing flunks that test. Transgressive novelty does not define a great city.

Susan: A great city is measured by the health and safety of its residents, the beauty of its park and civic spaces, the mobility and transparency of connections – streets, roads sidewalks and – the beauty and durability of its built environment. One, two, three or a dozen interesting buildings – do not define a city.

John: If the new museum gets more of us engaged with thinking about great art, that’s good. But the building itself is not great architecture. It’s a mere attention-grabber, designed by a clever showman. Denver shouldn’t let Libeskind near the renovation of Civic Center Park.

Bully boy Bill Winter embarrasses himself

By Brian Ochsner (baochsner@aol.com) Let me get this straight. Bill Winter isn't afraid of a local critic - Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute - but he's worried that Osama bin Laden will make the 6th Congressional District more of a target because Tom Tancredo speaks his mind about Islamofascism. Makes perfect sense to me... if you're using liberal logic, that is.

He sent an email to Kopel in 2004 calling him a "rabid attack dog for Bush and Cheney." He finished his email with the line: "When the revolution comes, I'll be looking for you, brother!" This sounds like something a steroid-fueled pro wrestler would say before a match. Not a congressional candidate who wants to be taken seriously as Tancredo's Democratic challenger.

Both Ways Bill seems to pick his fights pretty carefully. If he can bully someone locally, he’ll do it. But if a global terrorist can hit him back, he’s not quite as feisty. It’s a free country, and Americans have the right to have dissenting opinions. As Oliver North aptly said, “You can disagree without being disagreeable.”

However, when someone comes ‘over the top’ like Winter did with Kopel, I have to question his judgment and temperament to be considered for high elected office.

Knifing of Lamborn bodes ill for Colorado GOP this fall

Editor's Note: Hefley had to file for his write-in by 5pm Tuesday, and did not do so, ending the maverick comeback bid, according to an update on the Gazette website. But the outgoing congressman's spite for his duly nominated GOP successor, quoted in the update, only validates the concerns expressed below.

By Dave Crater (crater@senate9.com)

Today’s Colorado Springs Gazette carries an article outlining why Joel Hefley, with many in the Colorado Springs, Denver, and Washington Republican establishments who are encouraging him on, is considering a write-in bid for Congress against Republican nominee Doug Lamborn.

We should all understand this development with crystal clarity: this behavior by Republican political insiders, and its history in Colorado that has lasted for most of the Bill Owens administration, is why the Colorado GOP lost dazzlingly throughout the state in 2004, losing both houses of the state legislature for the first time in 40 years, a congressional seat, and a Senate seat, and why it is now -- in my opinion -- headed for dazzling defeat this coming November.

Here is a link to the Wall Street Journal’s report on national gubernatorial races, which, based on polling data from nationwide sources, shows Bill Ritter leading Bob Beauprez by 8 percentage points. This lead by Ritter over Beauprez has been consistent throughout the summer and from every source. The Journal notes, “Colorado is unusual: despite a GOP registration edge, the state has been kind to Democrats in recent elections.”

Translation: A political party whose elite class persecutes its best grassroots heroes, while at election time posturing righteously in defense of everything those heroes have personally sacrificed to advance, is a party destined for ruin. If you are a Colorado Republican, what the state’s Republican elites are doing to Doug Lamborn should concern you. If it doesn’t now, it is sure to concern you in November, when, in addition to the governor’s mansion and the state legislature, the GOP already stands to see its Congressional delegation reduced by another seat if Rick O’Donnell loses his tight race with Ed Perlmutter to replace Beauprez in CD 7.

The Republican edge in Colorado’s congressional delegation was 5-2 in 2004. It dropped to 4-3 after the 2004 elections, when John Salazar won CD 3, Ken Salazar won the Senate race, and Republicans lost both the state House and Senate. That number stands to drop to a 3-4 Democrat majority if O’Donnell loses, and if Joel Hefley, Peggy Littleton, and the Republican establishment are successful in opposing or deposing Doug Lamborn as the Republican nominee in CD 5, handing Democratic candidate Jay Fawcett a gift, the Democrat majority would rise to 2-5.

To recount the history for you: Doug Lamborn has been a conservative hero in the state legislature for 12 years. Many Republican insiders do not like this, just like many in the British political establishment did not like Winston Churchill in the years leading up to WW II, and helped get Churchill defeated immediately after the war in 1945, and just like many in the Republican establishment did not like Ronald Reagan challenging Gerald Ford for the GOP presidential nomination in 1976, and helped get Reagan defeated on the way to their own defeat by Jimmy Carter in November of 1976. In the process, the GOP establishment blamed Reagan, and the British establishment blamed Churchill, for everything from dishonesty and sleaze to naked personal ambition -- the very things of which they themselves were self-evidently guilty.

So the situation is very simple: if you want to see the Colorado GOP continue to collapse, help the GOP establishment attack Doug Lamborn in CD 5 and other conservative heroes around the state while calling for party unity when it is their turn or their buddy’s turn to stand for election. On the other hand, if you want to see the Colorado GOP regain its philosophical and moral roots without having to endure another November drubbing to learn that lesson, now might be a good time to contact Republican leaders and tell them to stop working against a 12-year Colorado hero and their own party’s nominee.

'Ten years and out'

The case for term limits for judges (John Andrews in the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 10) Americans' concern with a court system out of control has simmered for decades, never coming to a boil. The perennial frustration with judges rewriting the laws and the Constitution is like Mark Twain's comment on the weather--everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it. That may be about to change in Colorado, if voters pass judicial term limits this fall.

Coloradans have long favored the principle that rotation in office can help curb the abuse of power. The state, along with Oklahoma, led the nation in 1990 by imposing term limits on the legislative and executive branches of state government; citizen initiatives later extended the limits to most local officials and to our congressional delegation--though the latter was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judicial term limits have not met a great deal of legislative success. Provisions instituting them for judges were part of an omnibus judicial reform that I was unable to get past a Republican state Senate in 1999 and 2004. Impeachment proceedings against a constitution-flouting judge also failed in a Republican House in 2004. And a proposal for recall of judges was killed by the Democratic Senate last year.

But this year, reformers have gathered petitions with about 108,000 signatures, and recently set up a November 2006 vote on "10 years and out" for justices of the Colorado Supreme Court and judges of the Court of Appeals. The ballot initiative will almost certainly be certified in the coming days. [Note: It was certified on August 10, going to the ballot as Amendment 40.]

The petition drive was fueled by outrage at a blatantly political June 12 ruling of the state Supreme Court--relying on a technicality, the Court threw off the ballot a popular immigration-reform proposal. Other hot buttons include the justices' leniency to murderers in last year's Harlan and Auman cases; a judge in a custody dispute who restricted where Cheryl Clark could take her daughter to church, lest the child be exposed to "homophobia"; a 2003 decision favoring the teacher unions, snaring poor kids in bad schools; and the Taylor Ranch case, trampling property rights.

The last, Lobato v. Taylor, a property-claims ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2002, is less notorious than Kelo, but its disruptive effect in clouding all Colorado land titles cannot be overstated. "We risk injustice elsewhere," a dissenting opinion warned, by accepting the plaintiffs' radical theory of "communal rights" as superior to "the sanctity of private property [with] predictability and clarity of law." But the Democratic-dominated court did just that. With its requirement for notification of all potential claimants under old Spanish land grants (dating to 1863) in order to perfect a title, Lobato invites mischief across all 103,598 square miles of Colorado. Property-owners will hear a lot about this threat in coming weeks.

Up to 1965, Colorado was one of the many states that elected all their judges in partisan campaigns. We've since been on the so-called "Missouri merit" plan, where the governor appoints judges from a slate prepared by a nominating commission. Judges then face periodic retention elections, with "retain" or "do not retain" recommendations from a judicial performance commission. It sounds good, but fewer than 1% of all judges ever get dismissed by voters, leading to virtual life tenure with little accountability.

Our ballot issue, "Limit the Judges," would reduce the retention cycle to four years (after an appointee's first provisional term, which can be as short as two years), and cap total service at three terms, about 10 years or a bit longer depending on date of appointment. It applies only to Supreme Court justices, whose current retention cycle is 10 years, and Appeals Court judges, now on an eight-year cycle. District judges' terms are not affected.

This modest proposal has infuriated the bench and bar--aided and abetted, of course, by the media--who characterize it as radical, reckless, an assault on judicial independence and a dangerous politicizing of the courts. It is none of those. We don't go back to elected judges, or change the merit selection process. We don't make it easier to remove a miscreant--or even merely unpopular--judge. We may not even shorten the average length of appellate court tenure, which is only about eight years now.

All we seek to do is to balance the requirement for rotation in office, so it applies to all three branches of state government from now on. Why should the potential abuse of power or self-serving entrenchment by state senators, representatives, the governor and other elected executives be checked by a term limit, while the activism of the judiciary is not subjected to the same?

The judicial term limit plan has an additional provision, if the reform is approved this year, that would eject at the end of 2008 any incumbents on the two high courts who have already served 10 years or more. Limit the Judges, then, functions not only as a constitutional amendment but also a referendum on the performance of our robed policy makers.

Five of the seven state Supreme Court justices, all mostly liberal, would be gone in two years if the measure passes; likewise seven of 15 Appeals Court judges. The Colorado Bar Association bemoans a cumulative loss of 185 years' experience on the bench, but that argument may prove no more persuasive to voters in relation to the judicial branch than when it was previously deployed in vain for the legislative branch.

In my experience, term limits have helped make Colorado's legislature more respectful of the plain language of the constitution and more responsive to the sovereign will of the people. I believe term limits can yield similar benefits in our court system.

Robert Nagel, a law professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the imperial judiciary is self-stoking; that is, the legal system, by its very design, inexorably tends toward excess because it is sealed off from democratic forces. He recommends devising "other political checks" on the runaway courts. Colorado's judicial term limits, it seems to me, are a good start.