Sizing up Colorado, two centuries on

By John Andrews (andrewsjk@aol.com) This morning my view from a hotel window toward Pike's Peak is obscured by a driving blizzard. Harsh autumn weather like this bedeviled the Pike expedition, first American explorers of our state, in late 1806. We're in Colorado Springs for an El Pomar Foundation lecture series I co-chair; last night's program used the Pike bicentennial as an occasion for some political self-examination.

The peak that later bore his name was, Pike wrote, "never out of sight in our wanderings" through the region. America's founding principles should stand as a similar landmark for Coloradans today, I believe. Pending a full report later on my 10/25 debate with Ed Quillen, here's the outline we spoke to:

“The American Experiment, 200 Years after Zebulon Pike”

Resolved: Colorado’s practice of liberty and equality today would meet with Thomas Jefferson’s approval

John Andrews, Former Senate President, taking the affirmative Ed Quillen, Denver Post columnist, taking the negative

1. Do you agree or disagree that Colorado’s practice of liberty and equality today would meet with Thomas Jefferson’s approval?

2. What are three strong points of evidence to support your conclusion? What points of contrary evidence would you acknowledge as valid?

3. Taking other prominent American Founders such as Adams, Washington, Hamilton, James Madison or Patrick Henry, can we identify certain founding principles for the American experiment on which all would agree?

4. Does it really matter what Jefferson or any of the Founders would think of our state and nation today? Why or why not?

5. What improvements do you believe are needed in Colorado’s practice of liberty and equality? What other key indicators besides these two should we be monitoring? What serious threats to the future of the American experiment are evident in our state today?

Though GOP's not pretty, alternative is worse

By Brian Ochsner (baochsner@aol.com) I saw another reminder of why voters shouldn't vote for Democrats this election. It's a Texas Democratic campaign poster that shows how seriously Dems take -- or don't take -- illegal immigration.

Look, I'm one of the biggest critics of Republicans not acting like Republicans in DC and Denver. It's disheartening to tally up what my party is "for" these days -- not securing the borders, not even trying to rein in out-of-control federal spending, and passing stupid laws and initiatives like the smoking ban and Referendum C.

But when the other party sees illegal aliens just as potential voters, and turns a blind eye to the increased crime and costs to American taxpayers (not to mention the national security threat from Other-Than-Mexicans crossing the border), it's insane to think most Democrats won't toe the party line on this issue.

Having said that, I think GOP leadership in Washington and Denver need to get back to the basics of what Republicans ought to stand for: Lower taxes, limited government, and personal responsibility. If they didn't support Ref C or the smoking ban, and took decisive, concrete steps to secure the border and stem the invasion of illegal immigrants, Republicans would have easier campaigns this election season.

GOP leaders (namely in the Colorado state party) need to remember that when you act and campaign on clear, conservative principles, you'll usually win. Remember the 'crazy cowboy' named Ronald Reagan who steamrolled Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale? And the Contract with America that Newt Gingrich proposed in 1994, which led to Republicans taking both the House and Senate?

It's been said that people who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. My hope is that Republicans remember what we stand for as a party, or risk losing legislative power for years to come.

Headlines evoke biblical echoes

By Dave Petteys (dpetteys@comcast.net) In Ecclesiastes it says somewhere “Nothing is new under the sun”. Reading Scripture and looking at current politics, one can see this is true. For example:

“..the Pharisees began to press him hard, and to provoke him to speak of many things, lying in wait for him, to catch at something he might say.” (Luke 11:53). The Democrats, like the Pharisees, are not willing to embrace the “New Covenant” of free markets and individual responsibility. And like the Pharisees, who thought killing Jesus himself would solve their problem, so do the Democrats and their allies in the media demonize the President and comb the landscape for any scandal.

The Democrats search desperately, hoping to find (or in some cases create) something that will give them the election without having to change their “Old Covenant” of continually trying to build heaven on earth with big government programs.

As for murderous fantasies, the George Soros’s of the world probably would not finance a contract killing of a President of the United States, (though some may have thought about it). They know they could never get away with such an action. But ominously, financing a movie depicting their desire MAY motivate someone somewhere who would try. This would sever any link and give them plausible deniability.

Rep. Foley should have heeded Jesus’ warning in Luke 12: “Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms (these days the IM chat rooms) shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.” Every Republican that holds office should put this passage on a 3x5 card, carry it, and read it often.

But there’s hope, for as the Bible also states: “ A wise man’s heart inclines him toward the right, but a fool’s heart toward the left" (Eccl. 10: 2).

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.