Politics

Blue Tuesday was our own fault

By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) It is easy to point out where individuals went wrong – the mortal wound dealt by Marc Holtzman’s divisive, ego-driven bid for governor, for example. Or perhaps what we had going against us. Both Colorado papers were conspicuously biased. One editor-in-chief told a Beauprez insider that it was his paper’s mission to get Ritter elected. Nice commitment to objectivity.

We could point to spurious attack ads – a friend of mine was labeled by his opponent as the pro-cancer candidate. Of course the war and the Administration’s handling of it certainly had an impact.

We could hand the blame around, but in the end Republicans must recognize their own responsibility for the loss of the 2006 election. We had help from the press, the 527’s, even death squads a world away, but most of the blame rests with us.

Republicans are responsible for our abandonment of principle, festering corruption, and divisiveness among the ranks. The Democrats moved right and the Republicans moved left. Republicans abandoned their commitment to fiscal integrity and small government. They got themselves involved in nation building (Iraq) and new entitlements (Medicare prescription), things to which they were formerly opposed.

When Republicans deserted their values they left them for Democrats to pick up. Colorado treasurer-elect Cary Kennedy, for example, made fiscal transparency a theme for her campaign even though she is no champion of thrift. She was after all the author of Amendment 23 which has had the most disastrous impact on the Colorado budget process. Nevertheless, she capitalized on the wastefulness of Republican politicians.

Democrats could point to massive spending increases and pork barrel pandering (of which they were equally guilty to be sure) and promised to balance the budget themselves. In the end, you can’t have your Bridge to Nowhere and keep your committee chairmanship.

Corruption further weakened the Republican Party in the public’s eyes. Thank you, Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, Ted Haggard, and others for screwing up. Your transgressions brought down good people.

Corruption hurt and division sealed our fate. While the Democrat Party stood by conservative Democrats, Republicans fought among themselves. The National Republican Committee and various state parties chose sides in primaries. That’s a good move if you want to embitter people.

Here’s another: In Colorado Springs a conservative 527 leveled a spurious attack against Jeff Crank. His loss prompted a sour grapes refusal on the part of outgoing Congressman Joel Hefley to endorse Crank’s opponent, Doug Lamborn. This is not a monarchy; you don’t get to pick your successor. (That goes for you too, Senator Norma Anderson.)

And then there’s the lasting testiness about Referendum C. Let’s let that go - everybody. Oh yes, and Senator Steve Johnson please refrain from likening fellow Republican Tom Tancredo’s book to Hitler’s Mein Kampf when talking to the press.. That was inexcusable. If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

I feel better. Now for the solution: While in the wilderness of minority status, Republicans must remember who they are – the champions of constitutional and free-market principles. Elections are about contrast – being a nice guy is not enough. Republicans need to articulate why conservative principles work and how they will have the courage to fight for them should they return to the majority.

Freedom is harder to sell than free stuff. The sanctity of life is harder to sell than the fallacious promise of immortality. Opportunity is a harder sell than security. Republicans, however, can meet the challenge. Over the next two years, Democrats will push for new entitlements, wage and price controls, stem cell research or other false policy prescriptions. Republicans must neither back down nor do a poor job articulating their oppositions.

We can rebuild the party around solid conservative principles. We can choose among ourselves leaders who can best articulate our vision. We can purge corruption and hypocrisy from our party. We can for heaven’s sake stop undermining fellow conservatives. We can return stronger.

Don’t forget: The election of Carter brought us Reagan four years later.

Clueless GOP needs a dose of Vince Lombardi

By Brian Ochsner (baochsner@aol.com) We need to get back to basics, and be the party of big ideas again. Also need to get back to fundamentals. As Vince Lombardi said to his team on the first day of training camp: "Men, this is a football." Or to Republicans: "Ladies and gentlemen, we are the party of lower taxes and spending, limited government, and personal responsibility. Any questions?" Bush and Owens really killed us by abandoning conservative principles. Some folks want to bash social conservatives for the party's problems, but that isn't the cause IMHO. 43 passed, Ref. I failed, that's proof right there.

How not to apologize: Kerry as a sulking sibling

By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) Anyone who grew up with a sibling knows how to make a non-apology. Mom or Dad demanded you apologize for making little sister cry. Though without any genuine remorse you had to say sorry or risk punishment. The non-apology worked like a charm.

There are several varieties of the faux apology:

Attack Non-Apology: “I’m sorry but she hit me first” says it’s her fault and I’ll do it again if need be.

Blame Non-Apology: “I’m sorry but she made me do it.” Similar to the Attack Non-Apology, this technique allows the speaker to take others down on the way.

Denial Non-Apology: “I didn’t do it but I’m sorry anyway.” Again, not sorry. Most likely guilty but not at all contrite.

Imitation Non-Apology: “I’m sorry you feel that way.” It looks like an apology but it really means I’m sorry I got caught or I’m sorry you’re making a big deal out of it.

Mistaken Non-Apology: “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it that way.” Translation – I meant it when I said it but I didn’t know it would get me in trouble.

Pretend Apology: “I’m sorry.” This technique requires more guile. The key is to look remorseful (a tearful eye helps) even though one is planning to do it again, with pleasure.

All of these techniques are used to appear repentant without actually being so. A rhetorical tool devoid of sincerity (much like selective moral outrage http://www.backboneamerica.net/2006/10/24/stop-with-the-selective-moral-outrage) faux remorse is popular among politicians particularly this campaign season.

Senator John Kerry used several mock apology techniques though without much success this past week. It all started when he said,

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.” That's the audio in its entirety, verbatim, the whole sound bite, period. Okay? Well...

Not surprisingly most Americans don’t like it when someone calls our service men and women stupid. People were (are still) mad. He had to do something. Like a sulking kid before an angry parent demanding an apology, Senator Kerry issued the first of the faux apologies blaming Tony Snow and Rush Limbaugh. Including the gratuitous weight remark about Rush Limbaugh, the press release read something like “It’s Snow and fatty Limbaugh’s fault.” Classic Attack Non-Apology.

He delivered his second faux apology in Seattle where he blended the Attack, Mistaken and Denial Non-Apology techniques. He was misunderstood – it was botched joke about the President not the troops. He then demanded the President apologize.

After much criticism and having to cancel election appearances for Democrats Senator Kerry committed his third act of mock contrition. Of the Imitation Non-Apology variety, the Senator said he was sorry people were offended. He then went back into attack mode.

Perhaps a Pretend Non-Apology in the beginning would have worked better. That or having some real respect for the men and women risking their lives for ours.

How I voted in Election 2006

By John Andrews (andrewsjk@aol.com) Your ballot is your business. But since I'm often asked about mine, here is how I voted when our absentee envelopes went in the mail today.

On the amendments, it was... Yes 38... Yes 39... Yes 40... No 41... No 42... Yes 43... No 44.

On the referendums, it was... Yes E... No F... Yes G... Yes H... No I... No J... Yes K.

More detail on my reasons for the ballot issues appeared in this September column. My case for Bob Beauprez in the governor's race appears here.

So for Bob and the other candidates, it was a straight Republican ticket, and with disappointment that we don't have party ID for city councils, school boards, RTD board, and yes even judges, in place of the current, dysfunctional nonpartisan system.

Speaking of judges, I cast a polite, impersonal no vote on retaining any and all of them. Some are conservative, some liberal, and no doubt most are honorable individuals doing their best. But that's not the point.

I simply believe the whole judicial system needs a wakeup call from we the people as to our discontent with its imperial tendencies, and a substantial vote tally in the "do not retain" column is one way to start sending that message.

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?