Let county commissioners entrench?

Should voters allow the five well-paid individuals who govern one of Colorado's biggest counties, Arapahoe, to settle in for 12-year stretches instead of the current 8-year maximum provided by law? That's the question on county ballots that my family and our half-million neighbors will soon receive in the mail. Commissioner Rod Bockenfeld says no to the idea, as do I. Here is Bockenfeld's argument: Recently the Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners approved an initiative to be placed on this year’s election ballot which will be mailed by mid October. The initiative will be requesting voters to expand terms limit for County Commissioners from two four-year terms to three four-year terms. The Board was split on this vote. Commissioner Pat Noonan of Aurora and I were opposed to the initiative. A couple of Commissioners had the desire to place this initiative on the ballot - it was not the taxpayers demanding change. The cost to the taxpayers of Arapahoe County to place this initiative on the ballot will be anywhere from $90,000 to $130,000. Is this a good use of taxpayer dollars?

Several years ago, the voters of Arapahoe County did approve expanded terms for the other county elected officials such as the Sheriff, Coroner, Clerk & Recorder, Treasurer and Assessor. Expanded terms for these offices can be justified due to the technical nature of the positions. The Board of County Commissioners at that time did not include the Office of Commissioner because they felt that it would appear to be self serving. Now, a majority on the current Board of County Commissioners feels that because the other offices were given expanded terms they can justify this initiative by asking for equality. I disagree with their logic, it is still self serving.

I don’t believe the Citizens of Arapahoe County want career politicians representing them in Littleton. They want people who are going to take office, make a difference and then go back to their private lives. When I was elected, I knew I had one or two terms to make a difference. Term limits keep elected officials motivated to work hard and to create good government. That is the definition of public service. Career politicians get more and more influenced from special interest groups over time. One only has to pick up the newspaper and read about the goings on in Washington D.C. to understand this concept.

Lastly, the reason this initiative is being run in an off year election is because there is an expectation that there will be a low voter turnout. A low voter turnout on these types of ballot questions increases the odds of success. So, surprise them! When you receive your ballot in the mail, make sure you fill it out immediately and mail it back.

Let’s keep our elected officials as public servants and not career politicians. Let’s keep our elected officials accountable to the people. Let’s keep fresh blood and fresh ideas in the Commissioner’s Office. I’m asking you to please vote “NO” on expanded terms.

By Rod Bockenfeld Arapahoe County Commissioner District # 3 Email: rbockenfeld@co.arapahoe.co.us 303-795-4683

Limit the Judges targets 2008

All Colorado judges would be limited to three terms of four years each, beginning in 2010, under a constitutional amendment proposed by a citizens group hoping to qualify it by petition for the 2008 ballot. Limit the Judges, a campaign committee headed by former Senate President John Andrews, took the first step today toward getting its proposal approved by the Secretary of State so signature-gathering can begin.

Andrews led last year's unsuccessful campaign for Amendment 40, which would have placed a "ten years and out" limit on state Supreme Court justices and Appeals Court judges, including incumbents. He said the revised plan differs in applying uniformly to judges all levels, raising the limit to 12 years, and excluding incumbents.

"This approach could have won in 2006," Andrews said, "especially the provisions taking in district judges and avoiding retroactivity. We expect it will be a winner in 2008, building on more than half a million votes that we received from people who agree our courts lack accountability."

"Colorado still needs judicial reform, even though it was blocked last year by a campaign of distortion from self-interested lawyers and judges," he added. "Judges too often legislate from the bench, and we keep seeing examples of individuals with virtual lifetime appointments whose character is deficient."

Andrews noted that while judges in this state face periodic retention elections and aren't appointed for life, they enjoy a retention rate of over 99% under the current judicial performance review system, which he called "toothless."

He said his organization, Limit the Judges, is recruiting local leaders and beginning to fundraise toward a campaign goal of $2 million.

Truth serum for Gore's visit

Rushing the season on Halloween, former VP Al Gore brings his "Inconvenient Truth" fright night tour to Denver this evening. Props to the unnamed Denver Post writer who took the extra effort to balance yesterday's and today's stories on the event by citing the "Convenient Fiction" rebuttal film produced by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute. Here is the link for Hayward's thoughtful and carefully documented film.

While we're at it, here is a valuable booklet from the Heartland Institute, "Scientific Consensus on Global Warming."

And here is an excellent full-length treatment by Dennis Avery and Fred Singer, one of those books where the title says it all (or at least says volumes), "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years."

If you happen to attend tonight, watch out for those Arctic refugee hordes that have been reported migrating into Colorado -- polar bears, penguins, and the occasional Eskimo, all headed for the high cool up on St. Mary's Glacier by way of the 16th Street Mall.

[Cross-posted from the Gang of Four blog on PoliticsWest.com]

A closer look at the Jena affair

When a gang of “chip on their shoulders” black youth terrorize and beat white kids, it’s called an “expression of ethnic identity”. But if the white kids band together for protection, it’s called “racist white supremacy.” As shown by this Snopes.com fact check of the Jena affair, the assumed direct linkage of the noose incident and the beatings omits significant intervening events.

The biggest racists in this whole mess are Jesse Jackson and Rev Al Sharpton. The foundational outrage in all of this is the Progressive theological notion that “only the dominant group can be racist”, which is utter nonsense. Either we strive for Martin Luther King’s color blind society or we do not.

The reverse discrimination to “undo the years of discrimination” is fraudulent. And there is no mechanism to turn it off, no way to measure when enough is enough. It is conferring perks and privilege on the basis of skin color, which has fragmented our nation into warring racial and ethnic groups. Diversity is not our strength! It is a source of weakening, division, and conflict. But then, weakening America has always been the Progressive agenda.

Our forefathers realized that in order to build unity they had to leave religious denomination off the table. So must we now concerning race and ethnicity. We enjoy our rights and liberties on an individual basis, not on the basis of our race. We need to eliminate the 3 pages of racial group check boxes we find now on every government application.

The racist agitators such as Jackson and Sharpton need to be shamed, ostracized, put out of business, and recognized as the hypocrites they are.

As yet, no one's the One

"Nixon's the One," brags a faded 1968 campaign poster in the political museum that is my basement. Scoffers mocked the boast, but he turned out to be the one, vindicating my vote for him that year (the first I ever cast) and making possible my later service on his White House staff. Talking by chance today with two friends from that era, Raymond Price of New York and Clark Durant of Detroit, I got to comparing 2008 with 1968. That sense of logical inevitability, of the right fit between the man and the times, which Nixon's self-assured slogan ultimately put across to party faithful and voters at large, so far has not come close to settling upon any of this year's Republican hopefuls.

The widespread GOP preference for none of the above is what fueled the Fred Thompson boom -- now losing its boominess, it seems to me -- and what may still lure Newt Gingrich into the race. His American Solutions webcast starts today at 5pm MDT. It can be viewed online at AmericanSolutions.com, or on Channel 219 of the DISH Network and Channel 577 of Direct TV.

The conservative commentariat is talking up his flirtation with a candidacy in pieces like this one by Matt Lewis or this one by Cal Thomas. A little matter of $30 million in pledges now seems to be the fulcrum of decision for Newt.

Of course, inevitability is more often clear with hindsight. In fall 1967, Nixon's name was just one of a dozen being bandied in Republican circles. Others plausibly bidding to be "the One" included Reagan and Rockefeller (an eventual president and VP) as well as George Romney, Mitt's dad. Gingrich, historian that he is, must be heartened by remembering how much baggage Nixon was able to overcome -- high negatives and well-publicized defeats.

While nominations are settled earlier now than they were 40 years ago, September of the odd year is still not quite the 11th hour. Lots can still happen. In comparison with the Broncos watching time expire a couple of Sundays ago in Buffalo, or the Rockies left for dead earlier this month, it remains way-way early for all the Republican contenders, announced and unannounced.

[Cross-posted on PoliticsWest.com]