DU: No comment on anti-police event

"Cops lie: Don't trust cops!" was the theme for an hour-long training session for would-be protesters at the Democratic National Convention, held in Denver on April 14 by hard-left activist groups, according to a Denver Post story.   The event took place at the University of Denver law school, under arrangements made by individual DU students and with no official sponsorship by the university.  It included simulations of protesters being "bullied by... nightstick-bearing police officers," and outlined a plan for "hundreds of 'legal observers'... who bring video cameras to document any disruption." 

"I don't think it's helpful to portray the police in that light," said Denver city attorney David Fine. "Frankly, that's not the reality, so... it will give the participant a false sense of what their relationship will be like with police during the convention." 

After repeated calls to the DU office of news and public affairs this morning, I spoke with staffer David Brendsel, asking whether Chancellor Robert Coombs, Law School Dean Jose Juarez, or any other DU official wanted to go on the record as Fine had done, specifically dissociating the university from the event's unhelpful, unreal, and false portrayal of police ethics and methods. 

His answer: "We have no statement to make in response to that."  The studied pose of moral neutrality reminded me of those MSM news anchors (not to mention Barack Obama) who have made a point of not wearing American flag lapel pins in these wartime years.  Wouldn't want to take sides, you know.  Wouldn't want to compromise our objectivity. How pathetic. 

Yes or No on Centennial charter?

Nine weeks ahead of Centennial's home-rule election, opponents have begun to organize. Bold red "NOCC" flyers circulated at the Arapahoe Republican breakfast on April 9, and a rudimentary No on Centennial Charter website is up at www.nocc2008.com. Ron Phelps, a city council candidate last year, is one of the organizers. He was quoted in the Centennial Citizen last week as warning: "The more government grows, the more government seems to want to impose itself on all of us. A home-rule city would have the authority to reach into all our lives. That's not my paradigm of government."

To the contrary, said incumbent councilman Ron Weidmann in the same story: "The charter actually has more limits than leaving things as is." Well, let's see how the facts shake out in coming weeks. Which view is right? That's why they have election.

Interesting, though, Weidmann also asserted this: "It is important to understand those that opposed the city originally are those opposing the charter - no matter what it says."

That's not true in my own case. As a new state senator in January 1999, the first legislation I helped pass was a bill facilitating Centennial's petition and referendum for incorporation as a new city. I supported that successful vote the following September, and campaigned accordingly in my own reelection that November.

So shooting the messenger, which the councilman is clumsily attempting to do, won't work with this early pro-city guy. And I doubt it will work with many of those who are now expressing concerns similar to mine -- concerns not about having a city at all, but about whether the city's political maturity and leadership cadre are as yet ready for the additional powers that Phelps pointed to.

Slurs upon the motives of charter opponents, ala Weidmann, or inside power plays to marginalize the clerk and treasurer prior to declaring them unnecessary, as Linda Gawlik describes in the foregoing post, would seem to suggest they are not ready.

But the campaign leading up to election day, June 10, is just beginning. Let's hope the Yes or No debate can be conducted on the merits, not with such juvenile tactics as these.

Centennial needs checks & balances

The Mayor, the Treasurer and the City Clerk are the only officials elected city wide, to protect the interests of everyone. Do we really want to eliminate two out of three? Editor: So writes Linda Gawlik, the elected clerk of Centennial, and potentially the last person who will ever hold that post, if voters approve the city's proposed home rule charter in a June 10 election. She was replying to a story in the Centennial Citizen, March 27, entitled "The Case of the Missing Clerk and Treasurer." Here is her letter in full:

In your article, I found two quotes by Cathy Noon, chair of the Centennial charter commission that I would like to address. One quote stated, “The city clerk doesn’t run elections. The county clerk does that.”

I would like to clarify that the June 10, 2008 special election to vote on the proposed city charter is being handled by the Deputy City Clerk of Centennial, Brenda Castle, an employee of the city. Mayor Randy Pye named Castle the “Designated Election Official” in the fall of 2007. As I was not sworn in as City Clerk until January of this year, I do not know what precipitated that appointment. I do know that Arapahoe County Clerk Nancy Doty has had no input in the preparations for the city election. Doty was unable to handle a third election this year because her office is fully engaged with the August primaries and the November elections. I am sure Mayor Pye or City Attorney Robert Widner could clarify why Centennial’s proposed charter election could not be included in the August or November elections.

I would liked to have been more involved in the city’s upcoming election, but Castle told me it is a “one person” job right now, but she would be willing to name me as one of the three Election Judges she will be appointing. After giving this more thought, I believe I must recuse myself from the city’s election process because the proposed charter eliminates both the elected Treasurer and City Clerk positions. I believe these positions should be elected and therefore I have a vested interest in the outcome of the election, as does Castle.

The second quote from Noon was in reference to both the City Clerk and Treasurer positions. She stated, “No particular training is required for either job—…” I believe Noon has missed the point of having elected officials who report to the voters, not the Mayor, City Council or the City Manager.

I would like to point out that no elected official is required to submit a resume to run for political office. However, voters find out about all of their candidates through campaign literature, campaign speeches, the media, gatherings to “meet the candidates,” and word of mouth. The voters decide the person that they want to represent them for every office. The fact that the Mayor and previous members of the City council saw fit to eliminate any “real power” from these positions, as Noon pointed out, should highlight to the citizens of Centennial the need to continue to have elected officials who can remain independent of city control.

All elected officials represent the voters and should be respected and valued because they represent their constituents. The Mayor, the Treasurer and the City Clerk are the only officials elected city wide and they are expected to protect the interests of everyone in the city by being the eyes and ears of the voters. Do we really want to eliminate two out of three? Transparency is essential to good government if we want to regain the trust of the voters.

Cult of violence headed our way

"We need three things: one, guns; two, guns, and three, again and again, guns! Do you think we can defeat the Czar with bare hands? Never." In these words Joseph Stalin as a youthful radical once incited a crowd, according to Michael Weiss's review of the new biography, Young Stalin. (Weekly Standard, March 10, subscription required.)

Uncle Joe, as Franklin Roosevelt flippantly called the tyrant, apparently had a real-estate man's (location, location, location) instinct for emphasis through repetition. When he was Soviet dictator, his instructions for KGB interrogation of suspected traitors used the same triple rhythm: "Beat, beat, and once again, beat!"

If all this seems long ago and far away, consider how the glorification of violence and "direct action" lives on in the hoodlum swagger of Denver's own Re-create '68 group, the movement to disrupt this summer's Democratic National Convention.

Although a recent Rocky profile of their leader, Glenn Spagnuolo, has him claiming that any trouble will start with the police, not with his followers, that's hardly the import of his threat about "a very dangerous situation" ensuing from the group's failure to draw their desired protest site in a city-run lottery. Why evoke the Chicago riots of 1968, except with the cynical intent of provoking official backlash -- creating a powder keg and then blaming others when it ignites?

Michael Weiss likens the young Stalin to Zarqawi, the late Al Qaeda terrorist leader in Iraq. Not to say that Spagnuolo and his ilk are devoted to a global caliphate or to the imposition of Leninism by any means necessary -- but all were or are infected in varying degrees by the same bacillus of fanatical self-righteousness, cold hate, and political judo wherewith to use the regime's humane scruples against itself.

Our American system of free government, in Spagnuolo's words, "needs to be completely eliminated and replaced," and he believes (in the words of that Rocky profile) that "revolutionary politics are the best way" to accomplish that. Be careful, Glenn -- you are playing with fire.

And be careful, Denver -- it is but a short distance from those lofty generalities of Re-create '68 to the practical conclusions voiced by Uncle Joe: "Guns, guns, guns. Beat, beat, beat."

Hope springs eternal for GOP in 2010

(Denver Post, Apr. 6) Sports mementos line the Denver Athletic Club, old photos recalling bygone glories. It was a good setting for the Republican gathering of eagles on March 27, when presidential nominee John McCain swept into town with former rival Mitt Romney at his side. Many of us at the fundraiser had bygone glories on our mind. We were gauging not only the prospects for a White House victory in 2008, but also the personnel for a Colorado comeback by the GOP in 2010 after years in the wilderness. What I saw was a roomful of intriguing possibilities. At a press conference earlier, US Sen. Wayne Allard and the candidate running to succeed him, former Rep. Bob Schaffer, stood flanking McCain. Hopes for electing both are buoyed by Schaffer’s resilience in the polls against Democrat Mark Udall and by the Obama-Clinton bloodbath to McCain’s benefit.

Such a double win could build Republican momentum for 2010, when all state offices are up. Should my party lose one or both races, on the other hand, dominance by Democrats in the state and in Washington might whet voters’ appetite for divided government next time. Either way, we’ll have a shot at denying reelection to Gov. Bill Ritter and US Sen. Ken Salazar.

But who, the athletic club crowd wondered, might be our starting team for these contests? Take the governor’s race first. Ritter has shown weak leadership, accomplished little, and alienated business with his labor moves. He can be had. Allard, former Sen. Hank Brown, former Rep. Scott McInnis, former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, businessman Pete Coors, or state Senate stars like Mark Hillman and Josh Penry could all run.

Challenging Salazar may be tougher, but his chameleon voting record spells vulnerability. Former Gov. Bill Owens, his 65% popularity intact and marital troubles behind him, might grab the brass ring this time after passing in 2004. Done with Congress, battle-tested from the presidential primaries, Tom Tancredo admits a Senate run in ’10 appeals to him. Former Rep. Bob Beauprez may have the itch as well.

For wild cards in either race, think about Attorney General John Suthers, assistant Senate leader Nancy Spence, radio host Dan Caplis, Colorado Springs kingmaker Steve Schuck, Bruce Benson after a couple of years running CU, education reformers Alex Cranberg and Ed McVaney, or restaurateur John Elway. (Yes, No. 7 does fantasize about recreating the Drive with voters.)

Now consider the GOP depth chart for down-ballot contests. Democratic Reps. John Salazar out west and Ed Perlmutter in the suburbs aren’t endangered this year but could be in 2010. Likewise Lt. Gov. Barbara O’Brien, State Treasurer Cary Kennedy, and Ritter’s potential appointee at Secretary of State – if Mike Coffman succeeds Tancredo. Who might take them on?

For Congress, think Penry or state Rep. Ellen Roberts against Salazar, district attorney Carol Chambers (if she’d move a few miles north) or state Rep. Rob Witwer against Perlmutter. Statewide candidates might include the House minority leader, bulldog Mike May, and some of his fellow legislators such as Reps. Cory Gardner, David Balmer, and Amy Stephens, or Sens. Shawn Mitchell and Mike Kopp.

Republican bench strength is great overall. Three of the four vying for 6th congressional – Coffman, Sens. Ted Harvey and Steve Ward, and entrepreneur Wil Armstrong – will figure in future elections somewhere. The 5th congressional insurgents, Jeff Crank and Bentley Rayburn, likely losers against Rep. Doug Lamborn this summer, might resurface later. Even Mark Holtzman and Rick O’Donnell, who left Colorado after their 2006 defeats, could dramatically return like Foote and Forsberg.

Elephant Republicans taking the hustings against donkey Democrats: there’s a timeless beauty to it, like National League meeting American League on the diamond. After 2008 comes the 2009 off-season, then 2010 and a whole new ballgame. Hope springs eternal.