CO-02 Candidates & Climate Change

Last week, CO-02 Republican candidate Scott Starin told the Colorado Independent that humans weren’t forcing the climate system.  Jared Polis, the Democratic candidate in the race, justifiably took Starin to task over his comments.  The issue has now been covered by the Boulder Daily Camera.  Interestingly, Starin backtracked from his comments when talking with the Camera:

Starin, 47, said he may have overstated his views to the Independent, saying Tuesday he simply doesn’t know for sure what the relationship is between the burning of fossil fuels and rising temperatures around the world.

Then, Starin threw out a tired right-wing attack, calling Polis “arrogant”.  There are many difference between the Polis-Starin race and the Obama-McCain race, but calling the Democrat arrogant (or elite) isn’t one of them.  Voters are tired of the silly personal attacks.  The rabid right-wing base laps it up, but personal attacks don’t translate to good governing once in office.

What Jared is doing, and what more politicians should do, is he’s basing his approach to climate change on the actual research done on the subject.  That research has pointed in one direction for over 30 years now: the climate is being forced by anthropogenic activities.  The big problem is the climate is responding on a time-scale that is unprecedented in history.  There are cases in which greenhouse gas concentrations likely rose to similar concentration values, but the time span it took to do so are much, much longer than what we’re witnessing today.

The case is quite simple: global climate models that do not take into account rising GHG concentrations do not reproduce today’s climate – those climates are significantly cooler.  Global climate models that do take into account GHG concentrations more accurately reproduce today’s climate.  I say more accurately because the models used to produce the 2007 IPCC Report actually underestimate the effects on the climate – they show cooler Northern Hemispheric temperatures than what we’ve witnessed the past two years.  Model solutions diverged from the actual climate in the opposite way that climate change deniers like Scott Starin and other ideologically pure conservatives say they do.

An additional important difference between Starin and Polis is their preferred method of producing energy in the 21st century.  Jared Polis wants to bring renewable energy technologies to market so they can produce a larger proportion of our energy portfolio.  He wants to burn fewer fossil fuels, recognizing their harmful impact on both the environment and our security.  Jared has a ‘can do’ attitude.  Starin is exactly the opposite.  He wants to wait for the magical moment when renewable technologies are mature enough that they can produce all of our energy, at which time he might advocate for their deployment.  He wants to keep burning fossil fuels, which would continue to wreck havoc on the climate system and threaten our security.  Scott has a ‘can’t do’ attitude, like many other conservatives.

Oh, the comments after the Camera article are comedic.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

CO-02 Primary Day 8/12/08

The big day is here. After over a year of campaigning, organizing support for and through the caucuses and county primaries, and sending multiple pieces of mail and putting out radio, TV, and web spots, the primary for Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District is here. I’ll have running updates throughout the night with commentary as well.

As of 7:20P, Polis is up by 3 points. This is from early voting returns, which finished last Friday. I’ll provide links as I catch them. Here are the early return numbers:

Polis 5,897

Fitz-Gerald 5,555

Shafroth 2,990

457 precincts have to report in now.

***

As of 7:40P, with 13 precincts (3%) reporting, Jared is maintaining his very narrow lead, up to 569 votes:

Polis 8,598

Fitz-Gerald 8,029

Shafroth 3,655

***

As of 8:30P, with 29 precincts (6%) reporting, the lead narrows slightly:

Polis 9,183

Fitz-Gerald 8,726

Shafroth 3,974

***

Results continue to come in slowly. As of 9:00P, with 68 precincts (15%) reporting, Polis’ vote lead has increased:

Jared Polis	14,676	43.2%
Joan Fitz-Gerald	13,290	39.1%
Will Shafroth	5,991	17.6%

***
We’re up to 21% reporting (95 precincts) as of 9:50P. Jared’s lead is slimmed down somewhat, but news is he has carried Adams County. Joan Fitz-Gerald currently represents some of Jefferson County, so I’ll keep an eye open for those.

Jared Polis	15,366	43.0%
Joan Fitz-Gerald	14,052	39.3%
Will Shafroth	6,355	17.8%

***
As of 10:20P, Joan Fitz-Gerald conceded the race to Jared Polis. There is still only 27% of the ballots officially counted, so I’m not sure what Joan is aware of at this time. I would think this race still has a while to go, but I certainly hope the result remains.

***

CO-02 results continue to slowly come in. Jared Polis is still in the lead, by 1,300 votes, or about 3.6%.

Jared Polis	16,047	42.8%
Joan Fitz-Gerald	14,706	39.2%
Will Shafroth	6,778	18.1%

***
Update 8/13/08:

Jared hung on to win the primary. With 452 out of 457 precincts (97%) reporting, here is the state of the race:

Jared Polis	19,942	41.7%
Joan Fitz-Gerald	18,181	38.0%
Will Shafroth	9,708	20.3%

Jared still faces a Republican and a Green candidate in November’s election. I’ll cover the differences between the candidates in some future posts.
***
Other Congressional districts also had primaries yesterday.  The ethically challenged Republican Secretary of State Mike Coffman won his primary for the 6th Congressional District in a bid to replace the extremist Tom Tancredo.  Doug Lamborn survived a primary challenge to retain his seat in the 5th Congressional District.

A large number of state Senate and House seats also had primaries yesterday.  You can see their results here.  The odious Douglas Bruce is on that list.  After embarrassing himself during the 2008 legislative session, Colorado Springs residents decided not to send him back.  Rollie Heath beat Cindy Carlisle to represent the 18th Senate District.

Colorado Daily Asking CO-02 Candidates Questions: Afghanistan

The Colorado Daily has been asking the candidates of CO-02 about leading issues. I previously shared my thoughts on their responses to the Daily’s health care question. This time, the topic was Afghanistan. Note: this originally ran about one month ago. I became aware of this series only last week. Here is the original Daily webpage introduction. Here is their question:

Should the U.S. still be in Afghanistan, and why or why not? If so, what would some of your objectives for a successful mission be?

Jared Polis‘s answer was pretty good. He shared a 9/11 anecdote, questions why bin Laden remains free, discusses troop realignment as it relates to the number of troops in Iraq, and identifies drug production as one aspect of the Afghani reality that has unfolded. Jared also speaks to the need to protect human rights and secure womens’ resources in order to bring about a more balanced Afghani society. Jared’s approach to the Afghani state of affairs revolves around stabilization. Without stabilizing the region, progress won’t happen.

Will Shafroth‘s answer was just as good as Jared’s. He starts by calling for a reanalysis of our goals to determine if we have the capability to achieve those goals. He identified the Afghanistan approach as being better than Iraq (identifying allies, etc.), and recognizes the importance of implementing diplomacy first in any foreign affair. He employs what I consider to be the correct language with respect to Iraq: invasion and occupation. We are not conducting a war there and the more people recognize that, the sooner we can disengage and stop occupying the Iraqi people’s country. Like Jared, Will identifies restoring stability as a worthy goal, and his definition of success would include no reestablishment of Al Qaeda in the region.

Joan Fitz-Gerald‘s answer was good, but I think it was somewhat weaker than the other candidates’.   She begins by pointing out the unfinished mission of finding Osama bin Laden and preventing Al Qaeda from regrouping.  She cites the troop number differential between Iraq and Afghanistan, then shares an anecdote regarding women and sub-par civil projects the US constructed.  She identifies the importance of Pakistan (neither Jared nor Will did so).  I’m with her up to this point in her response.  It’s after this portion that I part ways.  Her solution would include finishing the military mission.  With respect to both bin Laden and Al Qaeda, I don’t think the mission is exclusively military.  The mission should include apprehension of suspected terrorists and letting established justice systems deal with them, if necessary.  Continuing to invade, kill and occupy foreign lands cannot be the de facto approach of our foreign policy.  Joan wants to know what the status of intelligence on bin Laden and Al Qaeda is, which I do agree with.  Then she brings up losing a PR war in addition to a military war.  In my opinion, Joan is utilizing immoral language to further policies.

Two days ago, I wrote about the right-wing extremist that shot up the church in Tennessee and identified violent language as an impediment to identifying and implementing policies that work for the American people.  There is no difference in my mind between the violent language that right-wing pundits use and the violent language that Democrats use.  Violent language is violent language, regardless of who uses it.  I think saying, “losing a PR war” is a horrible frame from which to operate.  It doesn’t exemplify progressive values of opportunity and equality in discussing Afghani policy.  The word “war” has been overused to an extreme degree.  Are there troops from separate nations lining up fighting with film and pens?  Of course not.

All three candidates sound like they’re fairly close on the Afghanistan issue.  I think their effectiveness in Congress in developing and implementing an updated policy is highly dependent on how they approach the issue.  Jared and Will are closer to matching my approach.

Colorado Daily Asking CO-02 Candidates Questions: Health Care

Up until today, I was unaware the Colorado Daily was engaging the candidates in CO-02 (to replace Rep. Mark Udall) leading questions of our time. There have been a few already and another today. I’m going to take a look at today’s article and then cover the others in posts in the near future. Today’s question dealt with health care:

What do you think the federal government should do about health care in the near term, and why?

Jared Polis’s answer was good overall, though a little wonky. Perhaps that will work in the high-tech area of CO-02. He identifies the problem as:

The problem is we don’t get a bang for our buck – we pay more and get less.

Then talks about his solution:

This is why I support Healthcare for all, a publicly funded, privately delivered health-care system that extends similar coverage as the Medicare program to all Americans of all ages, regardless of their employment, income, health status, pre-existing condition, or any other factor.

This is a very good solution. Medicare is the most successful public program in the history of our country. It delivers care (gasp!) to those it covers and has the lowest level of administrative cost than any other health care program, public or private. He points out that citizens will pay less for their care, and that businesses will also encounter significant savings too. The only losers? Bloated insurance corporations and their overpaid executives. After all, health care is a right, not a privilege.

Jared Polis Nears Act Blue Goal – Help Out Today!

Jared Polis has 85 supporters on his Act Blue 1of100 page. His goal is 100 contributors by midnight tonight. Head over there and donate whatever you can. Jared will be a solid progressive voice in a Congress that desperately needs it. He’s strong on education, has a policy proposal on the Iraq occupation, and supports a new path for renewable energy development.

*****

Update: Jared’s original goal of 100 has been reached! A new goal of 135 supporters has been issued. Go lend a hand, regardless of size!

Random News Pieces 6/27/08

Sen. Salazar (D-CO) offered a decent turn around on renewable energy regulation. It comes after Sen. Allard (R-CO) and other Republicans unveiled part of their proposal to increase production of domestic energy, including oil shale development. One of Sen. Allard’s talking points is the lack of a regulatory structure is holding back development and somehow hurting our energy portfolio. Sen. Salazar wants to maintain the moratorium on lease development. Citing the need for renewable energy development, Salazar pointed out that renewables also face an uncertain regulatory environment. What’s good for the goose…. A small framing victory. I wish Dems would apply it to more issues.

***

All three candidates running for the CO-02 seat (Jared Polis, Will Shafroth, and Joan Fitz-Gerald) said they disagreed with Rep. Udall’s vote on the FISA bill, which is a good thing. I disagree with the premise on which Rep. udall’s statement is based: there is currently no impediment to collecting intelligence on potential activities by “terrorists”. There is a current version of FISA in effect and it has done its job since its inception. Giving the Bush administration more than they wanted isn’t being an opposition party.

A Look at Telecom Donations to Democrats

When I think something is shady or unethical about the way in which a Democrat votes, I don’t hesitate to call it as I see it. The House’s approval of retroactive immunity for telecommunication corporations last week is a prime example. I have zero love for corporatist Democrats. My interests (and yours) aren’t taken seriously when companies like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint can spend millions of dollars to ensure they get their way.

MapLight.org examines how two votes this year produced Democrats that voted against immunity before they voted for it. Not surprisingly, a large number of Democrats that switched their votes also received money from the afore-mentioned corporations.

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)

88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008).

Click on the link above to see the list of these 94 Dems.

Of note to Coloradans:

John Salazar (CO-03): $6,000

Ed Perlmutter (CO-07): $1,000

Mark Udall (CO-02): $0

Here’s the way I read this: John Salazar is a Corporatist Democrat. He’s willing to vote based on pressure applied from big-money interests (note: you and I don’t make that list). I don’t think Ed Perlmutter is a Corporatist Democrat, but I’m not sure how else to describe him. Why would he vote to grant retroactive immunity to corporations that knowingly broke federal wiretapping laws? Especially with Qwest’s presence in the state: they didn’t hand control over to the Bushies. Why should the other telecoms get off scott free?

Mark Udall is running hard for the center of the political spectrum and it’s disgusting, quite frankly. Republican politicians will stab his “bipartisanship” in the back the first chance they get (see Sen. Ken Salazar’s ridiculous contortions for proof). I don’t think Republican voters want immunity that much more than Democrats do, which is to say not at all. I would be very interested in seeing any kind of quantitative rationale for switching his vote. Does his campaign think it will secure Undeclared or Republican votes this November? He might need them if he continues to stick it to his base.

Here’s what it means to Democrats at the national level: folks like Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi need to be replaced with better Democrats. This capitulation based on campaign donations is sickening.

More Polling: Udall leads Schaffer

Two good poll results in Colorado. Betsy Markey is doing well versus Marilyn Musgrave. A just released poll found that support for Mark Udall is widening over his opponent, the ethically challenged Bob Schaffer.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey [done on May 19th] shows Udall attracting 47% of the vote while Schaffer earns 41%. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Udall is now viewed favorably by 50% of the state’s voters, up two points from a month ago. For Schaffer the numbers are heading in the opposite direction. The Republican candidate is now viewed favorably by 44%, down three from a month ago and down nine points from two months ago.

A nine point drop in favorability for Schaffer in two months. Not standing up for human rights and getting more done for the Ukraine than for CO-04 must not be sitting well with Colorado voters. There are other factors too. Things like voters want someone who will go to work to get things done. A lot of what Schaffer’s campaign has done publicly has been to call Mark Udall names and blame everybody else for Schaffer’s ethical lapses.

I know this lesson will not be apparent to Republicans until after this election, and maybe not even then, but I’ll throw it out there anyway. Voters are ignoring the right-wing’s tired talking points. They want results and Republicans haven’t produced at any level in a long time. Voters don’t want business as usual, they want things to change. And Bob Schaffer can’t provide that. The question is how much money will Republicans waste trying to keep this seat?

Mark Udall will win this November.

EMILY’s List in CO-02

There’s an interesting post at Open Left discussing EMILY’s List’s efforts to help get Joan Fitz-Gerald nominated as the Democratic candidate for Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District. The 2nd is a safe Dem seat. Ideally, there shouldn’t be any messaging that Jared Polis, one of Joan’s competitors for the seat, is anything short of a solid Democratic vote. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

EMILY’s List didn’t have a good rate of success in getting Democrats elected in 2006, a year in which there was a Democratic wave across the country. 11% in House races two years ago is ridiculous, especially when the group takes donations and spends them in support of candidates. As such, it appears that some donors are starting to wonder if EMILY’s List is worthy of their money.

I’m a Polis supporter, so my thoughts are this: if EMILY’s List is lying about Joan’s opponent, donors should make their funds directly available to the candidate they feel exemplifies their interests. If that’s Joan, fine. If it’s not, that’s the way it goes. I have chosen this election cycle to donate directly to campaigns, due somewhat to situations like this around the country.