Polis’ Progressive Stances; Salazar Progressive on a Lot Less

After I heard two national, supposedly progressive, media shows try to take Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO-02) to task over his vote and press releases about H.R. 3200 in committee; after receiving e-mails from various groups encouraging me to tell Rep. Polis to stand up for “true” health care reform (what the heck is that, exactly?!), after I’ve seen cheap shot after cheap shot from national bloggers, I decided to push back in my very small way.  While the vote may not be the most defendable from a progressive standpoint (I’m actually having some difficulty fully understanding what the issue really is), I think the situation has gotten completely blown out of proportion.  I think there are plenty of other folks who say they’re Democrats but who have a much longer and much less impressive voting record on final bills.  So I’m writing this to try to put things into better perspective.

Polis voted against the bill in the Education and Labor Committee.  Okay, I get that.  He wrote a letter to Speaker Pelosi and included it on his website.  So at least he’s being up front and honest about his reasoning and is trying to engage the rest of us.  That reason may chafe at some folks, but there’s something positive to be said for his actions.

In contrast, Rep. John Salazar (D-CO-03) voted against the climate bill (which I’ve argued is a much more critical issue than health care) on the House floor, the final vote until a House/Senate compromise bill is put back before everybody.  Not only did Rep. Salazar vote to condemn Americans (actually the entire world) to multiple feet of sea level raise, Dust Bowl-drought conditions from Kansas to California and more extreme weather events, not only all of that, but after his vote, he snuck out of the House chamber so he wouldn’t be confronted by his leadership to change his vote before the time to do so closed.  He voted against his Party’s bill and was too cowardly to face them afterward.  Billions of people will be negatively affected if people like Rep. Salazar has his way.  Now I ask you: which case is worse?

Gov. Ritter ran on a platform that included health care reform at the state level.  After a year’s worth of state-wide hearings, he kicked the can up to Congress, saying it was too big a problem for Colorado to address alone.  How many Colorado-centric or nationwide blogs took Ritter to task for going back on his promise?  How many progressive national media shows even mentioned this travesty?  Let’s look at it a little differently: How many Coloradans have lost health insurance or died due to lack of care because the issue got kicked to the curb by Ritter?  Crickets from the national progressive media.

As I’ve said before, Rep. Polis has engaged the netroots and greater progressive infrastructure to a far larger degree than Rep. Salazar or Gov. Ritter (who is constantly on right-wing extremist talk-shows and not progressive talk-shows, by the way).  How many solidly progressive pieces of legislation has Rep. Polis not only voted for in his short time in the House, but co-sponsored, including H.R. 676 (single-payer, not just a public option) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to name just two?

A lot of unfounded condemnation has centered around Rep. Polis “voting for the rich, people just like himself”.  Well, let’s examine another voting record from that standpoint, shall we?  Rep. Salazar: voted to extend the Bush tax cuts (in 2006), an awfully fiscally responsible vote, since the Bush tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves – talk about voting for the rich! and voted for tax breaks and incentives to oil and gas corporations (another fiscally responsible and pro-rich vote – look at Salazar rack them up!).  Where were the leading progressive blogs on those votes?  When did the progressive media shows call Rep. Salazar out?  Where were the issue groups’ condemnation of Rep. Salazar’s votes of bills that actually became law, which the health care bill hasn’t?  Oh – both those bills were the final House bills, not a committee bill that will soon be changed anyway.

On top of those two, Rep. Salazar voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (2009) (Polis voted for it, by the way – no kudos were issued by the hateful mobs); voted for the FISA amendment which gave retroactive immunity to telecoms’ illegal wiretapping of Americans without warrants (2007); voted to continue funding the Iraq occupation with no withdrawal date (2007), (that’s awfully fiscally responsible too, isn’t it?!); voted for the Military Commissions Act (2006); voted against a withdrawal timetable from the Iraq occupation (2006); ; voted for the undocumented worker clampdown bill with no path toward attaining legal status (2005); voted against the endangered species protection bill (2005); ; and voted for a Constitutional amendment making flag burning illegal (2005).

Get a freaking grip on reality, folks.  At this point, it’s obvious that Polis’ critics have some mysterious bone to pick with him.  This kind of day-after-day-after-day attack style is indicative of an obsession with the subject.  Rep. Salazar is by no means hurting for money.  He may not be as rich as Polis happens to be, but Polis has demonstrated stronger progressive values to this point than Salazar has.  This is all pretty revolting.

Anti-Jared Polis Piece Stinks

I read a dKos diary yesterday that left me disappointed in that community.  DavidNYC tried taking CO-02 Representative-elect Jard Polis to task for daring to publish an op-ed piece about business in the … gasp … Wall Street Journal.  The irony that a New York City blogger would attack a Westerner’s work based on a perceived “presumptuous”-ness is rich.  The fact that numerous Kossacks jumped on DavidNYC’s bandwagon in attacking Jared is a clear signal to me that the role of the site has indeed shifted over the years, as another SquareStater observed recently.

I read the WSJ piece the day it was published (Thursday, I think).  I thought it was both daring and humble.  In it, Jared proposed a number of steps he thought might be tried in order for the auto industry to emerge from its crisis.  But he also made sure to drive attention to the fact that members of this Congress, and those elected to the next Congress, likely didn’t know the best solutions in their attempt to ensure the Big 3′s survival.

DavidNYC took an approach that I hope not to see much more of: he simply cound’t believe a progressive from Colorado would have the audacity to question whether Congress had the experience to determine how the auto companies would be run.  And make no mistake about it – the bill the House and Senate voted on last week went much further towards dictating how business was to be conducted than the similar Bush-Wall St. Bailout passed earlier.  Looking at how Congress has approached regulating the auto industry in the past 20 years, I agree that they may not be the go-to group to decide how it should operate in the future.

Another facet of the diary irked me: more time was spent on questioning Jared’s “progressive credentials” and intelligence than was spent seriously addressing the proposals Jared wrote about.  First of all, I don’t know who DavidNYC thinks he is deciding who is progressive and who isn’t.  The same goes for the band-wagoners who decided to take the same approach in the comments section.  Either we’re a big tent or we’re not.  Second of all, if DavidNYC thinks his experience and ideas are so much more superior than anyone else’s, I recommend he run for the U.S. House also.  It’s easy to throw things from the sidelines.  It’s much harder to get directly involved with the legislative process and be responsible to constituents.  Jared had good reason to choose the WSJ for his op-ed.  He reached a much different audience that he would have had he posted a diary at dKos or HuffPo or SquareState.  Further, the voters of CO-02 had every opportunity to examine the kind of legislator Jared would be and approved of him, for better or worse.  Jared never claimed to be a perfect politician or the ultimate progressive.

When a dKos front-pager first writes about a person, they usually couch their language in polite and respectful tones.  The method of call-out seen in this diary is usually reserved for people who have a demonstrated history of being on the “wrong” side of numerous issues.  Has DavidNYC front-paged diaries about John or Ken Salazar, two elected officials from Colorado with a history of voting against human and progressive interests?  I don’t claim to know for sure one way or the other.  But it’s a question that is relevant to the treatment Jared received.  DavidNYC made little effort to directly engage Jared, despite the large number of ways to do so.  Quite frankly, I expect much more out of one of the premier liberal blogosphere sites.  Valid criticism of Jared’s piece was available to make – I am not advocating for a further devolution to an echo chamber.  But too many people took the opportunity to make personal attacks against a just-elected Representative.  The bias against a different viewpoint presented by someone from the Western U.S. was disturbing.  It was why I stopped reading diaries about Presidential candidates early this year.  It will make me hesitate to read future diaries about Western politicians, espeically by DavidNYC.  Okay, this rant is done.

Election Day Results

[Update 11:50p]: Likely my last update tonight.  I have another all-day meeting tomorrow that will be brutal to sit through if I stay up any longer.  I’m watching a couple of numbers: IN, OH, VA, NC, FL Presidential numbers.  The vote differential in these states (O-M) at this time stand at: 23,000 (IN), 160,000 (OH w/ 83% precincts reporting), 121,000 (VA), 12,000 (NC), 200,000 (FL).  If these differentials don’t change, that’s an additional 25 electoral votes (IN & NC); OH, VA, FL have been called already.  But these are small vote differentials.  The fact that these five states have likely voted for Obama is amazing.  A whole lot of blue has been painted over the country tonight.

[Update 11:30P]:

A clear trend has emerged: Coloradans don’t want to amend their Constitution.
A46: 50%-49% (N-Y)
A47: 55%-44% (N-Y)
A48: 73%-26% (N-Y)
A49: 60%-39% (N-Y)
A50: 58%-41% (N-Y)
A51: 62%-37% (N-Y)
A52: 63%-36% (N-Y)
A54: 48%-51% (N-Y) the only one so far
A58: 57%-42% (N-Y)
A59: 55%-44% (N-Y)

[Update 11:15P]: The b.s. spin by Cons has begun on CNN.  This election did not bring in a new set of conservative Democrats to Congress.  It brought in a set of Democrats that are proud of being Democrats; proud of being liberal.  America is a more liberal country than it is a conservative country.  The corporate media has, unfortunately, spun a very different story to the American people for too long.  Americans want solutions to the climate crisis, the occupation of Iraq, the economic crisis, the health care crisis, etc.  Americans tonight quite clearly rejected the failed Con policies of the past 30 years.  They want to move in a very different direction.  That means that Obama doesn’t need to cater to the right-wing extremists that have taken over the Republican party.  He should interact honestly with moderate and liberal Republicans, because they more accurately represent more Americans.  The pundits will try their darndest to move Obama to the right over the next four years.  It is up to the 3 million+ donors to Obama’s campaign and his 55 million voters (so far) to ensure he stays true to what he ran on during this election.

[Update 10:45P]: President-elect Obama had another outstanding speech.  America did not vote for fear or anger this year.  America voted for opportunity and equality.  I didn’t keep good track of the state-by-state electoral vote calculations, but Obama has 338 to McCain’s 156 right now.  Again, Obama has garnered more electoral college votes than Bush did the past two elections.  Obama has also taken the lead in Indiana, which has 11 electoral college votes as well as North Carolina, which has 15 electoral college votes.  Obama is behind in Missouri currently, which also has 11 electoral votes.  I don’t expect final results from Missouri for quite some time – tomorrow at the earliest.  They have some repressive voting rules, unfortunately.  Obama currently leads in Montana, which only has 3 votes, but would represent a major political coup if he can win there.

Senator-elect Udall’s lead is 53%-43%.
Polis’ lead is 60%-36%.
Markey’s lead is 56%-43%.  Post calls it for Markey.

Republican’s ceilings in Colorado seems to be 43-45%.

Unfortunately, Amendment 58 didn’t get passed.  If it passed, oil and gas corporations would have paid the taxes they owe to the state, instead of using a loophole to avoid doing so.

[Update 9:00P]: CNN just called the race for Obama nationally.  I cannot believe what I’m hearing.  I’ve waited 8 long years to see a Democratic President elected.  I hope this result holds.  CNN has projected 297 electoral votes for Obama, 139 for McCain.  Those 297 are more than Bush received in 2004 or 2000.  Let’s start talking about mandates, shall we?

[Update 8:25P]: Obama is up in Colorado 55%-42% with 16% of precincts reporting.  Mark Udall is up by a similar margin: 55%-40%.

[Update 7:45P]: Dropping down into Colorado, Mark Udall is performing well in early returns versus Bob Schaffer: Udall is up 50%-39% with 8% of precincts reporting.  Betsy Markey is ahead of Marilyn Musgrave 61%-39% with 31% of precincts reporting for CO-04.  So far, it’s about 93,989 votes to 61,041 votes. In CO-02, a race I worked on this year, Democrat Jared Polis is leading his wing-nut Republican opponent 67%-30% with 9% of precincts reporting.  So far, the vote totals are 36,554-16,117.  Jared is going to make an awesome Representative.

CNN has called LA and KS for McCain.  No surprises.  Still no path toward success with PA and OH being called for Obama.

[Update 7:15P MST]: A number of states have been called.  I’ve been tooling around on interactive sites so far tonight while watching CNN, which is doing a pretty good job overall.  A couple of early calls, in my opinion, which I’ll get into later.  I’ll start with states called for each candidate.  Obama has: ME, NH, VT, RI, CT, MA, NJ, MD, DE, NY, NJ, IL and PA.  I can’t believe they’ve called PA already.  I expect Obama to win it eventually, but I’d like more actual votes to come in.  Oh well.  McCain has: SC, KY, TN, OK.  That’s it.

Obama has had some additional states called: MI, WI, MN, and DC.  No surprises there.  McCain got some more also: AL, AK, and WY.  Right now, Obama’s electoral vote lead is 175-52.  Obama needs 95 more votes.

CNN gave McCain ND.  I wouldn’t have done that.  Obama was polling very well in ND for a Democrat, coming up with right around 50% of the vote in a traditionally deep-red state.  It’s not going to make much difference in the electoral collage, but it’s a big swath of red that could change blue.  We won’t know until all the votes are counted.

—–

I’ll update this as the afternoon shifts to evening.  Polls likely just closed in portions of IN & KY.  A number of states’ polls could close within the hour.  I haven’t yet heard of any news reports of polls being ordered to stay open later.  I’m also not aware of any long lines in the eastern states.  If you haven’t voted yet, get out there and get it done!  Nothing is set in stone until you make your own voice heard.  I voted early.

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 in Boulder Weekly

Boulder Weekly’s cover story this past week was Jared Polis, who is running to represent Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District. This is a well-written, in-depth article that moves way past the distractions his opponents are generating. It examines his approach to life and politics, as well as his extensive policy approaches and proposals.

Jared’s ability to think outside the box and find creative solutions to problems is only one factor that made my decision to support his candidacy easy. Those attributes receive attention in the article, which was nice to see.

Two major planks of Jared’s policy proposals are education and the Iraq occupation.

On the education front, Polis founded the Jared Polis Foundation, a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit that focuses on educational initiatives (at the age of 25!). He was elected to the State Board of Education in the same year (2000). In 2004, he was elected Chairman of the State Board of Education. Two important facts surround that feat: he was only 29 when elected and he was the first Democrat elected to the position in 30 years. Jared’s accomplishments in the education arena continue beyond these and are detailed in the article.

With respect to the Iraq occupation, Jared Polis has been a strong progressive and unapologetic voice in its opposition. By the way, the article continues to write about the “Iraq war”, which I believe to be based on a false premise. Congress never voted to declare war against the country of Iraq. Our invasion and subsequent occupation was never approved by the United Nations (if you don’t think that matters, consider that the Bush administration has cited lack of U.N. approval to intervene in other situations. They’ve had it both ways and that’s morally wrong.) But back to Jared’s views on Iraq [emphasis mine]:

On the Iraq war, for example, he’s calling not only for an end to war and the beginnings of true diplomacy, but also for a ban on the use of privatized militias in warfare and accountability for contractors who may have abused taxpayer trust during the war by failing to deliver on their contracts or by overcharging for their goods and services. He also supports an end to U.S. attempts to control the oil in Iraq or to use Iraq and its people to manipulate events in the Middle East.

I certainly haven’t heard a peep from the other two candidates in this race about the use of mercenaries. Those mercs are used outside of U.S. laws and policies by the way. So any actions that would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for example, go completely unaccounted for. I wonder how much trust and love of the U.S. that causes. Those same mercenaries typically make significantly more money than our military forces do for the same jobs. That’s the Republican interpretation of “supporting the troops”. The last point is highly relevant. It was recently reported that the largest oil corporations were close to signing no-bid agreements to operate Iraqi oil fields. Those same corporations were prevented from doing so when Saddam Hussein came to power. Interesting coincidence, don’t you think?

Go take a gander at the article. I am highly encouraged that CO-02 will be represented by a non-establishment, progressive voice. If you live in the district, vote for Jared Polis on Aug. 12th!

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.