This is Insightful

Today's Rocky Mountain News contains thumbnail-type profiles of the two candidates for Senate. In sum: Coors has money, Salazar is Hispanic.

Okay, it was a little more than that, but. . . well, read for yourself.

Money, as well as more than a passing familiarity with matters political, got Pete Coors into the race. He and his family have made significant financial contributions to Republican candidates and conservative causes.

In an era when the Hispanic population is exploding - standing at 18 percent statewide in the 2000 Census - and both parties are courting the minority vote, Salazar boasts an impressive pedigree. His ancestors settled the city of Santa Fe. His family has farmed Colorado's San Luis Valley for five generations. He still speaks Spanish with his 82-year-old mother.

Pretty pointless--as if anyone in Colorado didn't know this about these two. Or, for that matter, anywhere in the country. If this is the coverage we can expect from this race, wake me up on Holloween.

cross-posted at Best Destiny

Coors and the Pollution of truth.

Well this didn't take very long. As soon as Pete Coors won the Republican primary the attacks started. Coors company is the worst polluter in the state. Land, water and air. The uncaring SOB.

Of course this is Boulder but it is wise to pay attention to the shouting because it is usually a good preview of the attacks that the opposition will use during the campaign.

Over the course of the next couple of days I'll try to review the actual record.

The Coors company could not possibly be the worst polluter in a state that has the Summitville mine.





This is a superfund site. Take a look at the EPA report on it. The state of Colorado is exposed to more toxic pollution -- land,air,water -- in an afternoon here than from the Coors Brewery in a lifetime.

This is the Coors Brewery plant in Golden.



Has the Coors Brewery had some problems and been fined by the EPA? Sure. The most recent one I could find was this.

Coors Brewing Co. will spend more than $500,000 to make amends for a beer spill in 2000 that the state says killed more than 50,000 fish in Clear Creek.

An agreement between the company here and the Colorado Division of Wildlife calls for Coors to:

Construct and monitor a wetland of at least two acres to filter the brewery's wastewater before it flows into Clear Creek. The wetland should reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater effluent and provide wildlife habitat.

Purchase thousands of fish for stocking in metro-area waters. The number of fish, and the species, will be determined by Coors and state officials next year.

Provide funding for two graduate students to participate in studies related to the wetlands project.

The settlement is far below the $35-per-fish ceiling set by state law -- an amount that could have brought a $1.7 million fine. But it's rare for the agency to go to court for the maximum amount, Division of Wildlife spokesman Todd Malmsbury said.


Now as a serious fly fisherman, I'm very concerned about these kinds of things but the history of Coors Brewery is that of the model corporate citizen. Over the course of the last few years they have always been up front about their problems. This accident happened when a new operator mistakenly overloaded the water treatment plant.

But even when you try to do things correctly and go above and beyond what is required, sometimes there are problems.

One man's brewsky, of course, is another man's "volatile organic compound." VOC -- that's how Colorado environmental officials classify the evaporating ethanol given off by all that spilled beer. VOCs can be harmful in large amounts, but until 1993 breweries like Coors were thought to be minor-league emitters of these naturally occurring toxins.

But then Coors did something controversial, and increasingly popular among American companies: It tested itself. The company conducted a voluntary self-audit of its operations to see whether they complied with state environmental standards. It discovered that they didn't -- regulators had underestimated the brewery's VOC emissions by a factor of 17 -- and promptly reported its infraction to state environmental authorities.

As a reward for playing the good corporate citizen and turning itself in, Coors was slapped with a record $1-million fine by the Colorado Department of Health. (emphasis added) The company protested the fine, arguing that a million bucks was too much to pay for alerting the state to pollution that neither party had known was occurring. The state legislature and Democratic governor Roy Romer agreed, and in 1994 Colorado became the second state in the nation to pass a law to protect the results of self-audits from being used against companies that voluntarily disclose and correct their environmental infractions.

More soon.

The Ad Wars

In the last two days, I've seen two new ads from Ken Salazar. You know--blue jeans, a jeep, a cowboy hat. . . Average Joe rancher wants your vote so someone who fights for the little guy can represent you in the Senate.

Honestly, with the exception of the names, it could easily be the same ad that Pete Coors would run. Average Joe--not a career politician who can make the Senate work because I've made a business/AG Office run.

I'm wondering when the serious ads start. I think they've both staked credible claims to the native son/common man ground. Let's move on. Let's get serious about the issues.

I look forward to a Pete Coors ad that asks "Mr. Salazar, if elected to the Senate, how would you vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment? How would you vote on nominees for the federal bench who are rated as "highly qualified" by the ABA, though they might vote against your political philosophy? How would you vote on a judicial nominee who would act to strike the words "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? How would you vote on the renewal of the Patriot Act? Which parts would you change/amend/alter/attempt to strike?"

It's time--the iron will be hot for a few weeks here leading up to the Republican National Convention. Don't be goaded into lollygagging by the call for a "clean campaign" (you lollygag around the statehouse, you lollygag around the courtroom, you lollygag around the campaign trail. . . you know what that makes you?).

cross posted at BestDestiny

Ken Salazar - keeping America safe?

First up? Salazar’s position paper on homeland security, and the war on terror. From Keeping America Safe:

Statement:

The highest duty of any government is the protection and safety of its people. As Colorado's Attorney General, I am keenly aware of this solemn obligation. The security of our country and our citizens, at home and around the globe, is one of the most significant challenges for America. Unfortunately, although Washington talks about the war on terror, our homeland is not more secure.

Sounds reasonable, right? As the state’s highest-ranking law enforcement official, the Attorney General should be keenly aware of the importance of safeguarding our state against terrorist attack. The problem? With his final statement, Salazar has swept aside any credibility that his position had originally provided him. His statement that we are not more secure is indicative of a mindset that seems to suggest that if we’d only done this differently, everyone would have been happy with us - even the terrorists. While there’s nothing overtly specious about the statement in and of itself, it clearly neglects one massive factor in the equation: the fact that in the days following September 11th, 2001, there has not been a single major terrorist attack on the United States of America. In addition, the Taliban is gone, and the al-Qaeda network is in shambles, trying desperately to regroup from the blow dealt it by the United States and her allies. Try as they might, there is no way that the Democrats will find much success in giving their meme of an increasingly unsafe America any real traction in the absence of...well, an attack.

Statement:

Until recently, our enemies were hostile states, with governments that, however misguided, were nonetheless keen on their own self-preservation and ultimately hoped to avoid war with the United States. Today, however, our enemies include a constantly changing array of terrorists, weapons proliferators, organized crime affiliates, and shadowy individuals and organizations. Longstanding religious, ethnic, cultural or tribal conflicts and grudges form the basis for some of their hateful motivation. In the 21st century, our enemies are diverse, dynamic, unpredictable, and constantly evolving. Although there is no military power that can challenge America today or in the foreseeable future, these new enemies pose new challenges. They embrace conflict and do not care about self-preservation. Their goal is not to defeat our armed forces, but to defeat our spirit.

Yep. The Soviets. You remember them. You know... the "Misguided" Empire, right? Anyway, this, too, is standard "I understand terrorism" boilerplate that has, as is often the case of late, been liberated from its anchor of hard truth. The terrorist networks arrayed against the United States and her allies do not, as the Attorney General maintains, wish "to defeat our spirit" (except, perhaps, for the rarely seen al-Oprah segment of the terrorist community). This is straight from the "walk softly, and carry a small, carefully concealed stick (preferably a Nerf™ stick), to be used only in cases where Jacques Chirac gives the OK"-school of counterterrorism. As has been made abundantly clear by their own words, the Islamists wish to drive all Western influence from the Middle East (and Europe, and North America, etc.), establish a new caliphate, and, since they’re already in the area, stop by Israel and finish the little "project" that the Nazis began. Oh, and, since we’re aligned with those pesky Jews, we’re on the "people to kill" list, as well. They don’t want to make fun of us, to hurt our feelings, steal our Trapper-Keepers, or to cripple our self-esteem by leaving nasty notes in our lockers. They want to kill us – Democrat and Republican alike. In refusing to acknowledge this fact, Ken Salazar has ensured that there is simply no way to take the rest of what he says about terrorism seriously. If you don’t know the rules, how on earth can you hope to win the game?

Statement:

The extermination of international terrorism is our highest national priority.

We need to regather our friends and allies to this essential international goal, a goal we all share. Our foreign policy is most effective when we act as the leader of a broad coalition of nations. The free world was united in its revulsion of the September 11 terrorist attacks and in its commitment to wage war on terrorism. After September 11, the U.S. acted correctly in pursuing, with international support, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, that international unity dissolved with the invasion of Iraq. Although it was argued that the attack on Saddam Hussein was part of the war on terror, many of our closest allies doubted our intelligence and questioned the need for the invasion.

The President and his administration presented a case to Congress and the American people on the imminent danger presented by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, President Bush committed a grave mistake in how he pulled the trigger of war. That decision was based on faulty intelligence, a failure to develop the international coalitions needed to succeed, and an underestimation of the difficulty and costs of the war in Iraq.

Here’s where the sweater really starts to unravel.

Here are the figures for international (NATO’s ISAF group) involvement in Afghanistan:

NATO Member Nations
Belgium 293
Bulgaria 34
Canada 1576
Czech Republic 19
Denmark 57
Estonia 7
France 565
Germany 1909
Greece 127
Hungary 26
Iceland 17
Italy 491
Latvia 2
Lithuania 6
Luxemburg 9
Netherlands 153
Norway 147
Poland 22
Portugal 8
Romania 32
Slovakia 17
Slovenia 18
Spain 125
Turkey 161
United Kingdom 315

NATO Partner Nations
Albania 81
Austria 3
Azerbaijan 22
Croatia 22
Finland 47
Macedonia 48
Ireland 11
Sweden 19
Switzerland 4

Non-NATO / Non-EAPC nations
New Zealand 6
Afghanistan 81

Total 6472

Here, then, are the numbers for Iraq (Courtesy the CBC):

(figures include all specialties, combat and non-combat)
United Kingdom 9000
Italy 3000
Poland 2400
Ukraine 1600
Netherlands 1300
Japan 1100
Romania 849
Australia 800
South Korea 600
Bulgaria 480
Thailand 440
Denmark 420
El Salvador 360
Hungary 300
Norway 179
Mongolia 160
Azerbaijan 150
Portugal 125
Latvia 120
Lithuania 115
Slovakia 102
Czech Republic 80
Philippines 80
Albania 70
Georgia 70
New Zealand 60
Moldova 50
Macedonia 35
Estonia 30
Kazakhstan 30

Total 24105

Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq following the election of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on March 14. Honduras and the Dominican Republic quickly followed suit. The three countries combined had nearly 2,000 troops in Iraq. Nicaragua withdrew its 115 troops at the end of March 2004 for economic reasons.

Countries that provide non-military support include: Kuwait and Qatar, which have hosted the U.S. Central Command and the invasion force; Ethiopia and Eritrea, which have given use of bases or ports; and Turkey, which has given permission for airspace use. Others countries have opted to give political support: Angola, Costa Rica, Colombia, Iceland, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uganda and Uzbekistan.

In early April 2004, the Bush administration indicated it was negotiating with another 50 countries that had expressed interest in providing peacekeeping troops.

So, essentially, Salazar’s position seems to be similar to that of much of the hard Left: if an international alliance doesn’t include France or Germany, it’s not truly an international alliance.

The hard truth here is that immediately following September 11, the United States wasn’t beloved – it was pitied. Once we picked ourselves up, chambered a round, and took aim, the reflexive sympathy of Europe was gone. We were, after all, supposed to have been humbled...chastized by the acts of 9/11 – acts that we, of course, brought upon ourselves through our cultural insensitivity and rampant McDonalds-spreading. To have “lashed out” in the way we did automatically shredded the sympathy of much of the world. Here’s the thing, though. Nothing - save for our complete and total inaction in the face of this attack - would have provoked anything but anger among much of continental Europe’s population.

And for Iraq? Given the degree to which France, Germany, and Russia were directly involved with Iraq on a investment plane, there was nothing we could possibly have said or done to get them to support military action against the Hussein regime, though their own intelligence agencies believed that Hussein possessed large quantities of WMD – created largely with French and German equipment and materiel, by the way.

Salazar misspeaks in these paragraphs, as well. Our "allies" in France and Germany didn’t doubt the WMD intelligence, as he intimates. Rather, their intel agencies confirmed that Iraq had vast quantities of biological and chemical weapons. The only difference was that they didn’t care, as they each stood to lose tremendous amounts of money should the Hussein regime (and its contracts) be nullified.

I’d like to hear the Attorney General explain exactly how the President should have reacted given the intelligence information available to him. Was he supposed to know it was faulty, when every major intelligence organization in the world said the exact same thing as did ours? Ridiculous.


Statement:

The men and women of our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have served with bravery and professionalism, and we must do all we can to support these young men and women -- and their families at home -- as they fight to establish peace and stability in foreign lands.

Even though sovereignty has now been officially handed over to Iraq’s new leadership, the United States will likely remain there for the foreseeable future. As we work to bring greater stability to the region, we need to take a hard look at the lessons learned by acting without broad international support, and with intelligence that has proved to be faulty and misleading.

Ah, yes. Throw a bone to the troops, and then continue to gut the value of their mission. Here's a question that 've not yet seen asked of the Attorney General: Ken, is the world better or worse without Saddam Hussein in power? As to the question of "broad international support"? Again, US operations in Afghanistan are currently supported by around 6,500 troops from NATO member and partner nations – 37 of them, as a matter of fact. Operations in Iraq are supported by over 24,000 troops from 30 nations. So, if the right nations aren’t involved, we don’t have "broad international support," Ken? How else are we to take your disparagement of our allies in Iraq?


Statement:

We must also commit ourselves to fight terror without sacrificing the very freedoms we are fighting to protect. Many terrorists see our way of life and our personal freedoms as a direct challenge: We are democratic, they are autocratic; we value diversity, they demand religious, cultural or political uniformity; we look forward to a future of peace, they look back to a past of violence. If we sacrifice our freedoms and values in the name of war on terror, then we give the terrorists their first victory. By protecting the rights and liberties that define America, even as we fight terrorism, we demonstrate that our strength and justice flow from these American principles.

None of what we must do to meet the challenges of national defense and homeland security is easy or inexpensive. But failure to act aggressively and wisely will cost more in the long run, both in terms of human lives, and the impact on our economy, security, and freedom.

Ah, yes. Well, I know I’m getting tired of seeing John Ashcroft rifling through my garbage at night, but after awhile, you get used to the re-education camps and draconian public executions that were brought to bear by that accursed Patriot Act. 1984, man...1984.

Specifics, Ken. We need specifics. Platitudes are great. I mean, we all want both total security and total freedom, but how, pray tell, does one achieve this goal? In your nifty bullet points, you list support for the SAFE act as one of your key planks on national security. The Security And Freedom Ensured (SAFE) act of 2003 seeks to amend the Patriot Act by re-establishing a number of judicial "safeguards" and evidentiary standards that were removed by the original act. That’s all well and good, but can you then explain how returning to the status quo in terms of wiretaps, etc. (which is what this bill would do) will help to, in your words, "Keep America Safe"? I’m not seeing it.

There’s much more to this paper, but these are the highlights. Salazar has mastered the current Democratic techniques on terror-talk quite wonderfully. The strategies? Say a great deal without actually saying anything of substance. Attack, but provide no viable alternatives. Sound tough, while curling into a fetal position, and begging the French to forgive us and take us back. Truly winning strategies, all.

All of this and more can be yours with a simple vote to elect Ken Salazar as this state’s next Senator.


(Cross-posted at Exultate Justi)

Importance2

A vote for a candidate is a vote for his/her party.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

These two sayings represent two competing philosophies of voting strategy, with the first squaring with the notion that, whether or not you're crazy about a certain candidate, you are wise to vote for him/her if he/she belongs to the party that most closely aligns itself with your positions on major issues.

The second, unfortunately, seems to be the operating construct for many Colorado voters. Colorado is overwhelmingly Republican, with registered GOP voters holding a sizeable advantage over registered Dems. COlorado does, however, have an extremely large bloc of registered independents - throwing the ultimate calculus of the matter into chaos.

As per the second saying above, Colorado loves independence. It exalts the iconoclast. Where else but Colorado can you find a town like Boulder, where the publisher of Soldier of Fortune finds peaceful coexistence with any number of book clubs that, at any given moment, are likely reviewing I, Rigoberta Menchu - the tale of a Guatemalan lesbian marxist?

This political "bipolarism" extends to our state's voting patterns, where we consistently poll as conservatives, but seem to enjoy voting for Democrats who are willing to "stick it to the man" - including "the man" in his own party. Roy Romer successfully cultivated this image, and Attorney General Ken Salazar is moving rapidly to claim Romer's mantle as the state's favorite Democratic iconoclast.

Image and style aside, Salazar is, indeed, much like Roy Romer. As was the case with Roy Romer, Ken Salazar is a Daschle leftist in Sam Nunn's Blue Dog clothing. His campaign's own position papers - availble on the Salazar for Senate website - clearly spell out Salazar's leftward leanings, despite his best efforts to obfuscate. Both Jonathan and Guy have covered aspects of Salazar's position paper on national security, but I'd like to continue their analysis, and, over the next few days, go through each paper specifically - highlighting the differences between the impressions given, and the substantive ramifications inherent in his positions on issues ranging from abortion to the war on terror.

Colorado voters must be aware that, no matter how much Salazar declares his independence, a vote for the Colorado Democrat is a vote for continued (and increased) Democratic obstructionism in the Senate, and for the rolling back of our fight against Islamic terrorism.

First up: Salazar on "Keeping America Safe" - before noon (MST).


(Cross-posted at Exultate Justi)

Business Story On The Election Page? Not Quite

When I first read the story on page 18A of today's Rocky, I thought I was on the business pages. It was a story about a shift in brewing operations of the Coors Brewery to the eastern seaboard, which might cause the loss of up to 200 jobs from Jeffco, with qoutes from both the losing county, and the receiving one, in Virginia. That's when my ears perked up. A couple of sentences down I see this paragraph:

In Colorado, Arvada Mayor Ken Fellman said the loss to the region's economy doesn't jibe with the "job creator, tax cutter" slogan used by brewery scion Pete Coors in his campaign for the U.S. Senate.

O.K., I get it now. This is a negative news story about Pete Coors. This really should have been something for the business pages, but when the man is running for Senate, anything that happens with the business must be picked over with vulture like veracity. So be it.

The article wanders back into the realm of the business world with talks about tax breaks from the courting community and then hits you with this:

On Wednesday, the day after Pete Coors won the Republican Senate primary, Virginia Sen. George Allen campaigned with him along the Front Range. Allen heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee and frequently appears with GOP candidates in battleground states like Colorado. Watson said that Allen's appearance with Coors had been planned before the expansion in Virginia was announced.

I don't know about you, but when I read that, only one thing came to mind. The reporter really wants you to believe that Gov. Allen is here to campaign for Coors as his half of a "quid pro quo" for the brewery so generously giving it's business to the state of Virginia. The insinuation is sleazy, and not based in fact at all, but it makes a good story, at least, she thinks it does. The agenda of Gwen Florio is cemented home in the final two paragraphs:

Gibson said that the roughly 35 Coors employees who will lose their jobs are indirectly responsible for another 171 jobs in Jefferson County. The total loss in salaries and wages alone would be about $8.5 million over two years, he said.

Coors employs 5,400 workers in its U.S. breweries in Golden, Shenandoah and Memphis, Tenn. That's down from 6,900 workers in 1988, when Pete Coors became president of the company.
She's asking you to do the math. When he became president of the company, there were 6,900 employees and now there are only 5,400.

Gwen wants you to believe that Pete Coors single-handedly eliminated 1,500 jobs since 1988. Do you see some parallels with the reporting on the national economy and the "jobs lost" under President Bush? Can these people not think on their own? It's shameful. Hey Gwen, we're on to you, and it's not going to work.

Cross posted at MangledCat

Salazar and Healthcare

In the Friday, August 13th edition of the Denver Post, writer Mark Crouch takes a look at Ken Salazar and his stance on healthcare coverage issues.

Mr. Salazar states:

"Unfortunately, what has happened in Washington, D.C., under the gridlock we've seen in the past couple of years is that health care has been ignored," Salazar said.

Mr. Salazar, this is hardly gridlock:

* More than 4.1 million seniors are already using their cards to save money on their medicines. More than 100,000 beneficiaries are signing up every week. Studies conducted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Kaiser Family Foundation have shown that these cards are delivering real savings to Medicare beneficiaries.
* About one million low-income seniors have qualified for extra assistance. In addition to these savings, low-income seniors struggling with high drug costs are getting a $600 a year credit - a total of $1,200 through the end of 2005 - to help pay for prescriptions. And most major pharmaceutical companies have agreed to make their drugs available for nominal fees once a beneficiary has spent his or her entire subsidy.
* Signing up for the new cards is easy. While millions of seniors already are saving on their prescriptions, millions more are eligible. Beneficiaries can call 1-800-MEDICARE, visit www.medicare.gov , or call their state's Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) to sign up for real savings.


As a strong supporter of George W. Bush and Republican policies, Pete Coors is sure to focus on his fellow American's healthcare needs.

Offer companies with fewer than 50 employees a tax credit of up to 50 percent for buying health insurance. The cost - $67 billion over 10 years - would protect coverage for millions of Americans who already get insurance and add an estimated 2.5 million who currently don't have insurance.

Mr. Salazar, where is that $67 billion dollars going to come from? Uh...perhaps increased taxes for middle America?


Expand the Child Health Plan Plus program to 100,000 of the 165,000 Colorado children who don't get insurance, and 6 million of the 8.5 million American children. The cost: $25 billion over 10 years.

Mr. Salazar, with these two proposals, you have committed American taxpayers to an additional $92 billion dollars in spending.

Help offset those costs by lifting the ban on importing prescription drugs, which he projects would save $60 billion over 10 years. Better management and prevention of disease would save $100 billion over 10 years, he said.

Vague, nebulous solutions to a huge potential budget problem. All in all, Mr. Salazar, I'd have to say that your proposals offer nothing more than increased spending and more government regulation. Thanks, but no thanks.

Cross Post at Damascus Road

"They Say This Is Where The Reception Is The Coolest"

The last thing in the world that I expected today, was to be on the air less than 4 minutes after I called the show. I was like a little league baseball player who suddenly finds himself in a packed stadium facing Roger Clemons. What can I say, I stumbled out of the gate, then regrouped and finished the conversation. I was happy that I was able to get the name of the group blog out there, and even happier that Hugh promoted it.

So now that you're here, what will you find? All manner of things, frankly. There are eleven bloggers here who will be dedicating their time, energy, and laptop battery life to the cause of getting Pete Coors elected to the Senate. It's that simple. We are going to peruse the local and national rags for anything and everything that has to do with this race and serve it up for your enjoyment. We're not even going to bother asking whether or not you want fries with that, we're just going to give them to you for free. If you are at all interested in this race, this is where the reception is the coolest (for anyone who can tell me what movie that line came from, you'll get a special mention on these pages-ed.)

About 2 minutes after I ended that phone call, I made a startling discovery. Something was missing from my front yard. I'm going to mosey on down the lane of self appreciation for a moment and go so far as to say I have a great lawn. Mowing the yard is my out from everyday life. I look forward to that two or three hours a week when I can put on a freshly sharpened blade, gas up the mower line trimmer and start my therapy session. I fertilize my turf 5 times a year; go through the yard on hands and knees looking to terminate any broadleaf weed that dare attempt to germinate on my turf. I dig those suckers out with a glee that can only be described as manic, holding their limp carcasses over my head in triumph like a cave man who just bested a mastadon. I really do get almost a primal enjoyment out of lawn care, which is why I notice when something is out of place.

About 2 weeks ago, I volunteered down at the Coors Campaign Headquarters in Highlands Ranch, filling out post cards with unique hand-written messages from whoever happened to be there at the time. On my way out the door, I picked up my Coors for Senate yard sign, and it has held a place of honor on my front yard, standing proudly through rain, wind, and hail, like a beacon. It's the only such sign on my entire block, or should I say, was. Someone stole it. Try as I might to discern the footprints embedded on the blades of grass, I couldn't find the scoundrel. I can only hope that whoever took it really wanted it for their yard, but were just too afraid to go down to HQ and pick one up for themselves. I can hope for that, but that hope is a double-edged sword, because then there would be a bloody thief supporting my candidate, and that just could not be tolerated. No, I have to believe that it was a Salazar supporter, shamlessly removing the signs of his opponent in order to feel good about himself, helping out the cause.

In light of this recent development, would it be possible to get another one? Hey Coors people, give me a call.

Cross posted at MangledCat

Coors on Hewitt

Republican Senate Candidate Pete Coors talked with Hugh Hewitt this afternoon. What follows is a summary of their conversation.

5:07

HH: Pete Coors, you won a resounding victory over your opponent last Tuesday. The Denver Post poll predicted a narrow margin between you and Bob Schaffer. What was your margin of victory?

PC: The final margin was 61-39%. We had an extremely large voter turnout, which goes to show that Republicans in Colorado are serious about keeping this Senate seat in Republican hands.

HH: Where does your Democratic opponent [Ken Salazar] stand – what is his platform?

PC: He’s a litigator. He’s trying to make himself the champion of the average person in Colorado. Salazar told a Denver Post reporter today that I will outspend him 3-to-1, but that means I’ll have to spend $30 million. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

5:09

HH: Pete, what’s your platform?

PC: Lower taxes, a stronger national defense, better homeland security, and strong Republican values.

HH: Is your former Republican opponent behind you now that the primary is over?

PC: I spent a full day with Bob Schaffer yesterday. He was both eloquent and gracious. I have great respect for Bob. On numerous occasions yesterday Bob publicly stated that he is 100% behind keeping this Senate seat in the Republican column. We both agree that all Republicans need to unite to keep this seat. Bob told all of his supporters that “Pete is the best candidate to beat Ken Salazar.”

5:10

HH: Will you be debating Ken Salazar between now and the election?

PC: Yes. There will probably be 6-8 debates. We’re working out the schedule. I’m looking forward to meeting up and debating him on the issues which are important to Colorado and the Nation.

HH: What is Salazar’s platform?

PC: He represents the typical views of the Democratic Party, and that is not what the majority of Coloradans want in their U.S. Senator.

5:11

HH: If Salazar were to be elected, he would fall in line with Daschle and Kennedy supporting obstructionist judges and fighting any tort reform. Agreed?

PC: Absolutely: The Senate has had 13 attempts at tort reform. We need good lawyers in the country, but we need to override the filibusters is the U.S. Senate. We need more people with Republican values to break through the logjams in the U.S. Senate.

5:12

HH: Denver is probably Salazar’s territory. Where will you focus your efforts?

PC: The Denver-Boulder area probably leans more towards the Democrats, but 35% of the voters in Colorado are unaffiliated. And lots of those are in the Denver area. Statewide, Republicans number approximately 1.1 million. Republicans outnumber Democrats by more that 185,000. We’re working to get everyone’s votes.

5:13

HH: Four years ago Senator Allard and Governor Owens put together an amazing 96-hour campaign. Is that effort still underway?

PC: Yes. Colorado’s 96-hour campaign still in effect. It’s a very strong effort. We’ve been focusing over last few months on voter registration, get-out-the-vote, and absentee voters. We want everyone in Colorado to exercise their Right under the Constitution and vote.

5:14

HH: Colorado has a large military vote. How does your message play with our military?

PC: The largest contingent of military in Colorado in El Paso County. They are predominantly strong Republicans. Our belief and messages about strengthening our defenses and increasing support for the military is welcome there. I appreciate their support. I can’t tell you how proud I am of the work our military has done in Iraq.

HH: I’ve heard of an external influence coming into the State to split the Electoral College votes. We can’t support that. We have to work against that effort. That’s a dirty trick from Californians.

PC: I agree. It’s a bad idea. Coloradans don’t want organizations from other states telling them what to do.

HH: Pete, what’s your basic platform, your message to the voters of Colorado?

PC: Ken Salazar wants to roll back the tax cuts; I want to make them permanent. Ken Salazar is supported by trial lawyers, both locally and across the nation; I am for tort reform. Ken Salazar wants the U.N. to decide what’s best for us; I believe that the strongest and proudest nation on earth should make its’ own decisions on national security.

HH: Pete Coors, thanks for joining us today.

PC: Hugh, I’m a long time listener. I always enjoy talking with you.

HH: We’ll talk many more times between now and November.

Cross-posted at: ClayCalhoun.com

Pete Coors on Hugh Hewitt

Pete Coors will appear on the Hugh Hewitt show during the 5-6 PM MDT hour.

HH mentioned he invited Ken Salazar to appear, but due to lack of backbone, has not responded to the offer.

In the greater Denver area, you can listen to HH on 710 KNUS.

JOSHUA ADDS: We should have a transcript of the interview up later this evening for you.

Salazar as Attorney General

Probably Ken Salazar's worst moment as Attoney General came when he joined a lawsuit against the state, in order to preserve a Democratic redistricting plan. I spent a lot of pixels on this at the time, including some analysis of why the State Supreme Court's ruling was wrong. (It's near the bottom. Go to the end and scroll up a little.)

Salazar's reasoning was of the sort that only a partisan court could love. But it raises the larger question of his willingness to run his office in a non-partisan fashion. He's currently investigating alleged voter registration fraud in the upcoming election, in which he's a candidate. And he also will still be Attorney General after November 2, should the execrable Amendment 99 be passed into law.

Some enterprising reporter should ask him about what he would do in that last case.

Cross-Posted at View From a Height.

Hit Piece

Well, it's good to see that some things never change. The Denver Post is up to it's old tricks in this hit piece on Republican Pete Coors' campaign for US Senate. Mark Couch goes out of his way to cast a nagative light on the relationship between Coors and his adversary in the primaries, Bob Schaffer.

In public, the Republicans were all smiles. But on the bus, they kept their distance.

At first, Schaffer talked on his cellphone in the back of the bus, while Coors talked strategy in the front with Sen. George Allen, R-Va., chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Coors moved to the middle of the bus to conduct radio interviews via cellphone. After those interviews, Coors joined Schaffer in the back for a handshake and brief conversation.

"Give us five minutes," Coors said, dismissing reporters who moved to sit closer to the candidate and his vanquished foe on the bus.

They spoke privately on the ride to Fort Collins and then rarely spoke a word - even when they were sitting across the aisle from each other.

I'm gonna give Couch the benefit of the doubt as to whether the above described events actually occurred. But, in light of the tone of the rest of the article, it seems as if he goes out of his way to portray the entire event in an extremely negative light. For instance:

To pass the time, Coors strolled the 16th Street Mall with Allen by his side and a gaggle of Republicans in tow. Schaffer and his wife, Maureen, walked hand-in-hand at a distance from the candidate.

At first, the beer executive in his gray pinstripe suit ambled down the street without greeting people. Then Allen began introducing political newcomer Coors to passers-by, and Coors quickly started asking them for their votes.

Mr. Couch, your blatantly obvious effort to cast Coors as a bumbling campaigner is beneath you. You really need more practice in order to refine your technique.

A few minutes later, still on the 16th Street Mall, Coors got a call from Bush.

"I'm glad you called me Pete instead of Holly's kid," Coors said, referring to his mother. He then promised to help Bush win "four more days" in office before correcting himself: "Four more years."

Mr. Couch, once again your bias is showing. All that's lacking in this piece is some "puff" regarding Ken Salazar. Maybe we'll see that next time.

Cross Post at Damascus Road

Salazar's Issue Paper

Okay,...Good start Jonathan. Let me pick up the baton where you handed it off and run for awhile.

Continuing with Salazar's issue paper:

Our military strategies and programs must reflect the changing nature of the threat. While we need to continue to maintain overwhelming technical superiority on the land, in the air, and in the sea, we must be also be responsive to the threat of low-tech, high consequence attack scenarios that international terrorists and their organizations are more likely to pursue.

Duh......'scuz me, I thought that's what we've been doing since 9/11. Ken, have you been to DIA recently. Seems to me that taking one's shoes off pretty much covers many of the "low tech" options available to terrorists.

Iraq reminds us that we also need to pay attention to the needs of our soldiers in the field. High-tech gadgetry and superior weapons systems do not alone guarantee on-the-ground success or maximum safety for our troops. We must provide our troops with all the equipment they need to do the job we have assigned to them. It is simply unfathomable, and unacceptable, that our armed forces in Iraq were forced to have their families ship personal body armor or that it took almost a year before armor was applied to Humvees.

Ken, check Mr. Kerry's voting record on military spending.

It is wrong that we lavish tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, but we won’t provide assistance to our troops and their families. Military pay and benefits for those in uniform, their families, and for veterans must be increased if we are to continue with our volunteer military and National Guard system of national defense. American troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq and Afghanistan and we should rightly be proud of the men and women put in harms' way who have shown the real face of America and its priceless values. In addition, I support imminent danger pay and family separation allowance for our troops in.

See above.

We cannot abandon the Iraqi people. But we must change course. There has not been enough straight talk about Iraq – both before the President committed America to the war, and in the challenges and complexity of rebuilding that nation. President Bush convinced the American people that Iraq presented an imminent threat to our national security, with its possession of weapons of mass destruction and a picture that portrayed links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. In committing us to the military invasion of Iraq, President Bush also committed us to the stabilization of Iraq, politically and economically. It is clear that the mission in Iraq has been mishandled, but we must do our best to honor our commitment as the new Iraqi leadership struggles to stabilize the country. We must constantly reevaluate the safety of our troops and the viability of our mission.

And.....just exactly would you do Mr. Salazar. Looks to me as if this is directly out of Senator Kerry's playbook.

It is right to change course and seek international input and assistance in rebuilding a safe Iraq. More international support will improve the likelihood of success and will also reduce the burden on America's troops and taxpayers. I will press to build the international coalition that should have been assembled before invading Iraq, but this effort will take time and much greater diplomatic skill than the administration has demonstrated. A broader international coalition will speed the process of stabilizing Iraq.


Mr. Salazar, let me remind you of the UN oil for food program scandal. Those nations not participating in the coalition have no desire to form a partnership with the US; who, by the way, holds all the cards in this scandal. It would be a much too tenuous relationship. They have no desire to play poker with someone who has just drawn to an inside straight. And this is true, whether you or George Bush is in office...fogitaboutit.

Terrorism is a world-wide threat. Our battle against them must be fought on many fronts and at many levels. We must confront them militarily wherever possible, we must use diplomatic, economic and military tools to confront governments who harbor terrorists, and we must also attack the sources of social and financial support for terrorism. We cannot succeed in these efforts without the cooperation of our traditional allies and without making many new friends. To lead and to win the war on terror, we must move away from the arrogance of power that has sometimes characterized our foreign policy these past few years, reinvigorate our diplomacy, and rebuild our international coalitions.

Ken, you said that before. The Dems keep claiming "arrogance of power". It.Is.Not. Arrogance.Of.Power. It is concern about sovereignty and our national well-being.

Cross Posted at Damascus Road

A Foreign Policy Of Death (For Us)

The Salazar campaign has some crazy ideas about American security and the war on terror. Let's start with the following:

Until recently, our enemies were hostile states, with governments that, however misguided, were nonetheless keen on their own self-preservation and ultimately hoped to avoid war with the United States.

A hostile state with a misguided government keen on self-preservation and hoping to avoid war. Yeah, that works for me. If that is the way that Salazar objectively looks at the former regime in Iraq, his viewpoint is ignorant of the facts, which becomes more evident when you look at how he describes terrorist:

Today, however, our enemies include a constantly changing array of terrorists, weapons proliferators, organized crime affiliates, and shadowy individuals and organizations. Longstanding religious, ethnic, cultural or tribal conflicts and grudges form the basis for some of their hateful motivation. In the 21st century, our enemies are diverse, dynamic, unpredictable, and constantly evolving. Although there is no military power that can challenge America today or in the foreseeable future, these new enemies pose new challenges. They embrace conflict and do not care about self-preservation. Their goal is not to defeat our armed forces, but to defeat our spirit.

I take issue with that. They could care less about defeating our "spirit." They want to kill us because we are infidels. It's as simple as that. They do not care about "self-preservation" because these brainwashed psychopaths believe that they will be rewarded by allah for killing infidels. For those who have no clue what an "infidel" is, it's you and I, and everyone else in the world who is not a devout follower of 13th century Islam.

With the next passage, we can be assured that the UN will be a major player in the foreign policy of Ken Salazar.

The extermination of international terrorism is our highest national priority. We need to re-gather our friends and allies to this essential international goal, a goal we all share. Our foreign policy is most effective when we act as the leader of a broad coalition of nations. The free world was united in its revulsion of the September 11 terrorist attacks and in its commitment to wage war on terrorism. After September 11, the U.S. acted correctly in pursuing, with international support, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, that international unity dissolved with the invasion of Iraq. Although it was argued that the attack on Saddam Hussein was part of the war on terror, many of our closest allies doubted our intelligence and questioned the need for the invasion.

Here is a list of the countries involved in Iraq. The notable missings are of course, France, Germany and Canada. 49 countries are on that list, but it's not a coalition with the big 3. World IQ.com lists the definition of coalition as the following:

A Coalition is an alliance between entities, during which they cooperate in joint action, each in their own self-interest. This alliance may be temporary, or a matter of convenience.

Here comes the standard Democratic Talking Point:

The President and his administration presented a case to Congress and the American people on the imminent danger presented by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. However, President Bush committed a grave mistake in how he pulled the trigger of war. That decision was based on faulty intelligence, a failure to develop the international coalitions needed to succeed, and an underestimation of the difficulty and costs of the war in Iraq.

Do I need to point out twice in the same post the definition of "coalition?" I suppose I do.

He tosses the bone about taking care of our troops before coming to this:

Even though sovereignty has now been officially handed over to Iraq’s new leadership, the United States will likely remain there for the foreseeable future. As we work to bring greater stability to the region, we need to take a hard look at the lessons learned by acting without broad international support, and with intelligence that has proved to be faulty and misleading.

Do I need to point out three times in the same post the definition of "coalition?" I guess I do.

On to the attack of the Patriot Act:

We must also commit ourselves to fight terror without sacrificing the very freedoms we are fighting to protect. Many terrorists see our way of life and our personal freedoms as a direct challenge: We are democratic, they are autocratic; we value diversity, they demand religious, cultural or political uniformity; we look forward to a future of peace, they look back to a past of violence. If we sacrifice our freedoms and values in the name of war on terror, then we give the terrorists their first victory. By protecting the rights and liberties that define America, even as we fight terrorism, we demonstrate that our strength and justice flow from these American principles.

Hugh's soundbite works best to sum up this post:

I don't like you 'cuz you're gonna get me killed!

That's Democratic foreign policy in action.

Cross posted at MangledCat

The People of Colorado Have Spoken

The People of Colorado have spoken, and they have chosen Pete Coors to run against Ken Salazar this November. I endorsed Bob Schaffer in the primary, but now that the nod has been given to Mr. Coors, I will be doing what many Republicans will be doing. Listening a little more to Mr. Coors, and doing everything I can to help him win. It will be fun to watch this race unfold, it is truly one of the most important Senate races in the country. Hang on tight, the fun has just begun!!

Tankersley on Salazar v. Coors (the race, not the blog)

One of the relatively few bright lights for the Denver media during the lead-up to yesterday's primary elections has been the News' Jim Tankersley. As has been his track record, today's assessment of the bottom line in the general election tends to be spot-on. Some excerpts:

Republicans will try to sink Ken Salazar by tagging him a lawyer, a career politician and the man who could hand control of the U.S. Senate to Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

Democrats will try to paint Pete Coors as an empty suit - a bumbling neophyte who can't handle complex issues or name the prime minister of Canada.

Pretty much sums up the bottom line, I'd say. He continues:

National politics could be the wild card. Many analysts continue to see the presidential race shaping up as a tight one in Colorado, which likely means Coors joining President Bush onstage and Salazar stumping with John Kerry.

In a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats, control of the Senate could become an issue, too.

Coors has already said on the campaign trail that Salazar would help a Kerry administration agenda pass the Senate. Salazar has long promised not to rubber-stamp any president's proposals.

And so it begins.

Again, I'd have a hard time disputing anything in those paragraphs.

If there has been one criticism that I've heard levelled at the press (from both sides) during this race, it's that the coverage has tended to dwell in the realm of generalities, rather than on specifics and details. Such is the case with Tankersley's piece, but in his defense, it's pretty hard to see how the situation might have played out differently. The candidates in this race have positioned themselves rather clearly, and have established positions that have allowed for a great deal of generalization on the part of the press. Coors is very much a mainstream conservative - both economically, and socially. Salazar, despite his best efforts to show himself to be a moderate, is a fairly conventional liberal. Neither candidate is breaking much new ground in either his positions, or his presentation. As such, the press' coverage of the race has not engendered a great deal of originality. Tankersley's been pretty consistent in his work, though, and generally speaking, will (along with Post newcomer David Harsanyi) be one of the few "big media" guys I'll turn to in the next 90 days.

(Cross posted at Exultate Justi)

A Bit Of Wishful Thinking

Today's article in the Denver Post appears to me to be setting the stage for what the Salazar campaign will be using as one of their issues. That being that the Colorado Republican party is in tatters. It starts with this opening statement:

U.S. Senate contender Pete Coors pulled through Tuesday's Republican primary more easily than expected, but uniting his fractured party may be a tougher challenge.

I have said many times that my biggest fear was the party tearing itself apart over this primary, and had I not been as involved as I have been, that perception could very well have been the prevailing one. The last few days before this vote, the Colorado Conservative Voters ad campaign was really hammering Pete Coors with more radio commercials than I've heard in a long time. It was unseemly, and I'm sure that is the opinion that the Post staff writing is trying to project.

It goes on to include something I think is a tip-off:

Still, political experts wonder whether Coors and his patron, Gov. Bill Owens, will be able to unite moderates and conservatives after four months of the most bitter - and public - Republican infighting in Colorado politicos' recent memory.

"The party is beating up on each other with an intensity I've ... never seen," said GOP activist Katy Atkinson.

Added Denver political consultant Eric Sondermann: "It'll take more than one round of "Kumbiyah" to bring this party back together."

I don't know about you, but "Kumbiyah" is not a word that I would ever have heard associated with the Republican party. I have no idea of the political affiliation of Mr. Sondermann, but I'd bet everything I have that he's a Democrat. Which is why I believe that this is an attempt to portray a small amount of division in the ranks as a major crisis. There is something that doesn't jive with that thinking, however.

This story from the other local newspaper is in conflict with the Post story. It details the campaign party for the Schaffer campaign and their resolve to keep the party together. A couple of qoutes:

"We'll take tonight to sleep on it, we'll lick our wounds and we'll go get our Pete Coors signs tomorrow and off we'll go," said Jimmy Lakey of Boulder, who runs a nonprofit ministry and was an ardent Schaffer supporter.

Well said, but the clincher is an excerpt from the concession speech:

Schaffer supporters said their man's concession speech hit the mark. Schaffer urged them to "be a big part of Pete Coors' victory, and show America that liberty and freedom are worth fighting for."

That doesn't sound like a divided party to me, Denver Post. There is no question that the Primary election was taxing, but this party is united in it's resolve to keep that Senate seat in Republican hands, and it will overlook and overcome any differences to reach that goal.

Cross posted at MangledCat

Colorado Republicans Say "Give Me a Coors"

Congratulations to the Pete Coors for Senate team!

Republicans throughout the Great State of Colorado have elected Pete Coors as their candidate for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Ben Nighthorse-Campbell. Coors defeated Bob Schaffer in a primary race that has, at times, bitterly divided the Colorado Republican Party since their state convention in early June. Mr. Coors will now meet Ken Salazar in the November general election. Fellow RMA'er View From A Height covered the Coors Victory Celebration tonight. I called in the results to him from my County elections -- I'm sure we were the ones to put Coors over the top...

Both Republican candidates pledged at the State Convention that they would throw their full support and commitment behind him who was chosen by the voters in this primary. On Monday, State GOP Chairman Ted Halaby reaffirmed this pledge by announcing a "unity rally" which will be attended by present and former federal and state Republican officials, as well as the candidates.

It is now time for all Colorado Republicans to come together to defeat Ken Salazar so that the U.S. Senate may remain in the hands of the Republicans. I'll be attending the rally in downtown Denver on Wednesday. Details are here. Will you be there?

Cross-posted at: ClayCalhoun.com

Coors v. Salazar---GAME ON!

Coors v. Salazar

In what turned out to be a not-very-close election, Pete Coors beats Bob Schaffer 61-39, while Ken Salazar beats out Mike Miles 74-26. Contrary to all expectations, neither race had much drama from about two minutes after polls closing on.

Two points about this. Again, I state that I believe there is a groundswell among Republicans/Conservatives that is completely escaping the notice of pollsters and pundits. Just the turnout for the GOP primary (as of this writing, GOP ballots number nearly 325,000, compared to Dems 222,000) indicates an enormous interest in not just this race, but this seat. Sure, in this state the GOP registereds outnumbers the Dems, but not by the 46% margin of tonight's turnout. That Pete Coors, in a closer race, still got 30,000 more votes than Ken Salazar has got to be a bit of an eye-opener for the Democrats.

Secondly, and I tip my hat to Jonathan, who blogged this earlier, I also think that the negative attacks by Bill Armstrong, the Colorado Conservative Voters and the Colorado Christian Coalition played a bigger role in this than can be measured. Bob Schaffer tried to stick to a positive message, but did not have the resources to compete; into that vacuum went an ugly underbelly of GOP politics that did not resonate with the general public. The result: a surprisingly easy victory for Pete Coors. And where Jonathan left with speculation, I declare: keep the message positive and simple, Mr. Coors, and we will soon be addressing you as Senator Coors. Go hard-core negative, and you might just give this away.
Posted by: Michael / 8/10/2004 11:41:18 PM

Primary Night Observations

Pete Coors has defeated Bob Schaffer in a hard-fought Senate primary that was, in the final analysis, not all that close. At the same time, Ken Salazar won the expected victory over Mike Miles for the Democrats. It also appears that Coors, although in a closer race, will win with more actual votes that Salazar.

Coors's victory, and the size of the participation suggests that he had a couple of things working for him. First, money did make a difference, probably reaching more voters and attracting some unaffiliateds to vote in the primary. Secondly, it's possible that Bill Armstrong's strong-arm tactics may have turned some people off to Schaffer. We could argue whether that's fair to a Schaffer campaign that tried to distance itself from those ads, but they may have backfired, all the same, in the absence of a third candidate to turn to.

I was actually at Coors's campaign party for the results, and I came away with a few impressions. Coors himself is getting better as a speaker. He's not smooth, but he's increasingly comfortable, a point made by Senator Campbell. He drew a few laughs, stated the main themes of the campaign, thanked Senator Campbell for retiring, and was gracious to Bob Schaffer. (A lot will probably depends on how Schaffer conducts himself both in his concession speech, and in the days ahead.) At the same time, Coors was careful to contrast Republican and Democratic philosophies as much as personalities. I didn't hear Salazar's victory speech, but on KOA while I was driving home, I did hear him bring up a laundry list of issues without mentioning parties. If it's Coors's intent to nationalize the race, that's a good sign.

The national importance of the race was underscored by the presence of Senator George Allen of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Sen. Allen also happens to head the NRSC. During his remarks, I was half-expecting him to say, "The Future is Now," but he didn't. For some reason he also didn't think it was funny when I told him I was relieved that he hadn't. He interpreted it to mean that I thought it would put off Broncos fans. I just didn't want him trading away draft picks.

I was a little disappointed that the War on Islamicism didn't show up more obviously in either Campbell's or Owens's comments. But Coors made a point of emphasizing the sacrifices of the troops, and the lifelong scars some will bear, in defense of elections like the one just held.

Finally, and on a topic we'll see much more of, a brief anecdote. In the middle of the crowd, well before meaningful results had come in. I stood right next to a local Univision reporter doing her establishment stand-up, the little 5-second clip that will tell the viewers where she is. I had intended to ask her some questions about which campaigns had made themselves more available, when she and her cameraman were whisked away, upstairs, presumably to interview the candidate himself. In an election where the Hispanic vote will be important, access and dollars will be key, since Coors doesn't really speak Spanish all that well. This was an excellent sign.

Cross-Posted at View From a Height.

Welcome

Welcome to the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blog's Home Blog following the Colorado Senate race. This is one of the most important Senate races in the country, vital to keeping the Senate in Republican hands for the next few years.

Alliance members will be posting their thoughts and observations on the race here, and on their own blogs, as well. Visit often, comment, and make sure you contribute here and here.