Colorado Progressive

Commentary & Analysis

Hickenlooper Polling Ahead of McInnis

Via Politics Daily (and Facebook), Rasmussen has John Hickenlooper polling ahead of Scott McInnis for the first time as of February 4.

To be sure, information about the telephone poll is limited. In addition to knowing that 500 likely voters were called, I’d like to know where those voters live (roughly). Specifically, I’d like a sense of how Hickenlooper polls among likely voters a) outside of Denver and b) on the Western Slope in particular, where McInnis ought to enjoy a broad base of support, being as he calls Grand Junction home.

It’s early, and such minutiae will come. In the meantime, Democrats must be pleased to see so much swing so soon just by virtue of tapping a quality candidate to replace Bill Ritter. So that tells us about name recognition. Now let’s see how both campaigns approach the issues.

Matt Plavnick · February 9, 2010 · 8:42 am

→ No CommentsTags: ····

Gates Unlikely to Endorse “Grand Bargain” on Iran

Yesterday I wrote about the notion of  ”grand bargain” talks that the U.S. could initiate toward Iran. If Reuters is reporting correctly this morning, such talks seem unlikely. Then again, it’s hard to tell if Reuters is reporting correctly, because the whole article about Gates’ comments is about the size of this post. Not sure what that indicates. Also probably worth noting that Gates speaks for Defense, not for State. Still, not a great indication of openmindedness.

Matt Plavnick · February 8, 2010 · 8:47 am

→ No CommentsTags: ··

DeFrancia on Iran: Present a “Grand Bargain”

Disclosure: Cris DeFrancia is my wife’s cousin. He’s also a great writer and a very smart guy. Last week he published an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor urging the Obama administration to engage Iran in substantive talks focused on much more than the nuclear issue.

Exclusive focus on the nuclear issue has caused a strategic myopia in Washington that prevents the development of a viable long-term strategy for Iran and misses broader opportunities to induce Iranian cooperation.

Cris suggests that if the U.S. can get beyond simple sticks and carrots and really address the role Iran wants in the world–and, as I read it, do so in such a way as to constructively help shape that role–then the regime could be inclined to step up to the table rather than play the only power card it’s got, that of nuclear threat.

If the administration were to introduce a “grand bargain” and treat such issues as “regional security, trade and investment, legal claims, cultural exchange, and so forth,” then the Iranian people might be enticed toward a greater role in the global community.

Full integration of Iran into the international community, including resumption of diplomatic relations with the US, would be a powerful incentive if properly packaged. If the Iranian people can more clearly see the benefits offered by negotiations, Iran’s leaders will be more likely to compromise to get talks going again.

A package of incentives might include technology sharing on peaceful nuclear fuel development, the lifting of the US trade embargo, developing Iran’s refining capacity, targeted economic assistance, and expedited settlement of Iran’s legal claims.

I don’t know enough about Iran to know whether Cris is right on the policy approach. But it seems he’s definitely right that, should the Obama administration want to introduce a game changer to the tired rhetorical stalemate, then the U.S. has to be ready to talk about more than the thorny nuclear issue before we can resolve the thorny nuclear issue.

The only thing I’d add is, at the end of the day, what does the U.S. have to lose by fully engaging Iran as a means of ending the nuclear standoff? Worst-case scenario, the administration can say, “Well, we tried everything we’ve got, and we got nowhere.” It’s really no skin off our nose. The U.S. is still a very big, very wealthy country, and Iran is still very small and very poor. The only party that ought to be trying to save face is the Iranian regime. If the U.S. can help them do that, don’t we get what we want, too?

Matt Plavnick · February 7, 2010 · 2:12 pm

→ No CommentsTags: ····

Obama Should Go Around Shelby, Loudly

Richard Shelby has, essentially, committed an act of terrorism against the U.S. government: the senator from Alabama has taken 70 hostages and will release them in exchange for an exorbitant ransom roughly $40 billion in government spending on defense contractors in Shelby’s home state.

Today, Matthew Yglesias cites Harold Meyerson and says hey, if the Republican party is going to stand by as their colleague from Alabama baldly exploits procedural weaknesses to cripple government, then Democrats and the president should feel no shame in appointing all of the nominees during the upcoming recess, thus avoiding the confirmation process and Shelby’s hijack attempt.

I agree with Yglesias on this approach; we discussed this the other day. Dems need to get their talking heads out en masse, however, ahead of, during, and after such a move. Based on what I’m seeing in the mainstream media (google “Richard Shelby + hold + CNN” to see what’s *not* there), Dems will get pilloried in the press for playing hardball.

Matt Plavnick · February 7, 2010 · 9:29 am

→ No CommentsTags: ···

Denver Post: Eliminate Tax Breaks–Just Not Ours!

UPDATE: This post reveals a little bit of ignorance on my part of the breaks and exemptions available to both large and small businesses in Colorado. Also, the baker example is not very good, since, at least in Denver, we don’t pay sales tax on flour, sugar, or eggs. I maybe got a little off track on the big business/small business thing.

That said, my complaint against the Post stands.

_____

The Denver Post Editorial Board got it right yesterday when they called to cut many of the state’s tax exemptions in an effort to get the budget back on track. Not only is this good sense, but the editorial did a good job enumerating the cuts to make and explaining why. But an about-face on House Bill 1190 leaves me wanting more.

[T]ax exemptions shouldn’t be off limits, as some have suggested. In balancing the budget, legislators have stripped hundreds of millions from higher education, K-12 education, Medicaid funding, and programs for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.

Senior citizens have lost their property tax break, and state employees are getting unpaid furlough days.

Some are calling the proposed bills “job killers,” and unfortunately some jobs may be lost as a result. We do not relish the thought. Job losses in this economy translate into hardship, and the private sector already has shouldered its share of the burden. But cuts to the public sector result in job losses as well.

The argument should not be about the relative value of a public school cafeteria worker’s job versus that of, say, a cashier at a privately owned restaurant. It’s a matter of fairness, and we think it is appropriate that business interests share in the state’s budget woes.

Emphasis mine. It’s nice to see the Post call for fairness in sharing the burden of belt tightening during troubled times.

That said, it’s galling to see the newspaper turn around in the same column and argue against repealing tax exemptions on “manufacturing inputs” until mid-2012, as proposed in House Bill 1190.

The Post acknowledges that this will affect their printing industry. The paper goes on to cite the Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry (just a little lobbying team also known as The State Chamber of Commerce):

Representatives of the Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry contend it’s improper to tax a manufacturing input, which is used to create a retail product that is taxed again. They call it double taxation, and we find that argument persuasive.

Well, shoot. There goes any argument the Denver Post hoped to make about fairness. I’m sure there is some long and cherished history–engineered by big business–of businesses of a certain size in the state being exempted from paying the same sales tax on a product that any small business owner must pay to manufacture her product. Ostensibly, the newspaper gets a break on electricity used in the printing process. Perhaps, given the line espoused by CACI, this break also extends to raw materials such as the massive quantities of paper and ink required to produce a large-scale daily.

Does the independent baker enjoy such a tax exemption on her electric bill? Is it possible that she doesn’t pay sales tax on the immense quantities of flour, sugar, and eggs that comprise her retail products?

The Post should recognize as well as anybody–especially given the tone of the editorial–that if fairness is at issue in bearing down under tough times, then big businesses as well as small must be open to accepting responsible measures to restore equilibrium in Colorado’s accounts.

Matt Plavnick · February 6, 2010 · 9:30 am

→ No CommentsTags: ····

Toot Sweet

Yglesias:

In the real world, if your problem is that 41 Senators are playing procedural hardball and making it impossible to get things done, the solution is for 59 Senators to play hardball in return and stop letting the 41 stop things. Recognize that zero voters will punish you for engaging in procedural hardball and that the number of voters who will even realize any of it happened is approximately zero.

Yeah. Like what I said in my previous post, only more concise.

Matt Plavnick · February 3, 2010 · 9:55 pm

→ No CommentsTags: ·

Colorado Democrats Need to Show Some Leadership

Democrats are disheartened now, and with good reason. Any time a Democratic president has to remind a Democratic majority that they are indeed the majority, things can’t be going well.

And back home in Colorado, our elected officials are playing safe on the topic of health care reform, all except for Jared Polis, who, alongside a splinter faction of liberal Democrats, sees an opportunity to bring back the public option. Hey, at least he’s showing some spine.

Betsy Markey doesn’t answer to me, since I vote in Denver County, but she’s hunkered down with the Blue Dogs in an effort to smash apart the existing House health care bill and pass smaller, more “bipartisan” pieces. No surprise there, really, since Markey voted against the bill in the first place.

Diana DeGette, however, does answer to my vote, and I’m frankly stunned to read this in today’s Denver Post: “Rep. Diana DeGette of Denver said she’s willing to start negotiating the bill again from scratch if Republicans show a good-faith willingness to engage in the process.”

That’s a head scratcher, frankly. As the elder stateswoman of Colorado politics, DeGette ought to know better by now than to kowtow to the appearance of a bipartisanship that has left the building. Even to make statements that validate the notion of bipartisanship coming from obstructionist Republicans is to feed the false premise that Republicans want to solve any of these issues. They don’t, because it’s clearly in their better interests to let Dems wallow in the morass they’ve made for themselves out of all these elitist ideas about social change. In fact, the only thing that could make the GOP any happier right now is to do it all over again!

Ed Perlmutter is at least on track not to lose sight of what’s at stake, but as the Post points out, Big Insurance makes it impossible to just pass what we like from the bill a piece at a time:

Complicating that further, one of the most popular stand-alone elements — doing away with pre-existing-condition exclusions — is probably untenable to pass on its own. Insurance companies say they can cover pre-existing conditions only if the pool of healthy Americans buying insurance also expands significantly, as it would only do under the comprehensive bills.

Right. Well, so much for pushing through even popular legislation. Don’t worry, though. John Salazar is still working for health care reform for his constituents out there somewhere: “U.S. Rep. John Salazar of Manassa, the final Democrat in the delegation, declined to be interviewed for this story.”

As for our senators, the Post has Bennet in a pinch:

“I think it’s impossible to pick it right now,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., when quizzed on which of the ways forward now being discussed he preferred.

Uh, sure. Need we remind Senator Bennet that the Internet never forgets?  The freshman needs to show a little gumption and at least let us know how he plans to advance the health care reform agenda. He might as well come out fighting for it, because the president plans to campaign for Bennet and the right will hang the liberal Obama agenda around Bennet’s neck and watch him flounder.  So he might as well do something and earn progressive votes where he can.

Mark Udall has raised the clarion call on DADT repeal, asking not only for an inquiry but a roadmap to resolution–and soon–and he deserves praise for that. But Udall needs to step up as a leader on murkier issues that will matter to even more people. Colorado runs something like 18% uninsured, and in Denver it’s pushing 23%. With that many lives imperiled by the status quo, it’s not enough to answer a question with a question, even when couched in a beloved football metaphor.

Meanwhile, Democrats are getting reamed on the issue of a mandate, which they sort of deserve if they can’t come up with a viable nonprofit health insurance option to compete with big insurance. We need ideas and action, dammit, and legislators who aren’t afraid to do their jobs while they have them. And if Democratic lawmakers do play possum on real, important issues, they’re not just going to appear vulnerable to Republican challengers, they’re going to alienate progressives, the very voters who might keep them in office.

Matt Plavnick · February 3, 2010 · 2:51 pm

→ No CommentsTags: ······

Outside Looking In

The BBC put up an interesting article the other day trying to understand the politics of the American electorate: “Why do people vote against their own interests?” To answer the question, political scientist and author David Runciman cites political scientist and author Thomas Frank (What’s the Matter with Kansas?).

[Frank] believes that the voters’ preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.

The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.

Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America’s poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.

Runciman goes on to hit the nail on the head.

As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.

Aargghhh. Emphasis mine. OF COURSE THEY’RE FAKING IT! Does anyone really think that John Boehner cares about health care reform or that Mitch McConnell cares about the deficit? Or that John McCain, facing a tough reelection bid from the right, is sincere about don’t ask, don’t tell?

So what’s the solution, Democrats? Quit thinking? Appeal to the gut, y’know, like Sarah Palin? Quit spouting numbers and evidence and, like, substantive policy stuff, and instead call it like you feel it (or want the voters to think you feel it)?

Democrats playing possum in the wake of the Scott Brown smackdown need to stand up and fight for things that matter to Americans’ lives. It’s true that most Americans don’t give a rip for policy details–but we become very tough about protecting what works. So the Democratic party, now more than ever, has got to come up with something good.

Matt Plavnick · February 2, 2010 · 8:52 pm

→ No CommentsTags: ···

Slow the Hype Surrounding Abstinence-Only Study

Click over to the health section on the Google news website tonight and you’ll find–tucked among warnings about herbal remedies and articles celebrating fish oil–a sudden spike in headlines praising the merits of abstinence-only education in public schools.

Read through this article in the Washington Post, and eventually you’ll get to the numbers. The small study making big waves focused on a control group of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7 in urban public schools.

Yeah, you read that right. Six hundred sixty-two. And of these, only 569 participants (the article cites 86%) were still enrolled two years later when researchers completed their followups.

I’m in favor of teaching abstinence as a viable and vital method to prevent teen pregnancy. It should be in the educators’ toolkit alongside candid talk about masturbation and condom use, and, you know, getting to second base. I’m all for talk about delayed gratification and the importance of recognizing sex as an emotional, not just a physical, act. I’m also thrilled that the study gave students options to live healthfully, such as eating well and getting exercise, because it only makes sense that students who feel good about themselves will have higher self-esteem, and students with higher-self esteem will, on the whole, wait longer to have sex. So by all means let’s talk about abstinence when we talk about sex.

Abstinence-only education, however, is another creature entirely. And I’m made a little uncomfortable by the zeal with which this small study is received. Let’s take a step back, evaluate the context, and ask appropriate questions about what this means for sex education in public schools.

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

First off, I’m all for education–of any stripe–that’s not moralistic. And the fact that the curriculum in question neither relied on a false premise–that students will wait until marriage to have sex–nor undermined condom use is a very good thing. Understanding these factors is key to understanding that, perhaps, we’re not talking about the religious right’s abstinence-only education.

Next, however, it’s pretty important to ask about possible holes. Before we race to fund a thousand and one abstinence-only sex ed programs nationwide (and can we all appreciate the oxymoron at work here?) let’s get a few more small studies together, or preferably large studies, and see what happens as we look at other kids, other ages, other settings, and the overall reliability of self-reporting among teenaged participants. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times points out that even the study’s author agrees that more research must be done.

Matt Plavnick · February 1, 2010 · 9:19 pm

→ No CommentsTags: ··

Hickenlooper Winning the Facebook Campaign

I was recently invited to join the fan page Hickenlooper for Governor!, which, as of today, boasts 8,586 fans. The page of John W. Hickenlooper, Government Official, sports another 9,007 fans, though we can safely assume a healthy bit of cross pollination between pages. (I’d be curious to learn how many individuals are double listed, actually, if anyone is in a position to create that chart.)

By comparison, Scott McInnis, Politician, enjoys 1,954 Facebook fans.

Matt Plavnick · February 1, 2010 · 7:12 am

→ No CommentsTags: ···